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 
Cost rises—
Page 9
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
service falls
What kind of organisation is it that provides a service that has recently generated more complaints from readers than Commercial Motor can remember in a long, long time—and then imposes a 16% price rise? Presumably the same one that's failed to grasp why hauliers are so exasperated with its administrative shortcomings. Step forward the Department of Transport. Its proposal to ramp up 0-licence fees comes squarely under the heading "add insult B to injury A'. It's bad enough that operators will have to pay more for 0-licence administration. What really rubs salt into the wound is that the hike comes at a time when service levels within the Traffic Area Network are getting so much flak, not least as a result of the much-vaunted TAN2i computerised 0-licence system. CM has been taking a stream of calls from hauliers complaining of long delays in processing licence applications and variations. Is this the same TAN2r that was going to end the 0-licensing paper chase? It's certainly the system the industry needs—and wants. Unfortunately our hopes were raised by introduction dates that have slipped, slipped and slipped again. We are happy to accept that when it's finally operating t00%, TAN2i will provide 21st century administration, permitting rapid licence changes and instant verification any time of the day
or night. But it's not working yet.
And in CM s
opinion introducing a fee increase before it does shows woeful insensitivity at the very least. It
certainly does not
constitute "cus
tomer care". Brian Weatherley.