Granary Haulage B switch
Page 43
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Case Adjourned
BECAUSE Granary Haulage Ltd., of 1--) Burton-on-Trent, had not envisaged being asked to carry goods for "certain other companies" with whom it was doing business, at the time it completed its application form, the company was granted an adjournment of the hearing of its application to transfer 12 B vehicles to an A licence to carry a wide variety of goods for nine associated companies, at Birmingham last week. A second application for four articulated vehicles on a new A licence with an ' identical user was also adjourned.
At the commencement of last week's. hearing, Mr. J. Foley Egginton, for the applicant, said that although the published application as such did not say so, the applicant had asked, in its application form, to have "return loads as required" specified on the licence. Ile continued: "Certain information has come into the possession of the applicant within the past few days which will necessitate an amendment of the normal user declaration." Apart from the named companies Granary wished to carry for, it was wished to add certain other companies which could not be named yet.
Mr. R. A. Webb, objecting for the B.T.C., said that he was concerned that the customers were not to be named. At the moment the application was restricted. It would no doubt come out in evidence that the Granary Haulage fleet had increased "very considerably" over the past 12 months, yet B.R.S. and British Railways had made absolutely no objection to any of those applications. The reason, as was well known, was that the applicant was a B licensed haulier. "Now, this is different," he added, "and we are facing something which is quite outside the scope of what the applicant does at the moment."
It was important, added Mr. Webb, that such an amendment should be republished—there may well be other objectors.
Mr. Norman Carless, for 13 independent objectors, said that if return traffic was to form part of the case, then clearly the application should be amended to show what the commodities were, as well as the customers for whom they were to be carried. Pressed by Mr. J. Else, the West Midland Licensing Authority, to give a clearer indication of the goods and customers for whom the applicant wished to carry in addition to those specified in the application, Mr. Foley Egginton said that the addition to the user would probably read as follows: "and other persons and companies with whom they (the named customers) are carrying out trading transactions ".
Mr. Carless pointed out that if the application was worded in this way, any operator who felt remotely that his interests might be affected would have a duty to object. He also said that whilst his clients were prepared to meet any case for outward traffic, no one could possibly know, until the day of the hearing, who would be affected by the return load aspect.
Stating that it was difficult to be dogmatic about such a matter, Mr. Else said that the applications were "not exactly normal" in the sense that Granary Haulage originally came before him last year asking for A licences for five vehicles which were then specified on contract A licences. The application had been refused and it was indicated that if Granary applied, a B licence would be granted. This was done. It looked, on the face of it, as if the company was now asking for vehicles which were on a contract licence to be placed on an A licence, the intervening stage being the B licences. For this reason, the question of return loads must remain open in his mind. He proposed to adjourn the matter so that the application could be republished.
Haulier. Cleared
RE will be no revocation or sus pension of an A licence belonging to Woodcock Transport (Rotherham) Ltd. following the public inquiry held at Sheffield on August 20 last. This is the effect of a written decision given by the Yorkshire deputy Licensing Authority, Mr. J. H. E. Randolph, last week. At the inquiry it had been alleged that the company had made false, statements and failed to fulfil a statement of intention (The Commercial Motor, August 24).