A ITER sitting through the first day of the current round
Page 38
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
in the dispute involving Granary Haulage Ltd. (Burton on Trent), which took place at Birmingham recently, I am not sure where my sympathies lie. Day one (two more days have been allocated to complete the application) seems to have gone to the objectors, although it was the West Midland Licensing Authority, Mr. John Else, who, as reported in "The Commercial Motor" last week, drew attention to the fact that when Granary took over a two-vehicle A-licence business it may have made a statement of intention that had not been fulfilled.
But it was not only the question of the acquired company that put Granary on the defensive; the question of rates was brought up and some difficult questions were asked as to whether beer could be carried under a foodstuffs (human) normal user—an awkward subject this, I gather, for some of the objectors who carry beer may be affected by the answer.
Granary, in the past few years, have made several attempts to obtain an A licence and get into haulage proper. But there are a host of objectors, particularly in the Burton area.
Going back to 1961. they successfully opposed Granary's application to switch five vehicles from contract A to A licence. Mr. Else, after considering the Merchandise and Arnold appeals, had ruled that Granary, share-controlled by two members of the Group of companies for which it proposed to carry, was as much a part of that group as any of its constituent members. In addition he found that they were not public carriers "in the spirit of the 1960 Road Traffic Act that transport needs of the group could be undertaken quite properly and efficiently under a B licence limited to carriage for the members of the Group; he was also not satisfied with the evidence of need then produced. A subsequent application for a B licence by Granary was successful.
Another seemingly determined attempt by Granary came a year later. They sought this time to convert 12 B vehicles into A vehicles. Again there were a score or more of local objectors and the application was abandoned following an adjournment by Granary to reconsider the normal user they sought.
But Granary did, in fact, become public A-licensed hauliers soon after. As pointed out by their solicitor at the commencement of their current applica: tion, they acquired two vehicles and the goodwill of an A-licensed business carried on by T. P. Wootton, and an A licence was subsequently granted to Granary under the provisions of section 173(I)(c) of the 1960 Act—the " take-over " section.
Now, as reported last week. Granary are once more back in the arena. Armed with substantial figures showing increases in their business; armed with the information that through a change in the share holdings of the group they are now an independent company (though they have B4
yet to give details of this); armed also with some very heavy sub-contracting figures, they have asked for no less than 42 vehicles on an A licence. They seek to put forward, as .perhaps the most important ground, the fact that they are now public carriers within the spirit of the 1960 Act.
Going into the question of figures, Mr. Else was quick to point out that there were really only five customers of the company in 1964 who, between them: paid £124,000 out of a total of £137,000 earned for haulage. Two of those five customers were, apparently, associated companies.
Mr. Durbin, the group's transport manager, was quick to point out that the wide B licence of the company was rather unwieldy. Granary, he said, was constantly being asked to carry goods which they were debarred by their licence from carrying. They were, however, in no difficulty coping with their existing customers (those named in their licence) and he agreed when Mr. Else suggested that the application was in respect of " new " customers—though he pointed out the difficulty of disposing of certain small consignments which sub-contractors were not interested in carrying.
There were two references to previous statements of the company which caused difficulty. Referring to a transcript of a public inquiry in 1961, Mr. Norman Carless, who represented most of the independent objecting hauliers, said this: " Did you say that if the A licence was granted, the amount of use of other subcontractors would not diminish ? ". Mr. Dirkin agreed that he had said this. Mr. Carless then asked how it had come about that whilst in 1960 Granary had paid Moores Transport (Ashby) Ltd. (one of the objectors) in excess of £4,000 for haulage, there had been a decline until in 1962 only £37 was paid to them and no payments had been made since—all this despite the fact that it had been agreed at the inquiry that Moores were reliable sub-contractors.
" The honeymoon was over ", Mr. Dirkin replied, explaining that in 1960 the rates were good, but there had been a tightening of the belt of the main customer who "found that they could not pay these rates being asked for at the time."
Mr. Carless: "So it boils down to a question of not being able to get transport because the rate was too low ". In his reply Mr. Dirkin indicated that he preferred to use the phrase " not attractive enough."
It was this exchange which prompted Mr. Else to interject that it really went to show that Granary was not a transport undertaking. Hauliers quoted rates. In the Granary case, he said, the customer had dictated the rate.
Another point arose over the meaning of the phrase in the normal user sought —foodstuffs (animal and human). Mr. Dirkin agreed that human foodstuffs could include anything that was in the normal diet of a healthy human being, whether by drinking or eating. This would include .among other things sugar or butter, although they did not anticipate carrying these commodities. Animal foodstuffs could, he agreed mean hay. Though they did not seek to carry this either.
Mr. Else then brought to light the fact that when Granary was acquiring the two A-licensed vehicles, Mr. Dirk in had stated in evidence that they wanted to carry on substantially the business that the vendor had operated, namely the carriage of beer`50 per cent and clearing house work 50 per cent, It appeared from the figures that the nature of the work had now changed and that 90 per cent of it was in beer traffic. He indicated that he would want an explanation of this after the adjournment.
As I said in opening, the first round seems to have gone to the objectors. But there are still two more days to go.