AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

PRINCIPAL CUSTOMER OBJECTS

7th January 1966, Page 43
7th January 1966
Page 43
Page 43, 7th January 1966 — PRINCIPAL CUSTOMER OBJECTS
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?

INLondon last week the Metropolitan deputy Licensing Authority, Mr. C. J. Macdonald, granted one artic on A licence to D. R. Rowe (Hauliers) Ltd. of Bermondsey. The normal user specified named commodities from London to the Southampton area.

Rowe, who applied for two additional vehicles, was opposed by British Road Services, although it was stated that they were by far the best customer of the applicant. Moreover, said Mr. J. Amphlett, appearing for Rowe, BRS head office at City Road frequently complained that the applicant was "not doing enough for them".

Mr. D. R. Rowe, director of the applicant company, said the normal user published specified general goods, London, Scotland and Lancashire; this was in error, and the two vehicles sought were required to meet commitments on his service from London to the Southampton area. He specialized in smalls traffic in which other London hauliers were not interested and had found it impossible to hire vehicles.

Much of his work, Mr. Rowe continued, was urgent ships' stores, including wines. He wanted an artic to carry tong-length steel and aluminium sections for an aircraft factory in the Isle of Wight. He produced a number of supporting letters and stressed the difficulty of undertaking maintenance work at weekends.

Mr. G. Mercer, for BRS, said the applicant's annual earnings amounted to 15,700 per vehicle for the existing three A-licensed vehicles. If the two additional vehicles sought earned at the same rate there would be additional revenue of £11,400. The evidence, he submitted, was not nearly sufficient to justify two vehicles.

Continuing, Mr. Mercer said the figures suggested that half of the applicant's revenue came from BRS. and other hauliers. Earnings had not increased appreciably since last year and it was evident that the work done for the old customers of the business was not expanding.