"Furniture" Does Not Mean Removals
Page 60
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE use of the word " furniture " in a normal user did not cover furniture removals. It was in a haulier's own interest to specify normal user more carefully.
These views were expressed by Mr. J. H. A. Randolph, Yorkshire Deputy Licensing Authority. at Leeds last week. He was hearing an application by the Calder Valley Transport Co., Ltd., Halifax, to replace a 3i-ton tipper on A licence with a 4-ton van, and put the tipper on a B licence with a 25-mile radius. The Calder Valley company also wished to add a 4-ton trailer to their A licence.
Mr. John Morritt, manager, said his company had carried out regular furniture removals by containers placed on flat vehicles. This was not satisfactory and they wanted to employ a van for this purpose, and to carry blankets and cloth.
For the company, Mr. I. Mellor submitted that household removals had always been an integral part of the company's business. Mr. Randolph commented that because of the stress laid on declarations of normal user by the Transport Tribunal, it was in a haulier's interest to specify his normal user more clearly to avoid possibility of future trouble.
• Refusing the application in relation to the van and trailer, but granting it in respect of the tipper's transfer to B licence, the Authority said it was the intention of the company to carry out removals over longer distances. In his view a declared normal user of "carriage of furniture" did not refer to furniture removals.
the applicants intended to enter the removals field, they should say so, and give other removers the opportunity to object. The evidence given in relation to the trailer was more appropriate to a B licence, Mr. Randolph added. There was insufficient proof of need for the van or trliler to he placed on A licence.