AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

JEORY AGAIN

5th June 1964, Page 51
5th June 1964
Page 51
Page 52
Page 51, 5th June 1964 — JEORY AGAIN
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

Keywords : Business / Finance

—and a moral for Contract A Operators

LIGURES entered in support of an application for additional facilities, or for the conversion of a licence. are often criticized by Licensing Authorities, advocates appearing fox objectors, and the Transport Tribunal. The usual complaint is that they are not broken down to show earnings under the various licences operated by the applicant, and that the subcontracting figures are not shown separately.

The " new " North Western deputr Licensing Authority, Mr. G. Newmandealing with the return " bout" of the attempt by P. Jeory and Son, of Halewood, Liverpool, to convert its fleet from Contract A to open A licence (see The Commercial Motor of last week)—had something to say about figures which, I am sure, will be applauded by all who practise in the licensing courts.

When Mr. J. Edward Jones called the first witness in the ease—an accountant with Jeory--to produce figures, Mr. Newman intervened to say that what would impress him more than s. d. would be a picture showing how the vehicles were deployed, how many were out each day and to what destinations they travelled. "If that were available, IL would help me a lot ", he said

Later on be reiterated this statement by saying he wanted to see what the vehicles were actually doing and, I understand, during the luncheon adjourn. ment some evidence of this type -Wat obtained and handed in when the case was resumed.

In essence, the Jeory application heard in Liverpool recently had been thrown out by the Tribunal because of a lack of evidence about earnings. Jeory had found itself in a fix when the contract customer, the Garston Bottle Co. Ltd., changed its methods of packing and so virtually wiped out return loading. Jeory took the only course open—applied for A licences; these were refused, a decision against which the company appealed. The appeal was dismissed an now, after lodging another application. the deputy Authority has allowed them to switch 10 vehicles only.

There is a moral to all this, of course, and it was pointed out by Mr. H. 13. Griffiths, a director and secretary of the Garston Bottle Co., when he gave evidence during the hearing. Although his company paid a rate to Jeory " as good as or better than the rate paid to other hauliers" which his company used, if Jeory were forced out of business because of a refusal of the application, he thought his company would soon be able to find hauliers to take the more attractive loads. However, he said, there would probably be extreme difficulty over the small loads. If this proved to be the case his company would seek contracts with several hauliers.

Jeory, he continued, were lop-sided with a large contract fleet and a small general side. Garston would not repeat the mistake of having a haulier weighted in this way.

This whole matter illustrates just how dangerous it can be to have all one's eggs in one (contract) basket. A contract that is a paying proposition one day can, overnight, change into an uneconomic nightmare.

Tags

Organisations: Transport Tribunal
Locations: Liverpool

comments powered by Disqus