Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Evan Cook 28-Vehicle Appeal Fails VEHICLE SHORTAGE N application by Evan Cook Ltd.,

22nd November 1963
Page 27
Page 27, 22nd November 1963 — Evan Cook 28-Vehicle Appeal Fails VEHICLE SHORTAGE N application by Evan Cook Ltd.,
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?

packers and carriers, of London, '1.15. was described by Mr. R. M. nke, for the Transport Holding Cornny (B.R.S.), at the Transport Tribunal London last week as the most thitious that had ever been made to a reusing Authority.

The Tribunal rejected Evan Cook's peal against the deputy Metropolitan ithority's refusal to grant a B licence r 28 vehicles to carry "general goods, :luding furniture and effects of all seriptions whether as removals or ierwise, any distance The appeal was opposed by the ansport Holding Company and British Announcing the Tribunal's decision, !. acting president, Miss M. H. Kidd, d that if the licence was granted, the mpany had undertaken to surrender an licence for three vehicles and a B ence for 25 vehicles. .

"The main object of the application is to secure a greater interchangeability vehicles," said Miss Kidd. " But the idence did not satisfy us that the esent difficulties were sufficiently great to justify such an extensive change of conditions."

A subsidiar reason for the application was to provide facilities fm the carrying of retuill roads, but " no customer evidence was adduced to establish such a need she added.

Mr. D. L. lVIeDonnall, for the appellants, said the company was greatly hampered in the conduct of its business by not having in unlimited class of goods which they could carry throughout Great Britain.

Mr. Yorke said that if the application Were granted, Evan Cook would be able to carry a vast number of commodities which were now restricted to a 3(1-mile radius, all over the country without any evidence of public need.

For British Railways, Mr, A. J. F. Wrotteslev said that such an application should have been supported by very strong and cogent evidence of customers' needs and difficulties, but this evidence was conspicuously lacking.

He pointed out that the company's general haulage business accounted for only £18,000 of the gross revenue of 032,000 in 1962.


Organisations: Transport Tribunal London
Locations: London

comments powered by Disqus