Not So Bad After All
Page 22
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
By
S. T. R.
pUBLICATION of the article I • wrote last week about the Government haulage scheme has brought clarification of the position; the doubtful points have been cleared up and I can state that, in view of what I have now learned, the foundations of those misgivings which hauliers had and which constituted the subjects of my article, no longer exist.
A good deal of misunderstanding can be eliminated by setting out the fundamental underlying principles of the scheme, in so far as the relations between the owners of the goods, hauliers and the Minister are,concerned.
The Minister and the owners are the two principals in the contract of carriage of goods. The conditions of e carriage, as laid down in RH/D/22, are those on which the Minister accepts traffic. They are drawn up, not, as seems to be imagined by so many of my haulier friends, with whom I have discussed them, to shift the onus of claims upon the carrier, but to limit the scope of any claim and actually to relieve the haulier of many of the risks and responsibilities which he has become accustomed to shoulder.
So long as the carrier's own procedure is proper, in respect of the care of his vehicles, control of hls staff, and management of his vehicles—is correct and businesslike and in accordance with the terms of his agreement with the Ministry—he is covered, and the Ministry takes the responsibility, Knowledge of Conditions All necessary care is being taken to ensure that everyone from whom the Ministry accepts traffic under this scheme is fully informed of the conditions of carriage (RH/D/22) and, subject to one proviso only, no claims for damage arising from conditions outside those defined will lie against anyone, certainly not against the. carrier. The proviso is that the carrier must not himself be guilty of negligence. Claims within the conditions lie against the Minister, although they may, for convenience and celerity, be passed through the carrier,
In detail and dealing briefly with the principal points raised in the article:—
First, as regards risk of large and unacceptable bills for repairs, made necessary because the Minister has despatched a vehicle upon a journey which the carrier, using his discretion, would not have considered wise, by reason of the condition of the vehicle.
That situation will not arise because
a the carrier will be allowed to use his discretion in such matters.
Moreover, as regards the actual cost of the " repair," the wording of the clause, "a reasonable Charge for . . repairing or servicing the vehicles . . . " is intended, by use of the word " reasonable," to guard against any excessive bills foe repairs. It is a method of dealing with such matters already in vogue, and operating quite satisfactorily.
As regards loaned drivers, the difficulty raised can be got over by the borrowing haulier paying the borrowed man his wages for the period during which he is on loan.
The complaint that the Minister takes 95 per cent, of any revenue from a load carried by a hired vehicle, yet disclaims all responsibility for it, is met by the response that• after all the vehicle is being paid for all the time by the Minister; furthermore, the hauler is picking up the load himself, it is his load, not the Minister's.
The objection to point-to-point mileage being reckoned according to the A.A. handbook is met in the conditions, wherein it is stated that detours wifl be allowed and recompense made where reasonable explanations are given.
Payments to be Prompt Deductions from accounts will be made only after agreement as to the sums involved, in which case, of course, the carrier has no reason to object; also they will come into the month following the performance of the work carried out.
Incidentally, the Minister is taking steps to ensure prompt payment of accounts, no light matter in an undertaking of this size, and it is anticipated that, In general, settlement will be made within 19 days.
As regards retention of receipt notes, this cannot be avoided and is, in any case, the usual practice of clearing houses. Operators are recommended to provide for duplicate notes.
There is no real need foe a definition of cubic capacity of any vehicle. Any merchant who takes the risk of persuading a driver to accept an overload is himself breaking the condition of contract and he, not only the carrier, will suffer if damage results.
The limitation of the liability of the Minister under the conditions of contract, to £200 per gross ton or £3,000 per load is, in reality, not a matter which concerns the haulier so long as he himself is not negligent. If a load exceeding that value be placed upon a hired vehicle and lost the limit of claim is £3,000. No claim lies against the carrier so long as be cannbt be proved to have been negligent. If the haulier fears a claim under " negligence " he should insure accordingly.
The Minister's repudiation of liability for damage to goods after they have left the tailboard of the lorry is. again, devised to protect the haulier. It is appreciated that in many cases the driver will exceed such instructions at the request of the consignor. That he does so does not make the carrier liable for any damage to the goods!
The problem of claims for injury to drivers or other persons engaged in this work of unloading can be solved by the inclusion of a suitable claim in the W.C.A. insurance policy. I understand that its costs next to nothing.
As regards what was described as onerous insurance for casual haulage, there is definitely a misunderstanding here, on the part of my haulier friends. In the clause dealing with this matter, wherein it is laid down that the haulier must pay a premium at the rate of 3 per cent, of the amount of the contract, appear the words: " If the Carrier holds an existing Goods in Transit Policy it will be for him to take up, with the Insurer issuing that policy, the question whether any return of premium is due to him."
That has been interpreted as meaning that the haulier should obtain. from his Goods in Transit insuran-e company, a proportion of his premium relating to the two or three days during which this special cover had applied—an infinitesimal amount, That is incorrect. If the carrier has in force a Goods in Transit policy giving the cover the Minister requires, such as will be afforded by a good policy of that kind, the carrier will be able to obtain a refund of the total amount expended on this special policy. There is no other practicable way of ensuring that appropriate cover is available for these casual loads.
Need for the Scheme On the general question as to the real need for any such interference with the industry, having in mind that most hauliers' vehicles appear to be working to capacity, there is this to be said.
In the background there is all the while the probability of an emergency arising. Without some such organization, and a nucleus of vehicles such as will thus be available, the time-lag between the creation of this emergency and the provision of vehicles to cope with it will be excessive.
An important function will be to co-ordinate the work of the several port " pools," and another is to sz • that there is a minimum of empty running.
It is in no way intended to interfere with the. internal affairs of any haulier.
The cost of administration will be small and some haulers, who put several vehicles into the organization. will be able to cut their own overheads, chiefly for the reason that they will not have to find their own loads, whilst their accountancy will be. much simplified.