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 
KNOWING THE FORM
Page 90
Page 93
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Time and Effort Can be Wasted by Recording Data that Has Only Interest Value and Doubtful Application in the Future .• Use of Too Few Forms, However, Can Defeat the Intention of Economy and Add to Expense
T0 assist those about to enter haulage, some advice on the use of forms is given in this article to avoid frustration resulting from trial-and-error methods. Particularly would this be so if the entrant has no previous clerical experience. The advice contains nothing original for those well versed in cost recording, and has been purposely simplified to make the newcomer's introduction to it as easy as possible.
Form-filling has developed to such an extent in recent years that it is now invariably looked upon as just another evil—necessary or otherwise—of modern life. Such a conclusion, however, confuses the use, and the abuse, of forms.
The use of any form can only be justified if it provides a more convenient means for recording essential information than any other means. If it is only at rare intervals that certain data needs to be recorded, a plain sheet or notebook may suffice. Alternatively when a situation is changing rapidly—in fleet location for example—a permanent record is often unsuitable and, instead, movable indicator pins on a suitably prescribed board form the usual method.
In addition to the possible misuse of forms where they are not applicable, there is also the error in the use of forms to compile information which serves no essential purpose. It is' not enough that the resulting data should be merely interesting and for possible use in the future. Labour and stationery are both too expensive, and time too short.
Nevertheless, despite their abuse, suitable forms rightly ' applied are the essential basis of any recording system, in -addition to their legal necessity when prescribed by the several regulations affecting road transport operators.
Memory or Records
There is, however, the distinction between the small and the large operator in that the former can rely on memory for much information which a larger operator is compelled to put on paper. This contrast 'is particularly striking where, as is often the ease, a haulage hilliness has grown up around the activities of one man, or one family.
In a praiseworthy endeavour to reduce the number of essential forms to the absolute minimum, care must be taken not to carry the pruning too far and soldefeat one's first objective—namely, economy. This could, though not necessarily, happen when two or more forms are redrafted into one. The resulting form may be so comprehensive as to be extravagant in use because only a comparatively small portion of it is completed on any one occasion.
This factor has to be balanced against the co-operation obtained from manual staff in the completion and return of one form as opposed to two however simple. For example, some operators have found that combining the weekly vehicle work sheet and the driver's time sheet ensures the prompt return of both essential records on the basis of no sheet—no pay! But organizations large enough to have separate time-record and engineering-record offices may find H52 it inconvenient for both offices to be wanting the same form simultaneously. Time could thus be wasted.
A common and expensive 'error in the drafting of forms is the waste of far too much space in the heading embodying the company's name and, possibly, address. If the form is for internal use only, as the majority invariably is, the company's initials coupled with a reference number in small type set in the left-hand top corner of the form are all that is required. It also simplifies re-ordering of stationery to have a reference number to each different form. otherwise confusion may result.
This suggested saving in space may appear trivial when applied to one form. Yet a comparatively small fleet of 10 vehicles might use well over 2,000 daily log sheets alone a year, making the saving well worth while.
However much one would prefer it otherwise, by the year's end even the ownerdriver will have accumulated many essential forms to which he willl often have occasion to refer. In such cases it assists easy and quick reference to have the distinguishing information—e.g., the date and vehicle number—in the right-hand top corner. Again a trivial point in itself, but with one's best customer waiting on the telephone for confirmation of delivery data, this small attention to detail can prove a useful aid to efficiency.
It is also important to appreciate the circumstances in which a proposal form is to be completed and the urgency
with which the information is required. It would be unreasonable to expect staff engaged in manual activities to fill in details in minute columns that would otherwise be satisfactory when used by clerical staff. A simple record, showing daily oil consumption in pints alongside the appropriate vehicle number, available before the vehicle's return to service the following day has prevented many engine failures in the past. A more elaborate return would fail to do that because it could not be completed in time, although the detailed comparison of oil consumption as between depots, vehicle makes and types, and grades of oil it provided would be of value in determining future policy, as distinct from on-the-spot decisions to take vehicles out of service.
