Allegations of Delivery Delays by B.R.S. are Withdrawn

26th September 1958, Page 116

26th September 1958

Page 116

Page 116, 26th September 1958 — Allegations of Delivery Delays by B.R.S. are Withdrawn

Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

A LLEGATIONS that goods sent by B.R.S. (Parcels), Ltd., from Asfley, near Manchester, to Leeds and Sheffield, had taken as long as six days in transit, were withdrawn at Manchester last week. Thit followed "protests by the British Transport Commission that the refusal to disclose aggrieved customers' names, except to the Licensing Authority and advocates, would prevent inquiries being made.

F. Hesford and Sons, Ltd., Leigh, were applying to the NOrth Western Deputy Licensing Authority. Mr. J. R. Lindsay; to add a condition, " goods for the Electro-Chemical Engineering Co., Ltd., Astley, within a 50-mile radius," to a B licence for 13 vehicles.

Mr. P. Kershaw, for the applicants, said they had been approached by the Electro-Chemical Company to take over this work; -whith merely involved the extension Of .a one day a week service from East Lancashire to West Yorkshire. Although the work was quite small it was necessary that the condition be added to all the vehicles for interchangeability. Seven. of them already had conditions of general goods up to 25 or 30 miles.

Mr. W. Rose, manager of the ElectraChemical Company, said it was not a question of rate or partiality, but because of delays in delivery. The development

of the business was threatened. • Hesford had worked for them satisfactorily within their permitted. radius since the plant opened in 1957.

After the production of letters of complaint, Mr. G. H. P. Beanies, for British Road Services, said they could. niat let. the allegations • go unchallenged, yet inquiries could not be made if names and addresses were withheld. In any case, six of Hesford's vehicles had restricted conditions and should not be included in any grant.

. Mr. Lindsay said the case rested on the alleged inefficiency of B.R.S. (Parcels), Ltd., and they should be given the opportunity of replying.

Mr. Kershaw pointed out that it was a B-licence application and the name of the proposed new customer had been

published, giving B.R.S. ample opportunity to discover the reason for the change. In view of the objectors' submission, they would no longer rely on the letters of complaint but simply on the customer's evidence.

. After an adjournment it was agreed that seven vehicles only should have the new condition. Withdrawing opposition to a grant in these terms, Mr. Beames said they did not accept the allegations of inefficiency as true.

Mr. Lindsay granted the variation.