1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136 
L.A. Would Welcome Appeal
Page 7
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THEWest Midland Licensing. Authority, Mr. John Else, in a written decision issued last Tuesday, granted an unopposed application by The Dell Transport Co., Ltd., to add to their A licence two vehicles which had hitherto E%-,en operating under contract A licences. At thc same time he refused, "with some reluctance" a similar application by S. G Fletcher, Ltd.—a sister company sharing the same directorate and management as Dell's—which was opposed by British Railways and B.R.S., stating that 112 would welcome an appeal.
Because of the close relationship between the two companies, a joint inquiry was held in August, when Mr. Else was told the customer in each case was Benford, Ltd., makers of concrete mixers, dumpers and power barrows. The applications—both for two A vehicles— were to carry goods for Benford's "in England and Wales.'' Whilst Dell's were already A licence holders, Fletcher, Ltd., held only a B licence.
Originally, it was said, Benford's hired out a substantial number of their products. Due to a change in policy, they were eliminating hiring, as a result of which they wrote to. both companies in May suggesting that they should obtain A licences to enable them to obtain return loads.from "other sources," and discontinue operating under contract.
Evidence was given on behalf of Fletcher, Ltd., that the vehicles sought would contain only outward work for Benford's, and an undertaking was given to that effect.
Referring to eVidence given by the B.T.C. that they had surplus facilities for the carriage of goods throughout England and Wales, Mr. Else said he was satisfied that the objection was a relevant one.
Mr. Else said that he accepted that in certain circumstances an A licence could be granted on the evidence of the needs of one customer and that there were sound practical reasons for a general rule for not requiring strict proof of ,need of return traffic in the case of A licensed public carriers. In refusing Fletcher's application, be suggested the company might apply for a B licence.