Kammac cleared
Page 20
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A WARNING against hauliers adopting the controversial selfemployed drivers' scheme of Lancashire-based Kammac Trucking has come from Transport Tribunal president John Inskip.
In a written judgment on Kammac Trucking's Tribunal appearance (CM, February 4 and 25), Mr lnskip said Burscoughbased Kammac's managing director Brian Kamel had ensured compliance with drivers' hours and overloading Regulations and had had no convictions on these counts.
But he warned other operators that it might not be as easy for them to follow suit. "The nature of the goods which Kammac Trucking normally carries is such that the possibility of overloading the vehicles is remote, and the instructions with regard to the weighing of vehicles which are carrying goods other than the normal loads are adequate to safeguard against overloading, if the drivers comply with them.
"The arrangements for the control of drivers' hours of the self-employed drivers who work regularly for the company are satisfactory and the close-knit nature of the community from which these drivers are drawn is a safeguard against these regulations," he said.
He stressed that he would need to be satisfied that similar circumstances were enjoyed by any other applicant for an operator's licence wanting to adopt a similar practice.
"If I am satisfied as to these matters and decide to issue an 0-licence to any applicant, the issue of that licence cannot be regarded as confirming the legality of this practice," he said.
"That is a matter for the competent authorities," he added.
Mr lnskip criticised the Road Haulage Association, which had filed the objection to Mr Kamel's scheme. He said that its notice of objection had been completed "in a very casual and unhelpful way".
"An allegation that a person or company is unfit by reason of his conduct to hold an 0-licence is a very serious allegation," he said. Proper particulars should always be given so that the applicant can understand what he is being charged with. Some of the particulars given by the RHA were meaningless, he said.
Mr lnskip also criticised the North-Western Licensing• Authority, where the RHA's complaint against Kammac was originally heard, for saying that the legality of the scheme was not for him to decide upon.
But he added: "Each case depends on its own facts and we consider that cases in which such a determination will be necessary are likely to be very rare."
Commenting on the written judgment, Brian Kamel told CM: "The Tribunal is agreeing with me and my cause. The whole fight has cost me about £5,000 in legal fees, travelling expenses and time away from work, but it is a great outcome.
"The RHA made all sorts of objections at the beginning and they were all farcical. All they wanted was a directive. I feel very resentful towards the RHA and feel that I have been victimised."
Since the outcome of the Tribunal Mr Kamel has written to the RHA asking for financial compensation for the trouble caused, but is still waiting for a reply.
At the time of going to press the RHA said it had not yet received a copy of the judgment so could not comment on its contents.