AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Ludicrous' Wisbech Application Refused

8th March 1963, Page 45
8th March 1963
Page 45
Page 45, 8th March 1963 — Ludicrous' Wisbech Application Refused
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

AA W1SBECH haulier who had applied to the Eastern Licensing Authority for a new five-vehicle A licence to replace three contract A vehicles and four vehicles operating under B licence admitted that his traffic was falling and his vehicles were underemployed. Accused by the objectors of carrying potatoes to Meredith and Drew's of Ashby-de-laZouch outside his B-licence conditions, he stated that he had done the work on behalf of another haulier and had not charged him for the movement.

Mr. S. I. Green, for the applicant, R. S. Ward, of Walsoken, Wisbech, told the Authority, Mr. W. P. S. Ormond, that the figures produced by his client showed an unusual picture. The work done in 1962 was very much less than work done in 1%1. The reason for this was that, unfortunately., the applicant was-insured with a company which had since gone into liquidation. One of his vehicles was involved in a serious accident and the insurer could not meet the claim, and in order to continue in business at all, Mr. Ward had had to restrict his haulage activities considerably by ceasing to operate vehicles authorized to him.

The position had, happily, improved and the application for the five vehicles with the user "mainly agricultural and horticultural produce and requisites within 150 miles" was made upon the basis of an increased volume of work offered by the two contract A customers.

Giving evidence, Mr. Ronald Ward said that he now wanted the open licence to make the vehicles pay more, to help him to recover the loss he had incurred.

Mr. C. R. Kaile, objecting on behalf of B.R.S., told the applicant in crossexamination: "You are telling us a lot of nonsense if you say that the drop in the figures is due to the insurance losses. It just cannot be true. The truth of the matter is that you found that the B licence was not remunerative ". Mr. Ward replied that his customers were splitting the loads into so many different destinations.

Mr. A. J. F. Wrottesley, for British Railways, submitted that it was " absolutely extraordinary " that anyone should seek an A licence in circumstances put forward by the applicant. There was not a shadow of a case made out. Both counsel for B.R.S. and the independent objectors submitted that the application was ludicrous.

Refusing the application, Mr. Ormond said that the Contract A carryings might have to be looked into. The only point of interest was the question of part loads, but the Tribunal had recently said that if more vehicles were granted in order to make it easier to carry part loads there-would be more part loads, making the situation worse than it was before.


comments powered by Disqus