OPINIONS and QUERIES
Page 41
Page 42
Page 43
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
An Ideal Case for the Oil Engine? Forming a Holiday Touring Club. When Trade Plates Must Not Be Employed Should a Driver or Owner Produce the Insurance Certificate? Unsatisfactory Hire-Purchase Transaction. A Common Problem
Transporting Milk by Tractor-trailer.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.,
[34991 Sir,—In your issue of August 11th appeared an estimate of the cost of transporting, by tractortrailer, 1,500 gallons of milk daily for a distance of 1,300 miles per week. May I be allowed to suggest that here is an ideal case for the oil engine?
Taking the estimate figures as they are, with the exception of replacing the 2d. per mile for petrol by 0.5d. per mile for oil, the gross profit would be at least £18 instead of £10 per week.
The figure given for depreciation (approximately £280 per year) will stand good also for the oil-enginecl vehicle. With the tractor-trailer type of vehicle the oil engine will, with this load, do at least 10 miles per gallon, and more probably 12-14 m.p.g.
You will possibly remember that the first oil lorry to run in England happened also to be a 1,500-gallon tanker (carrying petrol), so that I am sure of my figures on past experience. Apart from this, the latest oil vehicles do a much better consumption than we did in those days.
I cannot conceive of a more ideal proposition than this for an oil engine, which stands for economy and reliability.
It should also be borne in mind that the present price of petrol is far below the economic limit owing to the terrific competition caused by over-production, and such conditions cannot hold for long. Leeds. W. H. GODD-P.RD.
A Holiday Club Coaching Scheme.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL -MOTOR.
[3500] Sir,—May I have your opinion on the following?
I am an operator with one coach. Last year I ran, at intervals, daily tours from London to the coast and along the coast from point to point, returning homeward by a different route. I have asked for licences for a larger number of routes, but the Commissioner will allow only what I ran last year.
Can I form what might be called a holiday touring club, in which the public may became members by subscribing the amount equivalent to the fare for the chosen tour of that day? Would I be contravening the law it I then run the coach on these tours, as a contract carriage, carrying private parties who have booked as members of the club for that day? This would avoid the need for a road service licence and the restrictions of an express carriage. Police consent for the coach is already Held. .TAMES E. Wnso London, S.W.11.
[We consider it extremely unlikely that you would be able to overcome the need for a road service licence by forming a "holiday club" as the "club" would apparently consist on each occasion of those members of the public who wished to travel on the particular tour which was being run on the day for which the "club" was formed.
The Road Traffic Act provides that where persons are carried in a motor vehicle for any journey in consideration of separate payments made by them, whether to the owner of the vehicle or to any other person, the vehicle in which they are carried shall be deemed to be a vehicle carryingi passengers at separate fares, whether the payments are solely in respect of the journey or not.
It is true that there is a proviso that a vehicle used on a special occasion for the conveyance of a private party shall not be deemed to be a vehicle carrying passengers for hire at separate fares by reason only that the members of the party have made separate payments which cover their conveyance by that vehicle on that occasion, but we consider it unlikely that a party formed by yourself from members of the public would be held to be a "private 'party."
We do not consider that a vehicle which was used in the manner suggested in your letter Would be held to be a contract carriage.—En.]
A Case Where Trade Plates Must Not be Used.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[3501] Sir,—We shall be glad to know whether there would be any objection on the part of the licensing authority to our using general trade plates occasionally on a car carrying fare-paying passengers. It should be remembered that the cost of the plates is considerably more than the ordinary hackney licence on the car and that the plates would be insured for passengers—fare-paying or otherwise. Must a car licensed as a hackney carriage be passed specially, if it picks up separate fare-paying passengers? The car is booked as a whole from an agency, but the passengers have separately booked their fares at the agency and may have to be picked up separately at their homes, although they would all be travelling to the same city. PLATES. London, S.E.5.
[The regulations which deal with the use of trade licences expressly provide that a general trade licence shall not at any time be used upon a vehicle which is being employed for the conveyance of passengers for profit Of reward.
