AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

"I Don't _Want Substitute Evidence

24th November 1961
Page 35
Page 35, 24th November 1961 — "I Don't _Want Substitute Evidence
Close
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?

I AM not prepared to accept sub

stitute evidence," said Mr. C. 1. Macdonald, the Metropolitan deputy Licensing Authority, in London last Friday, when C. Barber and Sons. Ltd., of Mitehram. Surrey. supported an application by A. Bennett and Sons. Ltd., of Shirley, Surrey, for wider operating conditions by increasing the authorized radius from 12 to 25 miles. The applicants have two vehicles on B licence. The Authority increased the radius of one to 20 miles.

Mr. F. P. Barber, the managing director of C. Barber and Sons, said that they used the applicants up to the limits of their existing licence. Barbers had 21 vehicles of their own on A licence, and about 12 months ago obtained a grant for three additional vehicles. Since then it had become increasingly difficult to Lire. Mr. Barber contended that, as both British Railways and British Road Services hired his vehicles, they: too, would benefit by a grant.

Mr. Macdonald said that evidence of need had to come from the customers themselves. If Barbers wanted extra vehicles, they would have had to produce their own customers. They could not get the benefit by merely supporting another haulier for the same number of vehicles. Barbers were hiring less than formerly, yet they were supporting an application for more vehicles. This seemed inconsistent.

Tags

Locations: Surrey, London

comments powered by Disqus