Barbour succeeds in 'borderline case'
Page 28
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Scottish Licensing Authority has Tdecided to offer Duncan Barbour and Son Ltd. (COMMERCIAL MOTOR, July 7) a grant of three attic van outfits with a normal user "Engineering exports and excisable liquor exports, all ex Southern Division of the Scottish Traffic Area, direct to ports for direct shipment to Continental destinations accompanied by licensee's prime mover; shipyard material and material for allied trades, complete powerhouse installations, boilers, steam drums, steel girders and plates 73 per cent within a radius of 25 miles balance as required," subject to the surrender of three vehicles from an existing A licence. Emphasizing in his written decision that it was a borderline case, the LA has sent a copy of the decision to Clydebank Haulage Ltd. whose original objection was withdrawn on the understanding that the normal user applied for would be amended to cover exports only. Clydebank Haulage Ltd. will have an opportunity "to confirm that so far as they are concerned they do not object".
The decision stresses the conflicting evidence put forward on behalf of the applicant and notes that at the end of the proceedings the normal user was amended to read: "For the carriage of engineering exports and excisable liquor exports, all ex Southern Division of the Scottish Traffic Area direct to ports for direct shipment to Continental destinations".
Although the Continental traffic carried was widely different from the applicant's normal traffic and he could, with some reason, be said to have "jumped the gun" by undertaking it without prior authority, the LA did not think it appropriate to impose a penalty for breach of normal user. He would have "preferred if the authority had sought earlier but cannot condemn outright . .. the applicant's waiting to ensure that the traffic was going to be continuous".
Discussing the direct delivery aspect of the bid the LA said he was not satisfied on the evidence heard that deliveries were necessarily any quicker than when a European prime mover and driver were employed. Barbour's method of operation was not clearly superior to that of Containerway and Roadferry Ltd., but there seemed some force in the argument that if the licence were not granted "some traffic which might have accrued to British hauliers would be taken by Continental hauliers".
The LA did not feel that a case was made for extra vehicles.