In reply to the second paragraph of your letter,, we would point out that, apart from the case of a private party which is carried on a special occasion, every vehicle which is used for carrying passengers for lure at separate fares is either a stage carriage or an express carriage under the terms of the Road Traffic Act.—En.] The Production of Insurance Certificates.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR,
[3502] Sir,—We should like your comments upon a recent experience of ours.
To obviate loss and defacement we do not allow drivers to carry their insuronce certificates, but produce them at a police station upon demand. Recently one of our men was stopped with a request for his certificate. This not being forthcoming he was handed a small buff slip stating that the certificate must be produced at the police station within five days.
The writer took the certificate into the police station. It was examined by an inspector who knew him as the proprietor and not the driver, and stated that the police had very definite instructions that the certificate must be produced by the driver of the vehicle, and the inspector would not accept the production as legal but demanded that our man be either given time off to take the document down himself or that he should do so in his spare time. The inspector was told that he was making himself, the law and the police force ridiculous, but, as usual, red tape won the day, instead of common sense.
The only object we can imagine is that by petty persecution the police hope to be able to force the certificates to be carried and thus save themselves trouble in recording the fact that they were subsequently produced. If the certificate be carried on the vehicle and lost we may be liable to a fine, since it might not be possible to secure a copy from the insurance company in time to produce it in five days, especially if the driver happens to be two or three days before returning to the garage and reporting
the. incident. DISGUSTED. London, S.E.5.
[We would point out that section 40 (1) of the Road Traffic Act expressly provides that "if the driver of a motor vehicle within five days after the date on which the production of his certificate was so required produces the certificate in person at such police station as may have been specified by him at the time when its production was required" he shall not be convicted for failing to produce his certificate. It is, therefore, not the fault of the inspector that he requires your driver to attend personally for the purpose of producing his certificate, as he is only carrying out the duty which is imposed upon him by the Act of seeing that the certificate is produced personally E The same applies to the production of a driving licence, which, if not produced when required, may be produced in person within five days. The Members of Parliament who were watching the interests of motorists on the Committee of the House of Commons which considered the wording of the Act in detail before it was finally passed, strongly urged that it should be sufficient if the certificate, or licence, were produced by someone on behalf of the driver if be could not attend personally, but the Minister of Transport refused to accept: the amendments which were put forward. Consequently, it is the Minister, and not the police, who is really responsible for your driver having to attend in person at the police station.—En.]
An Unsatisfactory Hire-purchase Transaction.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[3503] Sir,—,Some 14 months ago I entered into a. hire-purchase agreement covering a 5-ton lorry. The vehicle in question was sold by a fairly well-known concern as a " rebuilt " lorry—painted, etc., as new, and as suitable for journey work. 1.Croub1e (mostly serious and costly) occurred on its first and all subsequent journeys. After the writer had spent much money and considerable valuable time on repairs, etc., this vehicle was agreed to be unfit for its work and the company took the vehicle back and supplied another " rebuilt " priced X325, plus £125, arrears in instalments and for certain repairs that particular concern had done on the first lorry—making the price of the new vehicle £450.
This vehicle turned out to be exactly as its predecessor, giving trouble on its first and all subsequent journeys. The writer spent every penny he possessed in an endeavour to keep the vehicle running, to such an extent that he got into financial difficulties, which resulted in his home being sold up. He nevertheless still persevered until absolutely unable to carry on any more. During the whole of this period he was never short of a day's work—on the contrary, four contracts
B28
were lost owing to delays caused by trouble with the vehicle. Every expense and day's working have been recorded, and although the exact final figures are not yet at hand, an estimate sends as follows:—
Cost to repairs, replacements, etc. ...
Income lost through vehicle being under repair ... ... £740 Now that the vehicle is again behind in instalments the concern in question has ordered me to return the lorry and has threatened my guarantor with proceedings to recover arrears. The company has lost nothing—it still has the lorry —the owner has lost everything, his home, respect and now his livelihood.
