Western L.A. Criticized
Page 38
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
"Hiring Was Not Phenomenal"
AN appeal against a grant by the Western Licensing .Authority of an additional 9-ton artic. to J. Smith (Bicknor), Ltd.. was allowed by the Transport Tribunal in London last week.
The appeal was made by four South Wales hauliers, I. Cresswell (Ebbw Vale). Ltd., E. B. Rees, Ltd., F. A. Parfitt {Transport), Ltd., and N. M. Watkins.
Sir Hubert Hull, the chairman, said that in the early part of 1960, Smith's made an application, which was the subject of a public inquiry in May. As a result they were granted A licences for three large vehicles.
There was no appeal on that decision. said Sir Hubert, and there was no urgency on Smith's part, because the third of the three vehicles did not come on to the licence until December last year. "For reasons which were not explored at the inquiry at the end of October, the respondents, though they had this large vehicle in hand, thought they had better apply for some more." Referring to the figures, Sir Hubert Hull said the Licensing Authority was wrong when he spoke of " striking increases" in the firm's earnings. "What should have struck him was not the increase, because there wasn't one, but the decrease," said Sir Hubert.
The Licensing Authority referred to "a phenomenal degree" of hiring. "In fact, hiring represents 7.2 per cent, of the total earnings. In a business of this character we don't think that that hiring percentage is phenomenal in any degree."
Sir Hubert said that after the three vehicles had been granted in May and one did not come on to the licence until December, Smith's were proved to be in a position of having a vehicle whose earning capacity was at least 0,000 a year. and it was not proved there would be demands upon them to the extent of more than £2,000.
As matters stood at the end of 1960, Smith's were fully equipped with all the transport they required to meet any work they had been called upon to do, and any increase for which there was reasonable proof. • Therefore, an additional vehicle was not necessary.