Is this a vendetta?
Page 36
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
asks LA
• The Yorks deputy LA asked a witness in Leeds on Tuesday whether a list of complaints against the objectors was a vendetta or had been submitted to assist him. Mr. M. Gosnay was sitting at a resumed inquiry of an application by Thomson (Bradford) Transport Ltd. for a new A-licence to which BRS was objecting. He asked Mr. P. Hayton, Thomson's TIR manager, whether the traffic specified in the lists of complaints against BRS had caught the ship. The witness said it had.
Earlier Mr. J. M. Bosomworth, appearing. for BRS, took exception to the documents being submitted so late. He said they could have been made available before the hearing. Mr. G. P. Crow for the applicant said they were to summarize the position.
Thomson is seeking a new A-licence for Jour articulated vehicles, one for TIP operation, with a normal user: "General goods (mainly for import and export to and from all road, rail, ferry terminals and ports) as required-, subject to the surrender of an Alicence for two articulated vehicles. It is also seeking to add one articulated vehicle to its B-licence to carry similar traffic for an associated business, G. C. Morley, shipping and forwarding agent.
In re-examination, Mr. Hayton spoke of the difficulty of contacting BRS officials at the Bradford depot in the early evening and of being referred elsewhere if goods to be picked up related to any other district. In respect of some consignments no reply had been received from BRS and Thomsons found the position getting worse in relation to obtaining vehicles.
The transport manager, Mr. H. S. Ryder, said there was a shortage of transport to and from the ports and his firm had been involved in quay rents and watching charges. He referred to the occasions on which he had approached BRS and 20 other hauliers for assistance in August and September despite which 30 tons in a week had missed ship.
He agreed with Mr. Bosomworth that its account for sub-contracting BRS had increased from £3 16s 11d in July 1967 to £225 in July 1968 and £367 3s in September. It was mostly Morley's traffic offered to BRS and Mr. Bosomworth suggested it was mostly "left overs" at that. The witness agreed that most of the inquiries which had resulted in allegations against the inability of BRS to assist were started after the first day of the hearing on 12 July and that before then contact had been confirmed to odd occasions.
Mr. Hayton, re-called, was questioned by Mr. Bosomworth on the number of telex inquiries relating to rates to Continental destinations and to the fact that no traffic had been offered BRS on receipt of quotations. The witness denied that this was for internal use only but said the information was used to enable Thomson to quote competitive rates to customers. At the end of a two-day hearing and following strong customer evidence Mr. Gosnay granted the application as sought.