Would it be possible to sue this company for cost of repairs, etc., and loss of work on the grounds of misrepresentation of the vehicle? I have abundant proof as to the time spent on the lorry and I have done everything possible to keep it running, at very great personal discomfort to myself and family. My last contract was for carrying beer for a very
reputable firm of brewers. DISSATISFIED. London, E.7.
[From the facts stated in your letter it appears that you have been badly treated by the hire-purchase company, as we cannot understand why they should have added the arrears of instalments on the first vehicle to the price of the second one, in view of the fact that it was agreed that the first one was unfit for the work for which it was supplied, but it is probably too late for that point to be raised. The question as to whether you are in a position to sue the company in respect of the second vehicle depends to a large extent upon the terms of the hire-purchase agreement, as it may be so worded as to exclude any war ranty by the Company as to the condition of the vehicle, but, subject to that point, it appears that you would be entitled to sue them for the cost of the repairs, and for the profit which you would have made if the vehicle had been in a proper condition. The best course would be for you to put the whole of the facts before a solicitor, who could advise you after con sidering the whole of the documents, as it might be that he would he able to affect an amicable settlement without having to commence proceedings. Alternatively, if he
advised that the case was one in which you were entitled to start an action, the issue of a writ might lead to a settlement.
If you are unable to find a solicitor who is prepared to take the matter up on your behalf, we would suggest that you should communicate with the Secretary of the Poor Persons Committee, Law Society, Chancery Lane, London, W.C.2, with a view to your being allowed to sue as a poor person, in which case you would be allocated a solicitor who would take the case up on your behalf.—En.]
Carrying Pea Pickers in a Lorry.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[3504] Sir,—During the pea season we use our Leyland lorry for carrying the pickers to and fro, a distance of six miles; they ride free of charge and work for us. We pay the agricultural road tax of 125 and a comprehensive insurance policy for goods Carrying. Can you kindly say if we are within the
law under the 1931 Act? A. S. MEE. Horndon-on-the-Hill.
[The agricultural road tax of £25 to which you refer in your letter applies only to vehicles which are registered in the name of a person engaged in agriculture and "used solely by that person for the purpose of the conveyance of the produce of, or articles required for the purposes of, the agricultural land which he occupies, and for no other purpose." It is, therefore, questionable whether you are entitled to use a vehicle which is so licensed for the purpose of conveying pickers to your land. That is a point which you should take up with the county council. With regard to the question of insurance, it is clear that yon_ must notify the insurance company that the vehicle is used for conveying the pickers, and obtain their written agreement to hold you covered under the policy while the vehicle is being so used. We understand that the vehicle is insured as being a vehicle used only for carrying goods, and if that is so the company would be entitled to repudiate liability if an aecident occurred while the pickers were being carried, as the vehicle would be used contrary to the terms of the policy, or to the answers which you gave in the proposal form.
The question as to whether it is necessary in order to comply with the terms of the Road Traffic Act that the third-Party policy should cover liability to the pickers depends upon the terms under which they are employed. The Act provides that the third-party policy shall not be required to cover liability in respect of the death arising out of and in the course of his employment of a person in the employment of the person insured by the policy, or of bodily injury sustained by such person arising out of and in the course of his employment ; it also provides that the policy need not cover liability to a person carried on
the vehicle, except in the case of a vehicle in which persons are carried for hire or reward, or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of insurance. If, therefore, the employment of the pickers commences when they are taken into your vehicle so that they are in your employment during the journey, it appears that it is not necessary that the third-party policy should cover your liability to them, but if, on the other hand, the pickers do not commence to be employed by you until they arrive at your fields, it appears to be necessary for the policy to cover them. The question as to whether the pickers are employed during the journey or not is a difficult one which may depend upon the time from which they are paid, i.e., whether or not they are paid as from the time they enter the vehicles or whether the time for calculating payment does not start until they arrive at your field. You would be well advised to take the matter up with your insurance company and, if possible' to arrange for your policy to cover any liability towards the pickers, because you would be liable to them if they should be injured owing to the negligence of your drivers, unless you had a definite agreement that they were carried at their own risk.—Emj