1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136 
Settle rates or face inquiry warns LA in 'tipper charter'
Page 40
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
UNLESS Mendip hauliers and quarry owners can agree on acceptably economical transport rates, the Western Licensing Authority will next year call before him under Section 178(1)e all Mendip tipper operators working to the present rates schedules.
This warning is given by Mr. J. R. C. Samuel-Gibbon in a nine-page written decision on 12 applications for Contract A and B licences. He adds to his warning: "Frankly, that prospect appals me and I hope good sense will prevail meantime so that I am relieved of the necessity of embarking upon it".
in the
The LA's document—a "tipper charter" in extent—examines the Mendip/Cheddar problem in detail.
Objectors to the applications maintained that even recent small increases did not make the rates from the quarries economic, and asked the LA to hold that any supporting contract for a Contract A application was
lawful only if it could be performed without breaking the law. Mr. Samuel-Gibbon accepts this. But he rejects a second con
tention: that he should refuse applications because the low rates involved might soon bring the applicant back before him under S.178. Instead, he issues a warning that a
contract of itself constitutes a prima facie case for future investigation under S.I78. Examining rates, the LA warns that these are often based on 9-ton payloads for 14-tong.v.w. vehicles, and even on unplated s.w.b. tippers the rear axle limit is likely to be exceeded under the following conditions:— Unladen wt. Rear axle load likely to exceed
tons cwt 9 tons if payload is above:—
3 0 9tficwt
3 5 9t 2cwt 3 10 St 18cwt 3 15 St 13cwt 4 0 St 9cwt 4 5 St 5cwt 4 10 St Ocwt 4 15 7t 16cwt 5 0 7t newt Mr. Samuel-Gibbon uses applicants' evidence to suggest that excessive hours are worked by the tipper operators and that a mileage above 1,000 a week is "unrealistic" as a basis of calculation of rates for this work. The long-distance traffic should pay its way —and not be subsidized by the short runs, he says.
• On wages as an element of costs, the 13A will not accept a figure lower than E20 a week—even for the self-employed. And, having calculated costs, he thinks that anyone who claims to be able to operate even an unplated four-wheeled tipper for less than 17.5d per vehicle mile on quarry work should be asked "to show clearly how this can lawfully be done".
His investigations suggest that, at
around the 50-mile mark, present scheduled Mendip rates cease to cover costs of opera tion. There will, he says, have to be a balance struck, in rate negotiations, to arrive at a uniformly applied rate so as to give reasonable returns to different operators. The RHA "package" rates are 17.91d p.v.r&for
50 miles, 17.59d for 100 miles and 16.75d for more than 140 miles—and Mr. SamuelGibbon thinks even the latter on the low side.
The LA's decisions were as follows:— Contract A grants to: H. and K. Transport (with a warning not to carry much traffic at less than 1.8d p.v.m.); D. J. Light ("a borderline case"); R. J. Webbe (with a warning to keep proper records); D. W. Baker (with advice to observe the law's limitations); A. R. Hiscox (with "considerable disquiet" about his operations).
Contract A applications refused: M. Graham (LA not satisfied that a contract exists); R. A. Giddings Ltd. ("not fit to receive a carrier's licence").
B-licence applications refused: T. R. Watts (weak evidence, rates apparently uneconomic); P. A. Oakley and P. A. Button (lack of detailed evidence).
STILL LIABLE
A 28-VEHICLE operator who delegated responsibility for drivers' record-keeping to his secretary is still liable to prosecution for her failure to do so. The Queen's Bench Divisional Court maintained this on Wednesday, allowing, with costs, a prosecution appeal against the dismissal by Cambridge magistrates of a case against Mr. M. H. Poole concerning records of a lorry for which he was the licenceholder.