AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Shoul d Councils Give Long Contracts?

19th June 1936, Page 31
19th June 1936
Page 31
Page 31, 19th June 1936 — Shoul d Councils Give Long Contracts?
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?

Keywords : Cheshire, Heswall, Vehicle

ASUGGESTION that the atf ntion of local authorities should be drawn to the provisions of the 1933 Act regarding contracts was made before the North-Western Deputy Licensing Authority, at Liverpool, when Messrs. J. R. Lamb and Sons, Welltvood House, Ireswall, Cheshire, applied for Blicences in respect of 2-ton and 21-ton vehicles to carry general goods,1 road and building materials and road Plant. • For the applicants, Mr. J. P. Wilson said that, in ignorance, they had been carrying on with, an A licence, although they had a certain amount of work of their own, When this fa 4t was pointed out, they immediately 4eased carrying their own goods in the notor vehicle and now applied for a B. Iceoce in place of it. In addition, they sought a B licence for a 2i-ton tipping lorry, which would be used mainly for Cheshire County Council work.

Mr. V. R. Shepherd, for the Globe Parcel Delivery Co., thought that it was time the attention of local authorities was drawn to the fact that, if they

could employ a haulier entirely for 12 months, they should give him a contract. Apart from this, there was no evidence of an increase in business. As regards local 'carrying, the objector's evidence was to the effect that, after 3 p.m., the company's vehicles were lying idle at Heswall. Mr. Shepherd suggested that, in view of this fact, the inference was that existing .facilities were sufficient

In reply, Mr. Wilson said that, so far as the question of need was concerned, it was based on the increase of Messrs. Lamb's county council work, and this had not been attacked. His clients' present vehicle was engaged almost entirely on this work and that, in itself, was sufficient to justify another vehicle. It had never been part of their case that they required this second vehicle solely for the council work, but they had asked for it on the same conditions as the first vehicle, so that there would be a certain amount of elasticity between the two machines.

Decision was reserved.


comments powered by Disqus