Not Enough Evidence—Mr. Randolph
Page 40
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
FOLLOWING the withdrawal of four vehicles which had been subcontracted to them, Bells Transport Services, Bradford, applied at Leeds last Friday for these units to be replaced. They wanted an A licence for three vehicles and a B licence for. a collection and delivery unit to carry wool and general goods within 25 miles radius of base.
In evidence, Mr. J. Bell, the proprietor, said that until last October he had had the use of certain vehicles which had been hired to him by Alfred Ray, Ltd. Ray had then found it necessary to withdraw them, so the organization's facilities had been seriously depleted.
After a period of being unable to satisfy the requirements of his customers,
he had decided that these vehicles must be replaced. Operational figures of the total fleet were submitted and overall, these showed an increase in business. The application was supported by customer witnesses, and letters of complaint regarding late deliveries and damage to consignments were produced. The case. was opposed by British Railways.
The Yorkshire Deputy Licensing Authority, Mr. J. H. E. Randolph, pointed out that when a firm operated principally as a clearing house and lost some of their transport facilities, there was no reason why these must be replaced. No relevant evidence of public need had been given and an application of this type should be based on this factor. So he would refuse the four vehicles.