Means for Identification In connection with the use of forms for the recording of transport operation and costs, a few remarks on the numbering of vehicles (and trailers) may be of assistance to newcomers. Nothing would appear easier than the numbering of a vehicle, but here again a little foresight can provide additional benefits. Obviously with only one vehicle the necessity of numbering does not arise, the registration• number being sufficient. But with a fleet of vehicles the continued use of registration numbers becomes cumbersome as a means for distinction and provides no additional information as to the type of vehicle.
Intelligently used, a fleet number can provide both. One can do this, however, only if one avoids the natural tendency to allocate fleet numbers simply in chronological order. A factor of more immediate importance than the age of a vehicle in day-to-day transport operations is its maximum loading capacity._ This factor is always kept in the foreground if blocks of fleet numbers are allocated according to load capacities. For example, 8-tonners might be numbered 11 to 20. 12-tonners 21 to 30 and. 16-tonners 31 to 40.
The criticism that the number of the last vehicle to be purchased would no longer indicate the strength of The fleet is not valid as information in that form is not required.
What is more important is to ensure that every job has been covered by a vehicle of appropriate capacity. As soon as the daily traffic to be moved and the number of vehicles involved become too great to be committed to memory, fleet numbers relative to load capacity can prove a simple means for ensuring the right vehiele in the right place.
Fleet Numbering
Extensions of the system can he made to suit individual operators. If II to 20 remain as the fleet numbers of 8-ton platform lorries, Ill to 120 could be allocated to 8-ton tippers and 211 to 220 for 8-ton vans, should the occasion demand. In that event a single fleet number would provide an operator with three essential items of information in the minimum number of figures. In addition to distinguishing one vehicle from another, it would denote both the :apacity and the body type.
Next week the use of log sheets and weekly sheets will ontinue to be dealt with, but now 1 will conclude with reference to the outcome of a reader's insurance claim. I received an inquiry from a haulier concerning i claim for the loss ot earnings of an eight-wheeled vehicle, presumably following an accident.
Unlike most inquiries regarding loss of earnings, the reader was not asking for advice on how to make a claim so as not to fall into the error of confusing loss of profit as distinct from loss of earnings. In this case the third party's insurers had already accepted both liability and the figures the operator had subsequently submitted.
When it came to Settling the claim, however, only a cheque for a reduced amount was received, the insurers explaining that " tax had been taken into account." In justification, they referred the haulier to a recent High Court decision in which a claim for £37,000 for loss of income by an individual was finally disposed of for £6,000, this latter 'figure being the determined net income 'after allowing for tax.
The haulier considered the insurance company's action entirely wrong because from the amount he originally claimed he had many standing charges to meet. He gave the relative figures as follows: Loss of earnings £41 14s., less fuel, oil, tyres and wages (i.e., running costs not incurred while the vehicle was out.of service), £12 7s. 4d., leaving a total of £29 6s. 8d.
This latter total had been reduced by a sum of £14 6s. 8d., described by the insurance company as "tax deduction." The resulting £15 was then added to the actual costs of repairs to the damaged vehicle, amounting to £24 6s. 2d., giving a final total of £39 bs. 2d.
Before dealing with that bone of contention, namely the item "tax deduction." I would point out that the reader gave no details as to how long the vehicle was off the road, or how he arrived at the figures he quoted, and consequently I was unable to verify them. The inclusion in this instance, of the item " wages " may have been justified, but in making any subsequent claims readers should check this point particularly. Under modern conditions, and especially for short periods, it is unlikely that much, if any, saving of wages would be effected while a vehicle damaged in an accident was being repaired.
Purposeless Transaction
The withholding of tax, in the circumstances quoted, was legally entirely wrong. Any such deductions would in any case have to be paid to the Inland Revenue Commissioners by the insurers, so even if it were permissible, any such transaction would seem purposeless.
Not until the overall financial position of the haulier has become known, would it be possible for tax deductions to be accurately assessed, and often, only then, by the haulier's accountants. Despite the receipt of this cheque for £39 6s. 2d., the haulier might well be suffering a loss, and in any event, this item will still have to be shown in the haulier's books, for which he alone will be responsible for tax purposes.
No deduction of tax appears to have been justified, in this case, and the total amount payable to the haulier for loss of earnings should have been £53 12s. Ind.