Flard Fight in Harris Lebu s Application
Page 51
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Bid by Furniture Group to Place Fleet Under A-Licence Meets Stiff Opposition
IF the Harris Lebus furniture group were allowed 126 vehicles on A licence,' the return loads that the vehicles would bring to London would abstract outward traffic from other hauliers; and if their application were successful, the day of the professional haulier would be over.
Mr. T. D. Corpe made this submission, Ion behalf of 53 independent objectors, to Mr. D. I. R. Muir, Metropolitan Licensing Authority, in London last week, at the conclusion of a two-day hearing. .
Harris Lebus, Ltd., London, N.17, applied through their transport subsidiary, Merchandise Transport; Ltd., Tottenham, for 48 vehicles on an A-hiring allowance, 78 more vehicles and seven semi-trailers on an,eiisting A licence, 38 vehicles at present Covered by the A licences of two subsidiary companies, C. E. Dormer (Leyton), Ltd., and C. E. Dormer (Islington), Ltd., and two B-licensed delivery and -collection vehicles held by C. E. Dormer' (Islington).
Introducing the application. Mr. C. R. Beddington said that from 1928-1949, Harris Lebus relied entirely on hired haulage. When nationalization came they were 'dissatisfied With the delivery of new furniture by the British Transport Commission, and made arrangements with private companies on a C-hiring allowance, The arrangement grew rapidly, and in 1949 they ordered their own fleet on C licence. The use of B.T.C. vehicles was almost entirely eliminated.
When transport was freed a separate road haulage company, Merchandise Transport, Ltd., was formed. They acquired 19 special-A vehicles from British Road Services which were later transferred to A licences, A further addition was made in 1957, when C. E. Dormer (Leyton) was acquired with 20 vehicles on A licence. In 1958, C. E. Dormer (Islington), with 18 vehicles on A and two on B licence, was acquired.
Mr. Beddington went on to say that the 78-vehicles section of the application included 64 Luton vans and seven semitrailers which were at present on C licence to Harris Lebus. A further seven Luton vansl would have to, be acquired. The application for 48 vehicles on an A-hiring allowance also concerned Luton vans and these were at present on a'C-hiring allowance to Lebus. They would Continue to be hired out, but to Merchandise Transport, instead of Harris Lebus. • It had been decided in the interests of economy that all transport matters should be transferred to Merchandise Transport, and all load-carrying Vehicles should he put on A licence. The only difference would be that the vehicles could carry return loads.
Mr., Beddington asserted that return loads should not form any part of the inquiry, and quoted the Transport Tribunal ruling in the Cattell case. The public interest came first, he said: that of persons providing transport should come second. The entire fleet of Merchandise Transport was fully employed, he con
tin ued. Earnings for each vehicle averaged £4,596 per year.
• Mr. E. C. Chidwick, secretary of Harris Lebus, stated that the company wanted One contractor to handle the transport of their furniture. They had no intention of changing the operation of their vehicles. Questioned by Mr. H. T. Lennard, for eight objectors, he denied that the application was an attempt to get into haulage to offset turnover losses caused by the current credit squeeze. The aim Was to simplify organization and economize on overheads, he said.
No more traffic could be carried by the vehicles, said Mr. F. E. Forest, a director of Merchandise Transport and the two Dormer companies,and transport manager of Harris Lebus. At present 61 per cent. of the traffic was for Harris Lebus, and 39 per cent., mostly return loads, for other people. About 44per cent. of the outward traffic was for other. people.
He told Mr. Corpe that seven additional vehicles were required because of increased turnover and difficulty in subcontracting. The company had spent £40,000 on hired vehicles in 1958 and £100,000 in 1959,
Mr. D. L. McDonnell, for the B.T.C., asked Mr. Forest whether traffic would be taken away from the railways. He was told that if the application were granted, Merchandise Transport would tell customers only that they had more
lorries available. Asked by the Authority how he Would ensure that only goods of Harris. Lebus would be carried out wards, Mi. Forest said that he would give an undertaking on the subject. .
Mr. G. J. Prescott, a director of Guest's Scottish Carriers, Ltd.. H. H. V. Guest Road Services, Ltd. and Guest Carriers (Hackney), Ltd., said that he was. concerned about return loads. If 126 Merchandise Transport vehicles were " let -loose," a far.greater .number of his vehicles would come back empty, he said.
Surplus of Vehicles If the application were granted and there were a recession in the furniture industry, there would be a surplus of vehicles. Merchandise Transport could approach other manufacturers in London and take traffic from Guest's. In fact, he said, he knew of a manufacturer in London who had already been, " canVassed " by Merchandise Transport, but this was strongly denied by the applicants.
'Mr.' L. F. Moody, a representative of Britisk.RailWays, said that Harris Lebus used the railways for sending furniture to remote parts of the British Isles. He thought this traffic would be extremely vulnerable if a grant were made.
In his submission, Mr. Corpe observed that the vehicles under their existing C licences must be paying their way. Full loads on future return journeys would be "sheer profit," he said. If Merchandise Transport obtained their licences, what was to stop other companies in a similar position from applying for A licences?
Suppose the door were opened and licensed operators did not enjoy such a closed shop? Would that be a bad thing, and really contrary to public interest, asked Mr. Beddington. There might be greater competition and a different rates structure, he speculated.
Decision was reserved.