Some Questions Left Unanswered at Oxford
Page 43
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
BY NORMAN H. TILSLEY
A closer look at the Progressive Deliveries application CAR transporters have been in the news lately, as a result of a new manufacturing plant being opened by Rootes in Scotland and a consequent rearrangement in the method of delivery of new vehicles from the Rootes Group in general.
An interesting case concerning this type of vehicle was determined at Oxford recently after a two-day hearing by the East Midland Licensing Authority, Mr. C. R. Hodgson. During the application several important questions, posed by the _ objectors, remained unanswered at the end of the case because of the very brief but straight-to-the-point decision of Mr. Hodgson who, refusing the application said, merely: "I agree with all that has been said by the objectors."
The applicant in the case was Progressive Deliveries, of Coventry, who had applied for a new B licence in the East Midlands area to operate no fewer than 20 vehicles (10 articulated car transporters, and 10 rigid transporters and trailers) to carry "motor cars and light commercial vehicles as required ", from a new base at Cowley, near Oxford. The words "as required" naturally attracted a crop of objectors.
At the very beginning of the case the applicant explained the company's set-up, and Mr. Hodgson was told that the application was based on the. Progressive's new Oxford delivery and distribution compound which had recently been completed at Littlernore.
The managing director of Progressive, Mr, W. R. Horn, who went into the box first, said that he was also transport director and " co-ordinator " of Autofreight Networks Ltd. Mr. . Hodgson pressed for details about Autofreight. He was.told: "The Rootes Group scheme for compounding its production is handled in two phases. At Coventry a company called Mortons do the actilal factory clearance and marshalling of cars. At Linwood, Masterways (Scotland) Ltd. do this work."
"They have asked us to deliver cars throughout the country ", continued Mr. Horn. Mr. Hodgson was told that as there were two entities involved, a new company had been formed to carry out this work called Autofreight Networks Ltd., which was composed of the two companies mentioned.
Base: The first question raised was whether the applicant was entitled to apply for a licence in the East Midland area, having an address at Coventry, in the West Midlands are,a, and, in fact, carrying "outward" loads from Scotland. (The applicant told Mr. Hodgson that the company was establishing a base at Cowley with a 42,000-sq.-ft. building, employing drivers, with fuel facilities for transporters, where it could house about 6,000 vehicles.) Mr. Hodgson seemed to be about to deliberate on whether or not the applicant was right applying for facilities for transporters in the East Midlands when his mind focused on the figures put in by the applicant which—remembering that a new licence for 20 vehicles was being sought—he said were "useless ". (The applicant described the figures as "merely a resume of the existing work".) Length: The next question that Was not fully ventilated was raised by British Railways concerning the legality in the use of the vehicles when loaded with vehicles. The applicant's managing director, when it was put to him that certain transporters could carry a greater number of vehicles by utilizing the extending ramps fore and aft, replied: "None of our vehicles causes us anxiety." Mr. Horn could be induced to go no further in his replies than that, and all that another witness would say was that the vehicles were "regulation length ".
During the adjourned hearing, a witness from British Road Services— which operates a large number of transporters in the area—attempted to bring home the point that if the applicant carried the number of Hillman Imp cars the company said it could on its vehicles, it would be operating outside the Construction and Use Regulations. He produced diagrams, some of which were prepared by the transporter manufacturers themselves; showing that the cars could . not be carried . unless the rear extensions were hinged backwards, thereby causing a breach of the regulations, and Mr. Hodgson was reminded of the recent High Court decision in the Claude Hughes (Carlisle) Ltd. appeal which, it was submitted, was "on all fours" with the case under discussion.
Rates: A further question raised during the case was that of rates. Asked what was the agreed rate from Linwood to Oxford, Mr. Horn said that this was confidential information and did not apply. Even when Mr. Hodgson indicated that if he declined to answer, he (Mr. Hodgson) would draw his own conclusions, Mr. Horn refused to answer the specific question.
What really went wrong at Oxford? This can be answered in two words:
"figures" and "presentation ". Mr. Hodgson asked the applicant to supply, before the adjourned hearing, certified figures, a record of sub-contracted work and work refused. The figures were not, however, handed in until the second hear ing and even then they were, apparently, not satisfactory. An attempt to introduce further evidence from Rootes was not allowed—the applicant had made it clear that he had closed his case. Mr. Hodgson said the case had been presented badly; in fact, it was the worst he had experienced.
The objectors are naturally elated at the refusal of the application. But how much better would it have been for all concerned in the transporter business if some indication had been given about the legality of the use of the vehicles with ramps extended? Perhaps Mr. Hodgson felt that it was a matter better left to the future.