letters
Page 53
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Newcomers in the removals industry
RE the article "Are newcomers undermining the removals industry?" (CM March 9).
Your Liverpool independent says that we fear competition -e-but forgets that practically every customer obtains from three to six estimates and invariably chooses the lowest. Reputable operators know that in many cases quoting an economic price means a lost job. And now with the imposition of VAT, the single lightweight operator has a "built-in" 10 per cent advantage over the "trader" (I would gladly pay my "inputs" to get such an advantage).
Take another point — it was said: "Wages would not differ much." Many of these lightweight operators (themselves foremen, busdrivers and shift workers), employ part-time postmen, firemen, shift workers, etc, pay cash "free of tax" and with no commitments re holiday pay, tax, graduated pensions (my double-up as an employer is beginning to frighten 'me), idle time, or a guaranteed week, are able to undercut established operators like myself who have to compete for staff against the background of the very high wages paid by the oil companies and the wealthier national (and local) companies.
It is useless to complain to the wages inspectors or the tax inspectors who seem to prefer to emulate the ostrich. They are quite capable of leaving their comfortable offices to routine-check established operators, but to pursue these "minor problems" appears to be beyond them.
Yet the established operator seldom breaks the minimum wages — his men and the unicns see to that — nor can he afford tax fiddles, he has too much to lose. But what does the lightweight operator have to fear? If he succeeds, and the odds are all in his favour, he is laughing. If, by a miracle, he is caught out, then it is merely a case of back to his beginnings. The lightweight newcomers are unaware of the need to observe the drivers' hours regulations, and they can, and do, drive "night and day" with Ministry officials absolutely powerless to detect their offences. (I have lost a customer, because I cannot and will not undertake a 400-mile round trip with three deliveries in one day, to a lightweight driver who has no such inhibitions.) But the silent checks and records are very effective against the established operator.
Again, many of these light Luton vans although registered for taxation purposes as under 30cwt ulw are in fact over 30cwt unladen and as such should be plated and tested, and often are operating without a current test certificate. I took a perfectly standard 30cwt Transit Luton van to my local DoE test station, having first checked that its true unladen weight was 1 ton 12cwt 1qr, over one-year-old, and with neither a manufacturer's plate nor a Ministry plate. To my knowledge, no action was taken (though the officials did comment, would I like to complain "in writing"?).
Lightweight operators do not have to "promise" to maintain their vehicles despite the fact that the Licensing Authorities' reports for years have stressed that their greatest problem was the maintenance of the light vans — does anyone think the position has altered? Most small operators with no premises and little capital avoid high garage charges wherever possible. One service a year is not uncommon, and the general rule is "go to a garage only on breakdown".
"Overloading is not a problem". This is the greatest joke of all. I demonstrated to the local Exeter test station staff that an empty Ford Transit Luton van, perfectly standard, could be overloaded on the front axle. And the DoE staff who checked the vehicle almost with a microscope — they argued for 10 minutes about lin. of body length — can only write that "there is an unsatisfactory situation in the case of this particular vehicle". As an operator with a lifetime's experience I would state that the 35cwt Ford Transit van, which is the most commonly used, is one of the most difficult vehicles to load without exceeding one or other of the axle weights. As a matter of interest, how many of the lightweight operators understand the implications of plated weights or indeed various loads to inform themselves as to the possible axle loads?
Sir, I know — the Exeter Ministry officials know, the DoE at Marsham Street know (I have made it my business to see that they know) — that these vehicles are commonly overloaded.
In the first analysis, the reputable operators might and probably will survive, but surely the lightweight removals vehicles should come under the same rules as the larger operators in the interests of fairness. Subject the vehicles of 25cwt ulw and over to the same rules as the rest of us and there will be a sigh of relief throughout the industry. At the moment it seems to us that as soon as one new operator does out, two more come in and the possible result of the '68 legislation will be to permanently injure an industry which "Which?" decided gave generally an excellent service.
C. WESTERN, Exeter.