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
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192 
Recovery operator!
Page 20
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
under pressure
Recovery operators claim they face increasing pressure from breakdown groups to work unsafely. Jennifer Ball investigates. The issue of breakdown groups encouraging recovery operators to carry out work, which they say cannot be completed safely has sparked a strong response from CM readers. Last month, we reported how a row had blown up between recovery firm Green Flag and one of its Cumbrian agents, Carlisle-based Auto Recoveries, over alleged refusal rates on work (CM, 9 October).
Boss George Graham claimed it could not carry out the work because no driver was available who could do the job safely and within domestic driving rules; Auto Recoveries has since quit working for Green Flag. Graham says he was not willing to put lives at risk by allowing his drivers to work too many hours to fulfil a contract. "Corporate killing is rising and, in my opinion,if you let a driver out on the road knowing he has worked too many hours and he is involved in an accident, you have no argument against being held responsible.
However. Green Flag denies it would ever put operators or their employees in an unsafe situation, and insists no pressure had been brought to bear to encourage illegal operation.
"Over the past few years, customer numbers have grown and there is a greater emphasis on the recovery operator. But at no time would we jeopardise safety to meet our service level,adds a company spokesman.
Another North East recovery operator says he also feels under pressure from breakdown groups to undertake such work."! am also not willing to take this risk," he comments. "We often have to carry not only a car, but three generations of a family as well." Gary Satchwell, chief executive of the Association of Vehicle Recovery Operators (AVRO), believes there are many other recovery operators who also feel under pressure to fulfil work, which they morally believe can't be completed safely, but who are afraid to speak out for fear of the consequences. "Unfortunately, the industry is cost-led, and breakdown groups are not recognising that the operator has a duty of care.The Working Time Directive will only add to this pressure to lower refusal rates," he says.
Satchwell believes the main problem the considerable number of cowboy operators who work for lower overheads than the reputable recovery firms by using poorly maintained vehicles and untrained staff."Breakdown clubs are turning a blind eye to the fact that these are not up to standard and are interested only in t price. We are campaigning for these groups use only those recovery operators that adhe to the Pass 43 industry standard," he adds.
However, in a letter to CM (23 Octobc Green Flag's director of networks, supplit and investigation service, Tony Dunlop, mai tains that at no time has any service provid been put under pressure for refusing more th 1% of j obs offered.
The AA aims for a refusal rate of 5' However, a spokesman says it is flexible: "N know that the rate does have to be higher f our preferred suppliers, as they may be rush, off their feet, have no driver available or ha people off sick if they are carrying out a lot work for us,he explains.•