Applicants Were Careless, Not Reckless—L.A.
Page 41
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
TN an attempt to avoid transhipment and delaying consignments until suitable 'vehicles were available, Harrison Brothers (Transport), Ltd., and their associate company, Harrison, Holmes, Ltd., applied at Preston last Friday to put all their vehicles on one A licence.
Mr. J. Backhouse, for the company, said that seven vehicles of 25 tons were involved. At present four of these units were on A licence to Harrison Brothers, the other three being authorized on B and C licences to Harrison, Holmes, Ltd. A common normal user of "Agricultural produce and requisites, foodstuffs, textiles, building materials, paper; Lancashire, Yorkshire, Cheshire, North-East coast and the Midlands," was sought.
Harrison, Holmes were market gardeners, said Mr. Backhouse, and it had now been decided that the transport requirements for both companies should be met by Harrison Brothers (Transport). Ltd. At present the vehicles were all on different licences, with varying conditions. This meant that part loads had to be carried, transhipping took place, and delays were liable to occur. They sub-contracted as much as possible but this was not satisfactory. In evidence, Mr. D. Harrison, director, pointed out that they handled a lot of fruit from Liverpool and it was useless unless delivered promptly to the various markets. Vehicle capacity was being lost by having units on different licences.
' Answering Mr. G. H. P. Beames, for British Railways, Mr. Harrison admitted that on several occasions they had not adhered to the conditions attached to the various licences, but the application would put matters right as the normal user covered all the work they did.
Mr. Beames commented that the applicants were asking the court to approve breaches of the licences.
Support for the application came from seven representative companies engaged in the fruit and horticultural industries. All told of difficulties in obtaining Harrison vehicles and of being forced to use their own transport to carry goods when these units ought to have been employed on other work.
Evidence was given by two railway representatives who said they had facilities to deal With the return loads the A-licence vehicles would be entitled to carry, and had services to all the destinations mentioned in the user.
Mr. Beames submitted that all the evidence had related to isolated traffic, whilst it was asked that the vehicles should be allowed very wide conditions.
"These vehicles will not be new," observed Mr. Backhouse. "Four of them are on A licence to us now, and three are licensed to our associated company."
Before giving his decision the North Western Licensing Authority, Mr. F. Williamson, said that Harrisons had been careless about their normal users, but it did not amount to recklessness. Harrison, Holmes had given no undertaking that if the application were granted in full they would not take out any more C licences. Therefore the C-licence vehicle could not be substituted by an A unit.
He granted the other six with the conditions sought, and said the existing licences must be surrendered.