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
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202 
Isn't it great to be asked for our views, for once?
Page 29
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
I have received the same letter from Christine Norris at VOSA referred to by your anonymous correspondent. I imagine most if not all operators will receive it. If Mr Anonymous had taken time to read it properly, he would have discovered that the letter was explaining a scheme that VOSA was considering and that operators were being approached in consultation.
The letter specifically asked the recipient to reply with any ideas or comments on the proposed scheme.
I am a small operator and I was quite pleased to receive the letter, because I felt that I was at least being consulted and given the chance to air my views on the matter. I returned the questionnaire and enclosed a letter explaining that although I would welcome a scheme that recognised operators who were doing a good job, I had my reservations.These are more or less in line with those expressed by Mr Anonymous; namely: • Why should I have to pay extra so that VOSA can tell me I'm doing a good job?
• The scheme is open to abuse, in as much as if the threat of roadside checks were removed from a certain section of the industry, it could actually reduce compliance, not increase it.
• The proposed means of funding is extremely biased towards larger operators. A fee of £1,000 to me represents an expenditure of £300-plus per vehicle, whereas a £5,000 fee to a large operator with, say, 200 vehicles represents expenditure per vehicle of only £25.
0 Unless the criteria for the scheme's different grades were given careful consideration, it might be impossible for a small operator to achieve Gold Standard simply because it would be financially unviable.
Haying replied, far from the Thought Police hammering on my door, which Mr Anonymous seems to live in fear of,I received a pleasant reply from Christine Norris thanking me for my honest views and constructive comments, adding that my input would be helpful in designing a workable scheme ifVOSA decides to go ahead with it.
It's no good griping to a trade paper, Mr Anonymous. You would have been far better served by addressing your letter to VOSA and letting them know your views. We have enough problems with rules and regulations being foisted upon us unilaterally, that it is a shame when a chance to have some input prior to implementation is missed.
would urge any other operators who receive the letter to reply with their views, whether for or against.1 must go now as there is somebody banging on the office door...
Richard Higginbottom Northampton