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
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208 
Can I claim for loss of earnings?
Page 46
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
I bought a truck in January and it caught fire a week later, possibly due to an electrical fault, while I was sitting in the cab at Doncaster Services. The unit was destroyed, but fortunately I was unhurt. Although the insurance has met the cost of its purchase I am still 24,000 out of pocket because of interest payments on the loan and an insurance excess of 2750. As I am an ownerdriver I also suffered 25,000 loss of earnings for the month in which I had no vehicle. Is there any way of reclaiming this money?
Steve Oliver Owner-driver, Cu Durham While we cannot give a definite answer to this question without expert evidence from an engineer as to the cause of the fire, you might well have rights of redress against the supplier and the finance company.
You would need to establish with the engineer whether the fault was an intrinsic design fault or a fault/defect which pre-existed the sale. If it was either then you might have a claim.
You will need to produce evidence of the losses, such as invoices. You will also need to show how much you would have earned if it was not for the loss of your vehicle—you might need to produce past accounts to back up your figures or produce otherstandard figures from an organisation such as the RHA.
You will also need to show that you did all you could to limit your tosses. Was it reasonable to be without a vehicle for a month before replacing it? Was there any other work you could have done?
Your rights against the finance company depend partly on the type of finance you took out, but this might give you a defence to the claim for the £4,000 additional interest charge.
I suggest you contact a solicitor to help you make the claim in the correct fashion. Your insurance company might be persuaded to help you with the cost of a claim to recover their outlay.
When is performance pay OK?
Is it legal to base drivers pay purely on the performance of their vehicles? I recently left a company where the wage structure was 18% of the truck's total earnings plus 22 per day meal money (when not on a night out) and 219 per night out. The 18% was minus tax and national insurance contributions.
Driver, name and address supplied
Performance of a vehicle can mean different things. Ha driver is paid in such a way that road safety is endangered —for example, if a driver is encouraged to drive further, faster and heavier in a way that safety is compromised, this is illegal.
There are marry diverse ways in which drivers can be paid which provide an incentive without compromising road safety. The more the arrangement might be seen to jeopardise road safety the more there is a risk of prosecution. Any enforcement agency such as the police or VOSA would have to show beyond doubt how safety was being compromised to secure a conviction.
Just because a benefit (over and above ordinary pay) is provided does not mean ills unlawful. Many employers provide all sorts of benefits which are totally lawful yet reward drivers for their efficiency and loyalty. Some reward fuel efficiency; others pay 'cab bonuses' for the prompt filling in/handing in of charts, daily defect reports and other paperwork; and others provide bonuses for being proactive in the reporting/identification of defects, making deductions in such bonuses where a driver fails to spot a defect which should be noted on a daily check.
Some of these payments may be termed 'holiday bonuses' but in reality reward general efficiency and loyalty without compromising safety. They are entirely lawful.
The linking of pay to a vehicle's earnings does not in itself mean something unlawful. However, the more an employer encourages a driverto increase vehicle earnings at the risk of safety, the more he risks compromising the basic rule that no arrangement should actually or potentially compromise road safety.
Operators should steer well clear of anything suspect as there are numerous ways of rewarding employees without acting unlawfully.
Police let smoking vehicle continue
One of my drivers had to pull onto the hard shoulder on the motorway when the engine on his recently purchased Scania developed a fault and began smoking.
The police arrived and issued a PG9 for excessive smoke and impaired vision. They then escorted him to a Scan ia dealer in Southampton who could not find where the smoke was coming from.
The vehicle was carrying 38,000 gallons of rum but despite this the police let him drive, even though the vehicle continued smoking.
What would have happened if this had caught fire? Should not the driver have been allowed to have the vehicle towed away? Were the police being heavy handed?
Name and address supplied, Wales
More details are required here, hut the police had a dutiyto clear the motorway as quickly and as safely as possible, not least to provide a safe road for other users.
It was not incorrect to issue a prohibition — there is no reason to believe either the driver or operator was al fault, but the vehicle was not roadworthy.
The police then appeared to act responsibly by escorting the vehicle to clearthe motorway (and beyond) and were generally helpful, having made the decision that it would be safe for the vehicle to proceed.
The only proviso would be that if the condition of the vehicle was such that the police could not reasonably ask the driverto drive on then he might properly refuse to do so on the basis that he feared for his safety and the safety of others.
The police would then no doubt have taken alternative action.
Had the vehicle exploded or otherwise been damaged by fire no doubt an insurance claim might have been made against the police insurance policy by your insurers (for aggravating the damage) but this whole scenario would become a very complex claim between the parties.
On the basis of the information given, one wonders what legitimate criticism can be made against the police.