Who takes the blame?
Page 2
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Let's assume you are a subcontractor who takes maintenance incredibly seriously. You've got an unblemished record with Vosa, and you're determined to keep it that way. But there's a problem: while your own tractor fleet is maintained to a meticulous standard, you have absolutely no control over the quality of the customers' trailers that you pull.
Some of them are inspected only every 12 weeks, and thus aren't always in the best state of repair. Sure, your drivers can carry out thorough checks after coupling-up — but what about the faults that can't be spotted during a walk-around check, such as worn brakes? If such a truck were to be stopped at a roadside check, it's the company providing the traction, and not the trailer owner, that would be in trouble with Vosa.
This doesn't seem very fair to me. Surely, some of the responsibility needs to be passed back to the trailer operator? And I'm not the only one to have concerns. Road Haulage Association (RHA) director of policy Jack Semple tells me that the RHA raised this very issue at the Commercial Vehicle Road Safety Compliance Forum, which was chaired by the Department for Transport, in January. He said: -It was agreed that the forum will review the issue and the RHA will be gathering evidence.- But what's the answer? For me, the only sensible solution would be some sort of 0-licence scheme specifically for companies that own or maintain but don't run trailers. What do you think? Will Shiers