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
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196 
Customer's wishes are important
Page 65
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• In Liverpool on Monday a haulage firm, which had supplied vehicles for operation under C-hiring margin, was granted 12 additional vehicles to its A licence to do the same work because the customer wished to abdicate haulage responsibility.
G. A. Chadwick and Son Ltd., Halewood, haulier with three A-licensed vehicles since before 1930, commenced hiring vehicles to Jefferson Smurfit (Packaging) Ltd. of Bryn, near Wigan, in 1963. Son of the founder, Mr.
D. T. Chadwick became driver supervisor for the customer's fleet which had now increased to 11 vehicles.
His father would soon be retiring said Mr. Chadwick, he would be taking over the business and he wished to continue carrying the Jefferson Smurfit traffic but wanted to be in a position to obtain return loads. In support, he submitted a letter from BRS Ltd., dated November 28 1967, offering him return-load traffic.
Mr. T. G. Prince, transport manager of Jefferson Smurfit, said that because deliveries were tending to go farther afield he wanted to go on to the open market for haulage and give up responsibility for drivers and records.
"We are a manufacturing concern not a haulage firm", he said. The business had gone up by 37 per cent last year and was still increasing.
Objecting for BRS, Mr. J. F. Lawton suggested that the appropriate licence would be a Contract A since the customers wanted the same service as they had been receiving without vehicle responsibility. The only reason that this course was not attractive was one of rates, he contended. The Transport Tribunal had ruled that the need for more money for a haulier was no ground for an A-licence grant.
Mr. A. H. Jolliffe the North-Western deputy LA, said he was entitled to have re gard to the customer's wishes. He granted 11 vehicles and a twelth for maintenance purposes all on A-licence, with the normal user; "Corrugated cardboard containers, London and Southern Counties, North East Coast, Lancashire, Cheshire, Yorkshire, Midlands and Gloucestershire".