AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Metropolitan LA Slams Record of Davis Brothers

8th October 1965, Page 52
8th October 1965
Page 52
Page 52, 8th October 1965 — Metropolitan LA Slams Record of Davis Brothers
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

IE application of Davis Bros. (-Haulage) Ltd. to add 10 artics (tanker or flat) to their A licence to carry bulk liquid and general goods throughout Great Britain has been refused in a written decision by the Metropolitan Licensing Authority, Mr. D. I. R. Muir, and. following a Section 178 inquiry. eight vehicles and eight trailers have been removed from their licence for a period of four months, with effect from December 1.

In refusing the Davis bid for 10 artics, with customer support from Ker Indus Ltd., Esso Petroleum Co. Ltd. and Carless Capel and Leonard Ltd., Mr. Muir writes that the customer evidence of need, whilst not compelling, normally would have enabled him to grant the additional vehicles, in the absence of objectors and coupled with evidence of full employment of the existing tanker fleet.

But the company was warned in advance that the application would be determined after reviewing their previous conduct as hauliers, and the LA took into account the imposition of 63 immediate and 123 delayed prohibition notices, many imposed after his senior mechanical engineer had been told that a regular system of vehicle maintenance was in operation. Convictions in respect of 100 summonses brought by the police in respect of defective or overloaded vehicles were other matters taken into account.

The "phenomenal growth" of the Davis Group, whose fleet strength rose from 208 vehicles and 16 trailers in 1955 to 342 vehicles and 205 trailers in 1965, was noted by the LA. This, he suggests, was the result of "the enterprise and ability of the Davis family ". But this success was attained in premises where maintenance facilities were inadequate and "to some extent at least, at the expense of more scrupulous competitors".

Although Mr. Muir notes some recent efforts to maintain the fleet systematically —and he accepts that it is no part of his duty to prevent legitimate expansion— he concludes: " I shall be satisfied that the group means what it says when see a significant drop in the record of convictions and prohibitions sustained by them and I shall review the position in six months' time. In the meantime I do not think it would be right to add more vehicles to the fleet and the application is refused."

Mr. Muir rejects the company's contention that there had been "a marked deterioration in the quality of vehicles and parts of vehicles supplied by manufacturers ". Their fleet increased by leaps and bounds with "no significant improvement in their premises", and he concludes that Davis Bros. "have been wilful by not doing all they could and should have done to. maintain their vehicles properly ", some of which were in a dangerous state.

(These cases will be discussed in Licensing Casebook next week.—Ed.)

Tags

People: R. Muir

comments powered by Disqus