MILK SUPPLY COMPLAINTS

Press, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 25134, 15 March 1947, Page 8

MILK SUPPLY COMPLAINTS

♦ STERNER ACTION URGED LICENCES MAY BE CANCELLED Contending that - the Christchurch Metropolitan Milk Board had been "too soft” in dealing with complaints against vendors, Mr H. Kitson said at yesterday’s meeting of the board: “We will have to issue a warning that this soft-glove business of handling complaints is to stop. Vendors will start losing their licences. If we dealt with one or two, we would find a big improvement.” , , The board decided to call a vendor (Mr F. W. Claridge) before its next meeting to show cause why his licence should not be cancelled for refusing to supply pasteurised milk, and unless the explanation of another vendor on a charge of .refusing to give service is satisfactory, he will also be dealt with. A warning was also issued by the board to a third vendor that if complaints continued the cancellation of his licence would also be cohsidered. “We have been too soft with the complaints,” said Mr Kitson. “Have we taken away a licence from a single

man?” __ A The chairman (Mr M. E. Lyons): Not since this board was established. The Zoning Committee did. “There are those who think we are partly to blame for not dealing with them more strictly,” said Mr Kitson. Mr Lyons: For that reason I have suggested we should bring one vendor

before us. Since February 10. the Chief City inspector (Mr J. W. Huggins) had kept a record of all complaints and the

record ran to several pages. “Don’t you agree that if we took away a couple of licences the complaints would be cut in half?” asked Mr Kitson.

Mr Lyons: Yes. • Among the complaints read by Mr Huggins from the book was one that the milk supplied was “tod rich for the baby.” Another complaint was of late delivery, the customer alleging that the whole family, including the baby. Was on the delivery truck and that the late delivery was caused by the vendor having to wait till all his family were awake. One vendor complained of the quality of the milk supplied to him. The other complaints were varied.

The chairman remarked that the collection of complaints in one month

was a “pretty hefty” one. Mr J. E. Tait said many of the complaints could not be substantiated. The consumers were at fault in many cases.

“How can the faults be those of the consumers when Mr Huggins says the method of treatment and storage in the house is all right?” asked Mr C. D. W. L. Sheppard.

Following‘a complaint by a Smith street resident to the last meeting of the board, the supervising officer reported that United Dairies admitted selling loose pasteurised milk to its vendors. That did not relieve the company of its responsibility of labelling the milk raw or pasteurised. It was quite evident that the vendor about whom the original complaint was made was unaware that he was selling pas-

Mr H R. Donald: That means that United Dairies are putting out pasteurised milk against the wishes of consumers.

It c , a ?P°L do anything else.” commented Mr Tait, referring the board to United Dairies’ reply that it had no alternative to drawing on its stock of pasteurised milk, set aside for its own rounds, to enable it to supply all vendors with their full amounts. A safe margin should be given when the Canterbury Dairy Farmers’ Milk Supply Company placed, as it intends doing in the near future, an extra truck on the night collection to pick up a larger quantity.