New Dangers for the Remover
Page 65
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
By Arthur R. Wilson, M.I.R.T.E.
THE revocation and substitution of permits, mans of them held by removal contractors, brings into bold relief that term in the Transport Act, " ordinary furniture removals." It may be that the remover, with his permit now revoked, will find himself in danger of having his licence revoked through carrying out by " use and wont" work hitherto regarded as legitimate removal work, but which does not accord with the meaning of an " ord:nary furniture removal."
No court has; so far, interpreted the expiession, and I do not intend to do so, but I will ask questions of fact based on "use and wont." The Transport Act states that "an ordinary furniture removal means the removal of furniture or effects, not being nart of the stock in trade of the person to whom they belong, from or to premises occupied by that person to or from other premises occupied by him, or to or from a store, not being the store of a person from whom he has recently purchased or hired the furniture or effects, or to whom he has sold or is about to sett the furniture or effects." The above text, as in ordinary haulage, does not apply to work carried out inside the area of 25 miles.
Whilst it is not stated that furniture and/or effects can be moved, it seems reasonably clear that the furnishings of a house belonging to a person who is moving from one house to another house, or who is moving the same goods to a store for storage purposes or from a store to a house, can be carried. In the case of a farmer who asks the remover to take half a dozen sacks of potatoes or one or two crates of hens in the rear of the van, does the remover require an affidavit that these are for reasonable usage and are not stock in trade? ' Must a coal contractor prove that his few sacks of coal are for his own use?
Do the instruments of a music teacher who teaches music from his or her house come within the category of stock in trade, or can they be moved with the other household effects? True, they are not for sale by themselves, but what comes out of them—music—is sold in the form of lessons.
Moving a Depot
There is another type of stock-in-trade removal, that of branch depots of companies which may open in one district and close in another. These depots •carry a stock in trade—mostly samples—and orders are dispatched direct to the customer from the parent factory. Must the remover confine his activities to the office furnishings, such as desks, chairs, filing cabinets, etc., and leave the cases of samples behind? Surely the Act never intended that, or did it?
No mention is made of what constitutes the size or capacity of a removal. Do a radio set (furniture) and one trunk of clothing (effects) of a person lodging in a furnished room come within the meaning of an ordinary furniture removal? That person, whilst. not being the occupier of the premises in the sense of tenant or owner, is occupying a portion of the premises as a sub-tenant. Because of the housing shortage, this arms of people is legion, and the movable goods seldom exceed a bed, chest-of-drawers, some chairs, table, pram, cot and personal clothing. Do these goods constitute a removal? If not, at what dividing line of capacity does a removal cease to be a removal?
To the simple lay mind, the furniture or effects should belong to (be owned by) the person who is moving. What happens in a straight house-to-house removal, with the other requirments in order, where part or most of the furniture is on the hire-purchase system and the, person moving does not own the specified items'? The Act may be intended to cover this event, hut it does not say so.
Wedding presents supply another problem. Relatives often give the bride and bridegroom presents of furniture from their own homes. A bedroom suite given by, say, an uncle, is not coming from premises occupied by the bride, and, being given, does not actually belong to her until it reaches the premises which she is about to occupy. It is common for the brideto-be and her future husband to buy articles or suites of furniture in one or more shops and leave them there until they are ready to move into their new home.
"Use and wont" by the remover entailed the collection of presents, usually china, crystal, etc. front the bride's home, the larger gifts from the homes of relatives, and the furniture from the shops for delis cry to the new home. Is this work to be denied the remover because the bride does not occupy her father's and relative's premises, and they are not "the store of a person from whom he (she) has recently purchased the furniture" 7
The Forgotten People going overseas appear to have been forgotten 'Re first part of their work seems to be covered by "removal from premises occupied by that person to a store." There the goods are packed in a case or cases and taken to the docks for shipment. is this 'part considered to be "from store to premises occupied t y that person"? Whilst the goods will eventually arrive at "premises to be occupied," is a ship's side a substitute?
The same reasoning can apply to lift vans containing an "ordinary furniture removal," going to or corning from a port for Northern Ireland and Eire. As many of the cases and vans are under Customs seal, how can a driver prove the contents if stopped on the road for examination? Removers need harbour no illusions that vehicles will not be stopped and drivers requested to open the doors of vans for examination.
Many doubts exist about the disposal of a dead person's estate. Called in by the executors, the remover's part is to move the disposable effects to a saleroom and/or various items which may be taken by legatees. This work seems to be nullified by " not being the store of a person to who in he has sold, or is 'about to sell, the furniture or effects," but then the. executor is not the person "to whom they belong" and the owner is least of all concerned with the interpretation of Acts of Parliament.
Hitherto,the removals contractor has been safeguarded by his permit from any unwitting breaches of conditions. Now, stripped of his permit, he is open to the full blast of the winds which will blow from a paragraph in the Act and which will not be clarified until innumerable cases have been tested in the courts.
Obviously, the draft of "anordinary furniture removal" has been compiled by someone without the slightest conception of the technicalities of the removal trade. It should be scrapped in its entirety and rewritten in plain language.