AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Contract Switch Draws Strong Opposition ,A STRONGLY opposed application to

8th February 1963
Page 15
Page 15, 8th February 1963 — Contract Switch Draws Strong Opposition ,A STRONGLY opposed application to
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?

1-1 convert 15 vehicles from contract A to A licence to carry agricultural goods within Great Britain was adjourned after a full day's hearing before the South Eastern Licensing Authority, Mr. H. J. 1. horn, at Maidstone on Wednesday.

The applicant, C. W. and D. R. Thorp Ltd., of Sturry, nr. Canterbury, denied allegations put by Mr. C. R. Beddington, representing 24 R.H.A. objectors, that the main reason for the application was that the second season's operations under the contract had prOved unsuccessful financially and that its vehicles were unemployed to such an extent that they were often standing for considerable periods under sheets at the company's base.

Mr. J. R. C. Samuel-Gibbon, for the applicant, said that at present the vehicles were under contract working for Home Grown Fruits Ltd.—a contract that had been in existence since August, 1961. Home Grown Fruits desired. to terminate the contract because of "difficulties ". The company had given notice that it would be terminated on May 6.

In the meantime, Mn Samuel-Gibbon continued, the shares of the applicant company had been purchased by East Kent Packers, a farmers' co-operative society, which was a substantial customer of the applicant: The first day of the hearing was taken up with the evidence of Mr. C. W. Thorp, managing director, who refuted allegations that' the reason he could not obtain local sub-contractors was because he had not paid their accounts promptly in the past. He agreed that he knew his vehicles would be under-employed during our months of the year when he entered into the contract.

As well as the independent objectors, British Railways and British Road Services opposed the application..