AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Decision on B.R.S. Transfer is Reserved

18th December 1959
Page 44
Page 44, 18th December 1959 — Decision on B.R.S. Transfer is Reserved
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

End of Battle Before Mr. Ormond : Local Operators Fear Loss of Brick Traffic

FROM G. DUNCAN JEWELL

BEDFORD, Monday. D'°' N ECIMO was reserved by Mr. W. P. S. Ormond, Eastern' Licensing 17" Authority, here today when he heard the final submissions in the case for the transfer by British Road Services of 45 vehicles and 17 trailers from Northampton to Bedford (The Commercial Molar, November 27).

Mr, J. R. C. Samuel-Gibbon, for 52 objectors, cited the building-up of the B.R.S. fleet in the East Midlands by unopposed applications as the preliminary, to a return to Bedford. This was to happen five years after the acceptance of a tender of £25,000 for their vehicles and depot there, yet B.R.S. Would return with more than double the number of vehicles and greatly extended premises.

In evidence, Mr. S. Robinson, a director of Kilby and Davison, Ltd., and chairman of the Bedford Sub-area of the Road Haulage Association, said that 12 members tendered approximately. £25,000 in April, 1955, for the Dean Road depot and 20 special:A-licensed and three additional vehicles. This offer was accepted. The Ampthill Road site was much bigger and 11 of the original _purchasers were objecting.

Questioned by Mr, R. C. Oswald, for B.R.S., Mr. Robinson said that it was presumptuous of the applicants to put out tenders for Ampthill Road when they had no licensed base at Bedford. He agreed that his own vehicles were fully occupied, but he would not in any case sub-contract from B.R.S. for bricks but would go direct to the works.

Imported from Northampton Mr. Oswald pointed out that 10 of Kilby and Davison's fleet of 19 vehicles were originally special-A-licensed and imported. from Northampton. If independents brought vehicles into the area, why not B.R.S.?

Mr. V. InSkip, a director of A. E. R. fnskip and Co. (Keinpston), Ltd., said that his company operated eight vehicles which were hilly employed. Until' October 2, two of the vehicles were work-ing daily for the London Brick Co., Ltd., but on that date the concern were informed that because of a brick shortage their own and 35 other vehicles were temporarily redundant. They were laid off until November 7. Their normal outward traffic consisted of bricks.

Replying to Mr. Oswald, Mr. Inskip said he foresaw a danger, if B.R.S. came to Bedford, of the brick companies contacting them instead of local operators when additional transport was required.

Mr. C. Haynes, a partner in the Sherington Haulage Co,, said that they operated six Aand two B-licence vehicles, all able to carry bricks. In . the Year ended October 31, their account with London Brick was over £14,000. They had a large amount of vehicle avail

c6 ability and feared that the presence of 45 vehicles and 17. trailers in Bedford would be a disaster. There was no point in paying B.R.S. a percentage for sub-contracting when the work could be done direct_ The convenience of British Road Services must be weighed against the potential threat to more than 50 local hauliers. said Mr. Samuel-Gibbon. There was a number of aspects which the Licensing Authority might consider, such as whether RICS. could possibly be entitled to any tonnage over and above that previtniSly held in Bedford, or more than the 12 vehicles already garaged there, or whether they should have the nine vehicles: which had been delicensed in the West Midlands and had never paused on their way through the East Midlands to Bedford.

There was also the question of normal user which, to be in line with the evidence, should be for bricks only. The 'objectors' submission was that_ no ease• had been. established for the move, and that there was no cogent evidence that any better service would be given to persons -requir ing transport. . .

The matter resolved itself into a battle between B.R.S. and the local operators— whose interest should prevail.? The figures showed there was no traffic to justify nine additional vehicles. Mr. Baynes, in evidence, had said that average earnings of 12,375 per year were low. Yet the applicants' figures were substantially • below this in the first year before they obtained the nine .vehicles from elsewhere, and the figures were down for the following year.

Evidence given by Mr. J. A. Shelton, branch manager at Northampton, Was 'wholly unreliable" and contained many

contradictions. Mr. Samuel-Gibbon asked Mr. Orrnond to reject it unless corroborated. B.R.S., of all people, could not plead ignorance of licensing, and the method by which the grant of the West Midland vehicles was obtained was questionable, to say the least.

The objectors claimed the Authority's protection from an adversary whose declaration of normal user was completely unreliable.

Mr. Oswald said that the application, although technically speaking for a new licence, was in essence a straightforward application for a change of base. If Bedford had been in the East Midlands the change could have been done by variation, and the onus of proof need not have been as high. The applicants did not seek additional vehicles, to serve new customers or obtain new traffic, and if the Authority were so satisfied B.R.S. were entitled to .a grant.

13,568 A Year

Eighty-five per cent, of the traffic of 55 vehicles based at Northampton originated around Bedford, and this equalled 46 vehicles. Taking the only period in which it was possible to -compare the addition of nine vehicles. the whole fleet's earnings averaged £3,568 per vehicle per annum. This showed full employment. No undertaking with idle vehicles could sub-contract to the tune of £107,000.

Much of the objectors' evidence had been irrelevant. The preparation of the depot beforehand should have no weight with the. Authority. Notice had been sent at the time to both the Eastern and the East Midland Authorities that it was intended to garage vehicles at Bedford. Only three objectors had given evidence and B.R.S. were not prepared to accept documents of availability that had not been proved by witnesses.

Of the 52 objectors, six were B-licence operators and the remainder had put forward "a sorry case." It was not suggested that it was not known to Mr. Ormond that the bulk of the traffic was in the Bedford area, and the applicants could, not be classed as newcomers.


comments powered by Disqus