'FIVE-POINT' CONTRACT APPEAL UNDER FIRE
Page 33
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
AFTER an all-day sitting, the Transport Tribunal on Wednesday adjourned the hearing of an appeal by A. M. Bell (Transport) Ltd., Macclesfield, against the North Western deputy Licensing Authority's refusal of an A licence for six vehicles.
Mr. J. Main, for Bell, said the application was refused in May; the normal user sought was for goods ranging from wire to chemicals over areas as far apart as Kent and North East England.
The company held three licences: a Contract A licence for three vehicles for R. A. Lister and Co. Ltd., Dursley; a B licence for one vehicle used for Richard Johnson and Nephew, Manchester, and associated companies; and A licence for one vehicle with a wide normal user. All would be surrendered if the appeal succeeded.
In 1965 the company had acquired a haulage company with two vehicles and was granted licence conditions similar to those already held for them. After a reorganization by Johnson the Contract A licence was surrendered and a B granted.
The object in applying for the normal user specified, said Mr. Main, was to get one appropriate licence for the six vehicles to cover the work done under three licences.
The application was made on five points, he said. Lister's traffic had increased and changed so that Contract A operation would be unsuitable; Johnson sometimes required a second vehicle Which Bell could not provide; at present there was lack of Ilex ability, and inconvenience to the company; the Lister traffic often did not occupy all the space in the vehicle and there would be room to convey small items for people in the Macclesfield area to the docks; and there was no spare vehicle, which created maintenance difficulties.
There were letters from customers in other areas for whom the company could do return loads—which indicated an unfulfilled need.
There were many respondents to the appeal. Mr. E. Taylor, representing G. Plant (Haulage Contractors) Ltd. and other hauliers said the application was a de facto conversion from Contract A to open A licence.
The existing needs of all Bell customers were being satisfactorily met, said Mr. Taylor, although of course this did not preclude acceptance of the customers' statement of their desire to have their goods carried on an open A licence.
However, there had been no complaints about the service which Bell gave to Lister and Johnson. As to the 18 letters produced as an indication of unfulfilled need in return traffic, not one indicated any need by a per son requiring transport. • The object of Bell, he said, was to increase its profit by carrying return loads. Abstraction from the work of existing hauliers would result.