AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

BAR Brighton conference delegates warned

19th May 1972, Page 32
19th May 1972
Page 32
Page 35
Page 32, 19th May 1972 — BAR Brighton conference delegates warned
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

Guard your property goldmine

by John Darker

• Removers in conference in Brighton on Monday were asked whether they were making the best use of their property. Mr D.

• M. Butler, a chartered surveyor, talking on "The exploitation of property assets", said that in 193 1 in the West End of London site costs were 23 per cent and building costs 77 per cent, whereas by 1971 these figures had reversed to 75 per cent and 25 per cent respectively. Any company owning property should be aware at all times of its value and effectively regard it as part of the capital employed in the business against which its true performance and return were judged. Mr Butler added that a company failing to do so could well be taken over by an astute firm, more aware of property values.

Mr Butler spoke at the first annual general meeting of the British Association of Removers. Mr G. J. Over, a principal architect of the merger between NAFWR and BAOFR, was elected president, supported by two vice-presidents, Mr Roy Taylor and Mr Roland Barrett.

Twenty-four overseas delegates from countries as far distant as Japan, Australia and South Africa attended the conference as full members of the BAR for this first time.

The annual accounts presented by treasurer Mr Arnold Godfrey showed a deficit of £3370 on the year, due largely to higher administrative costs and to expenses incurred searching for new premises. Mr Roland Barrett, presenting the report on the inland group of BAR, warned that a further rise of subscriptions is to be called for this year to compensate for galloping inflation. The membership of 1060 firms needed to be greatly expanded.

Mr Roy Taylor, chairman of the overseas group, said membership was virtually static with 455 member firms. He told the conference that Mr Michael Scott (of Pitt and Scott Ltd) was to replace Mr Jack Ellis as BAR delegate to FIDI. The international body was meeting shortly in Athens. Overseas members urged concerted action to persuade shipping lines to moderate their very high charges to removers. Mr Taylor suggested the case BAR put up would be strengthened if the tonnage contributed by the total membership on a given route was known. Port charges also came under attack. Mr Colin Gordon criticized the £32 a ton landing and wharfage charges on imported personal effects imposed by the Port of London Authority.

In frank reports by Mr Michael Gerson and Mr Michael Scott on the theme of international co-operation, Mr Gerson said FIDI, now 20 years old, was trying to reform itself.

The new "ITC" carnet would eventually replace the TIR carnet, said Mr Gerson. It would cover wheeled travelling as well as containers moved by any mode. The ITI would help to liberalize movement of goods internationally. It was particularly significant to BAR which was unable to issue TIR carnets. He hoped FIDI could be an issuing authority for the ITI carnet — if so, it could be a source of revenue.

An important feature at the forthcoming FIDI conference was a discussion of ECE conditions of carriage, said Mr Scott. The Interim Law and Law Commission available was relevant. Removers must provide better services and take more responsibility for shortcomings.

In the final session on Monday, Mr R. C. R. Vincent and Mr I. R. Philip, of HM Customs and Excise, explained the elements of VAT as it was likely to apply to removers.

An important debate on Tuesday dealt with implications of the interim report of the Law Commission. President Gilbert Over said that we lived in an age of "consumerism": the law had protected consumers from the wrongful acts of traders — a short weight of coal or contaminated jam — for some time but consumers generally were now much better organized. Six years ago the Law Commission had been set up to examine the law of contract in general terms because it was felt that contracts were biased in favour of providers of services. A working party of the Law Commission had looked at Exemption Clauses and at contracts which had restricted liability. It was likely to be two years at least before the final report of the Law Commission was published.

Mr Over said the working party was not much in favour of restrictive liability but they felt that some areas justified including carriage of goods. They felt that the limitation of liability must be reasonable. They ruled out the suggestion that contracts could be pre-submitted to an authority, because of the multitudes of contracts and varying circumstances. Mr Over referred to BAR's £10 liability per package and said that he personally felt this limit should be increased.

Insurer's view Giving the view of an insurer, Mr Peter Stoffel (Bray, Gibb, Wrightson Ltd) strongly believed Exemption Clauses were essential, the only problem being where to draw the line. Although the Commission had been considering this matter for six years — and they had posed in their Interim Report a series of propositions for comment — perhaps they were wise to recognize that the immediate reaction to Exemption Clauses as being harsh and inequitable had not been borne out by the experience of BAR.

Mr Stoffel wondered why the Commission had not latched on to the mode of contract conditions for the carriage of goods which have emanated from the EEC. These conditions, ie the CMR and ECE conditions, were in a quite different form from the contracts promoted by associations with only their members' interests in mind. .

Mr Stoffel recalled a report he submitted to the Law Commission on behalf of the NAWC in 1968. As regards the Exemption Clauses aspect, the paragraph read: "if risks are to be apportioned by the parties (and this is said to be an economic necessity) then Exemption Clauses must be introduced into the contract so as to make it clear and certain which party has to take any particular risk; disputes and thus litigation can then he minimized."

The working party, said Mr Stoffel, were conscious of the importance of taking into account any proposal which would have the effect of placing on the supplier of services risks of which at the moment he could relieve himself by a clause in the contract excluding or limiting his liability.

They posed the question as to the outcome from an insurance point of view if there were a general rule prohibiting a supplier of services from contracting out of liability.

The opinion given, quoted from a report, is as follows: "Generally speaking it was uneconomic for the supplier to insure, since his liability might vary greatly and he would have to insure up to the maximum of any possible claim. The user of services on the other hand, knew the limit up to which he had to insure. Furthermore, liability insurance was expensive. It was also wasteful where the user was likely to effect insurance himself, often at cheaper rates."

Mr Stoffel summarized the 54 pages of pros and cons in the Law Commission report in the following terms: El That legislation is not a satisfactory method on its own but would play a part with general power in the courts.

El That Exemption Clauses other than for death or personal injury should be subject to a test of reasonableness and consideration given as to whether guidelines be laid down for the assistance of the courts and whether onus of proof should be on the party challenging the Clause or the party seeking to rely on it.

That provisions for general control of Exemption Clauses with an international convention enforceable in Great Britain should not apply.

Said Mr Stoffel: "In your business this would refer to the CMR conditions if you are involved in through road traffic to and from the Continent in respect of goods other than furniture removals. It would also be applicable if ECE conditions relating to furniture removals are eventually recognized by this country."

Mr Stoffel thought it likely that the final recommendation would accept the justification for Exemption and Limitation Clauses, and certainly at this stage it would appear they were contemplating contracts of the like of CMR, though he wondered whether pressure from withirr the EEC for Gt Britain to ratify the ECE and EEC conditions would not develop when we became members of the Community.

In the final session, Mr J. Tarsey (Hibbs Tarsey Ltd and Cantry Group) gave a masterly summary of the main provisions of the Industrial Relations Act. He suggested that the larger companies in the trade would be involved in an agency shop situation, with formalized relations with a particular trade union. Smaller firms in the industry had to ensure that they got the contracts of employment aspects on a proper basis. He suspected that some members of the Association even now had no formal contracts with their employees.

Even firms with only six employees should have a proper pay structure since this would be of great help to any employer compelled to go to arbitration. It was in any case good management to have a structure of pay and jobs so that employees knew where they fitted in.

Mr Tarsey sounded a note of caution as regards casual labour. A worker for two or three days in the removals industry could exceed 21 hours and thus could be covered by the Act.

He told Mr Arnold Godfrey, who questioned him on the form contracts should take, to use the, excellent form devised by BAR. He added that Ministry officials on routine visits to firms sometimes asked to see the contract of employment forms.


comments powered by Disqus