Pickfords Win Furniture Van Appeal
Page 47
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
AN additional furniture van was needed to cope with the "very great pressure of work on Pickfords Removal Service at Luton, the Transport Tribunal was told in London on Tuesday. The Tribunal allowed an appeal by Pickfords Ltd. against the refusal of the Metropolitan deputy Licensing Authority to grant a variation to their A licence at Luton by the addition of a further vehicle.
The president, Mr. G. D. Squibb, Q.C.. said: "The important thing is what facilities are available in Luton, and are those facilities reasonably, sufficient for the persons living in that area.
"We have formed the view that these facilities are not reasonably sufficient and that the proposed addition of one vehicle to the appellant's fleet based on Luton is justified."
Mr. Squibb commented that the evidence given at the hearing before the deputy Licensing Authority was of such cogency that it Would justify the grant of the variation sought.
For Pickfords, Mr. E. S. Fay, Q.C.. had told the Tribunal that the firm had for many years had two vehicles on A licence at Luton for furniture removals.
Their business, he said, had increased as Luton itself extended, and they were now under very great pressure.
The evidence amply showed that the increased business had forced them to hire from other Pickford depots, often at great inconvenience to themselves and their customers. It had also forced them to refuse many loads and many items of business which had been offered to them.
The gross earnings of the Pickfords Luton branch were £7,500 for 1961, over £8.000 for 1962, and over £6,000 for 1963 up to September 7, while the gross earnings of removals carried out for them by other Pickfords branches were £5,000 for 1961, £6,000 for 1962, and £9,000 for 1963 up to September 7.
"That shows that the business has got completely lopsided and the demand has to be satisfied to an increasing degree by the uneconomic device, 1 should imagine, of bringing in vehicles to do a large, amount of work," said Mr. Fay.
Mr. M. H. Jackson-Lipkin, for the respondent, Mr. K. W. J. Edwards, trading asW. J. Edwards Road Transport, Luton, said that this was an .appeal against a decision which said' that -" the case was badly prepared, badly presented, and showed weakness at every single point ", to such 'an extent that the Licensing Authority thought it wrong to grant the application.
There was insufficient particularity in respect of every aspect of the case. The Licensing Authority was never told whether there was any strain on any of the base§ in the supply of their own vehicles to help Luton out.
There was no evidence to support the assertion that there was abnormal hiring from other depots. The only evidence was of a general and normal practice.