1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164 
Deputy LA told: Two firms 'clutched at PIB recommendations'
Page 62
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
LIALWOOD BROS. (Road Transport) Ltd., of Wigan, at a resumed hearing before the North Western deputy LA, Mr. A. H. Jolliffe, in Manchester on Monday applied for 12 new A licences—if granted the firm will surrender 16 vehicles at present on contract to Thomas Witter and Co.
Ltd., of Chorley. The normal user requested for these articulated units is: "Paper and chipboard, floor and wall coverings, felt, adhesives, within Lancashire, Cheshire, Yorkshire, Midlands, North East coast, and South Wales". British Road Services and British Railways objected at the hearing in January, but BR have since withdrawn. •
For Hailwood, Mr. G. H. P. Beames told Mr. Jolliffe, that there were two matters outstanding which would be cleared up by Mr. W. C. Hailwood, a director. The question of some improper use of licences had been raised by the objectors, but, Mr. Hailwood explained, the wrong licence number inadvertently had been entered on some logsheets. He submitted company logsheets to Mr. Jolliffe who confirmed that a random • check revealed no irregular running.
Mr. Hailwood confirmed that two subsidiary companies, Admirable Haulage Ltd. and Chisnall Haulage Ltd., had no connection with the application and that Hailwood had only eight vehicles on A licence at the present time.
Cross-examining Mr. Hailwood on behalf of BRS, Mr. J. G. Lawton referred to a letter of support regarding return loads from Motor Packing Co. Ltd., of Coventry. Mr. Hailwood said that Motor Packing had been a customer for two years and 90 per cent of this return traffic would be export goods to the Manchester, Liverpool and Birkenhead docks.
In evidence, Mr. G. Travis, senior traffic clerk, BRS Kitt Green, said that all day tampers reported to Birmingham and Coventry for return loads to the North and he submitted figures of work done by BRS for Motor Packing which had been supplied to him by the district manager, West Midlands, BRS.
Pointing out that not only were the contract vehicles showing a loss, but the Aand B-licensed vehicles as well, Mr. Lawton asked Mr. Hailwood when the rate for his contract customer had last been increased. "Over two years ago," replied Mr. Hailwood. Mr. Lawton maintained that most hauliers had had to increase their rates but Hailwood • and Witter were using the Prices and Incomes Board recommendations as "the one straw they can clutch at" on which to base the application. For two years the contract had been uneconomic for Witter and they had now told their hauliers that they must subsidize their traffic by back-loading.
Mr. Beames submitted that on the question of abstraction by return loading, judgements in previous cases had established that the outward load was the subject of the declaration. If, however, return loads were an issue, he felt that no evidence had been put forward by BRS with regard to the traffic for Manchester, Liverpool and Birkenhead. Mr. Beames said that Witter had employed Hailwood for 10 years and their representative had told the court that it was no longer economic to operate under contract licences and that they supported the switch.
Mr. Jolliffe reserved his decision.