The Ulster Board Replies
Page 54
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Provincial Hauliers Asscciation Accused of Many Misstatements
'HE chairman, Mr. D. L. Clarke, 0.B.E., of .the Northern Ireland Dad Trangport Board, 10, Royal venue, -Belfast, has sent us a igthy reply to the document pubhed by the Provincial Hauliers isociation of Northern Ireland, alt with in our issue of July 9. Mr. Clarke says that this document is in so many respects misleading to call for an answer.
Originally consisting of hauliers, c Association's constitution appears have changed, as it has been ined by a few of those formerly gaged in carrying passngers.
Association Supported the Bill.
It met Sir Felix Pole in 1934 and presented that some change of 'airs was necessary. InJune of at year it was in possession of the de Report, and was aware of the wernment scheme to implement it. was kept in touch with the Bill, neh, when in draft, was altered in Tonse to representkions made by a Association. It had before it the ovision with regard to the nsideration for the transfer of Idertakings, and knew that the Act ovided for the setting up of an lependent Tribunal to decide, in fault of agreement, the compensa n to be paid in each case.
The principles on which offers were be made received early and xious consideration by the Board. vo were laid down. On the one rul, offers should be fair to the triers; on the other, they should be ✓ to the public. The Board has plied these throughout to the best its ability, and if it has been • ong it stands to be corrected by a, Tribunal.
The Board has no hesitation in ying that the statement that "the .t is not being applied so as to 7e the owners of passenger or ulier road services which have en acquired anything approaching aper compensation for the value of air undertakings" is untrue.
With one exception every negotiag owner has been advised by an • .:ountant. Surely it would be a lection on them to suggest that ay advised their clients to settle on a terms negotiated if these fell thin the description given in the tement? It is absurd to suggest Lt a considerable number of erators, small and large, who had Tribunal open to them, would 7e settled if so badly treated. 40 The Association suggests that settlements were exacted because the owners had recourse to no Tribunal. Actually, the vast majority of settlements has taken place since the Tribunal's appointment in March, 1936.
The statement that the Board generally deducts £4 per week for the owner's services as manager is untrue. The deduction varies with circumstances, but £25 a year is much nearer the truth than £208.
The Board is largely dependent upon the owner for information, which is tested and often found inaccurate. When the Board's accountants report, an offer is made ; if the owner disagrees it is discussed, when frequently, information comes to light which has not been in the possession of the Board; and, if-necessary, the offer is modified.
No particular item of the Board's formula can be selected and isolated. The test is on the formula asa whole. If this produces a reasonable figure there is noground for complaint. The Board considers that the amounts paid are not only fair and reasonable, but generous.
Delay Caused by Owners.
The Association does not go into the question of how far delay between acquisition and settlement is due to the owners. As an extreme case, Mr. Clarke mentions an undertaking acquired on October 3, 1935. Despite pressure, no accounts were received until March 8, 1937. After examination and the obtaining of further information an offer was made on July 1, 1937. This case is exceptional, although not unique.
From a return of the position on July 3, 1937, it appears that there were two undertakings acquired on June 3, 1936, for which no accounts had been received. In the same state for the same year are one case acquired on July 15 and 17 on November 18; in 1937 are 81 taken over in February, 52 on March 24, 66 on April 30, and 159 on May 31. There are numerous other cases in which the accounts of undertakings transferred on varying dates were received only a short time prior to the date of this return. One would think from the statement of the Hauliers Association that nothing was being done to settle cases, but settlements occur almost daily.
Quotations from letters written by owners whose cases have been settled are interesting. The letters were addressed not to the -Board, but to the accountants acting for the owners. One says : "I am delighted with the cheque received to-day, which now brings my dealings with the Transport Board to a finish "; another : "I really must thank you very much for the cheque received, which you Obtained for me in settlement of my claim against the Transport Board, and which, needless to say, is very adceptable." All are in the same strain.
Payments on Account Offered.
Admittedly, some cases are very complicated and take considerable time to adjust-but the. stateinent that th'e delay is entirely the result of th`a policy and action of the Board ils obviously untrue, and the suggestion that the Board should be coinpelred
ina,ke payments on account, and that in no • case. should the payment be less than -the value the Board itself places on the assets, is simply amazing, and certainly not candid.
The Association Well knows that since the Board began transferring undertakings every owner received, within a few days of acquisition, an offer of payment on account, whilst the minimum offer made, in the first instance, is the value of the owner's interest in the vehicle as ascertained by the formula.
Mr. Clarke has taken the opportunity of ascertaining from a number of accountants who represent owners, whether they have had any difficulty on behalf of their clients in obtaining payment on account, and they have told him that they have no reason for complaint in this respect. To date payments on account in cases not yet settled amount to 2202,6731 As regards the question of the _ satisfaction of part of the consideration in stock, this does not affect more than 5 per cent. of owners_ ThoSe speaking for the owners have, in the past year, done all in their power to throw mud at the stock. They have lost no opportunity in this direction; while complaining that the price of the stock has depreciated, they have done all they could to depreciate it.