A LLEGATIONS that an operator had
Page 30
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
made false statements and had failed to fulfil a statement of intention under the provisions of section 178(1)(d) were made before the Yorkshire Deputy Licensing Authority, Mr. J. H. E. Randolph, at Sheffield last Tuesday. The company, Woodcocks Transport (Rotherham), Ltd., had been called before the Authority for him to consider whether or not to revoke or suspend one of their A licences.
For the Clerk to the Licensing Authority, Mr_ E. Wurzal said that Woodcocks had had a contract A licence for three vehicles with McCalls and Co., Ltd., and in October, 1961, this had been converted to an open A licence, the contract being surrendered. By doing this they hoped to avoid empty running and increases in rates.
In February, 1962, the Licensing Authority had received yet another application for three vehicles to be put on contract to McCalls. Drivers' records for the three vehicles in question had been examined and it was discovered that out of 102 return journeys over a threemonthly period, 82 had been empty, the remaining 20 being loaded.
During the application for the transfer from contract to A operation, continued Mr. Wurzal, statements had been made that empty running would be cut, back loads would be obtained and there would be an abundance of work.
Questioning Mr. W. S. Hackett, managing director ,of Woodcocks, Mr. Wurzal suggested that the whole idea of the conversion had been a subterfuge. Mr. Hackett denied this and said that they had not known what the future held.
After hearing evidence from McCalls. who said that traffic had risen, Mr. D. Mellor, for Woodcocks, submitted that during the conversion application, Mr. Hackett had not been specifically asked to give an undertaking that in the future he would never again apply for a contract A licence.
The decision was reserved.