Normal User Argued Before Mr. Hanlon: Davis Bros. Seek General Terms
Page 36
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE words "general goods, Great Britain" provoked a long and involved argument between Mr. J. A. T. Hanlon, Northern Licensing Authority, and Mr. Ralph Cropper, transport consultant, at Newcastle upon Tyne last week. It resulted in an unopposed application by Davis Bros. (Haulage), Ltd., to convert a special-A into a public A licence being adjourned for the Authority to "consider further" the normal user.
The applicants were instructed to provide more information of receipts and details of modifications carried out to the vehicle concerned. This had increased by 13 cwt. in weight.
Mr. Cropper, for Davis Bros., who have a branch at Felling, County Durham, said that when the vehicle was first registered it was said to weigh just under 2 tons 19 cwt. The weight had increased to 3 tons 12 cwt. There had been no increase in carrying capacity or dimensions.
The manager of the branch, Mr. EL L. W. Jeffries, said that figures showed that the vehicle had been fully occupied carrying goods throughout Great Britain. From the list of commodities carried by the vehicle, the only possible description of its normal user was "general goods." The vehicle's aluminium body had been replaced by a timber one, which accounted for the increase in weight.
After questioning Mr. Jeffries about journeys detailed in documents, Mr. Hanlon said: "This is called tramping." He added that British Road Services had made an application for certain renewals of -their licences and had been opposed on the ground that the normal user "general goods, Great Britain" ,Aas out of date.
It had also been claimed that a haulier applying for a licence should give the Authority the proper definition of the work on which he proposed to employ the vehicle. " That contention," said Mr. Hanlon, "was upheld, and the B.T.C. agreed to certain normal users."
Mr. Cropper submitted that there were no objectors to the present application. He contended that many applications were being granted with a user "general goods, Great Britain," in cases where that was the proper definition.
Davis Bros. set out to be general hauliers and it would be improper for them to give any statement that they were going to carry certain commodities for certain customers. It was their intention to carry any goods that came along.
You are asking for all the advantages of a common carrier, without the disadvantages," observed Mr. Hanlon. There were always fluctuations in trade and industry, replied Mr. Cropper.
Mr. Hanlon then said that a definition of normal user did not stop applicants carrying anybody's goods anywhere. As far as he knew, it had never been found that goods had lain untaken, or anybody had lost business, because of changes concerning normal-user definitions that had occurred. Mr. Cropper submitted that there had been cases of that sort.
Adjourning the application, Mr. Hanlon requested a statement of receipts from principal customers and descriptions of the vehicle's body when received from the manufacturers, and the modified body.