19 August 2009
Chris Mole MP
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State
Great Minster House
76 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DR
Dear Mr Mole,
Thank you for your letter dated 14 August 2009 relating to the Highways Agency (HA) and the prescribed charges for vehicle removal, storage and disposal under section 99 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984
Unfortunately, your response leaves many questions unanswered and we believe ultimately we have to be clear with our answers to not only our members, independent vehicle recovery operators, but also to hauliers and the general motoring public who regularly seek assistance and guidance from our organisation.
We will attempt to clarify our concerns; failing this we suggest a meeting to discuss the issues in greater detail, at a time that is convenient for your goodself.
When the statutory charge was introduced in the mid eighties and applied by the police, 99% of the removals related to cars or motorbikes causing an obstruction or significant distraction to other road users. Drivers or owners of larger casualty vehicles would make their own arrangements. The interpretation of the Regulations and the circumstances of their use have changed dramatically since the introduction, thereby affording opportunities for some and injustices for many others.
Prior to new statutory charges coming into effect 1 October 2008 there was a failure to carry out a review of the charges for a period of 15years (1993) therefore payment for the removal of a vehicle remained at £105 for the whole of that period. Pressure was brought on Government due to the increased costs to the vehicle recovery operators and this gave way to the statutory charge eventually being raised.
In more recent years there has been a deduction from the amount £105 of between £15 and £20 claimed by the police or their managing agent for administration purposes. This meant an operator would receive on average around £85. Today vehicle recovery operators on Police schemes receive on average £130 per job whereas vehicle recovery operators (sometimes identical operators) receiving the exact same work via exactly the same Act via the HA only receive £58 per job, 55.4% less, yet with enhanced contractual requirements!
If we look at the other end of the new scale of charges that affect LGV’s, we note using a factual sample, that a LGV belonging to a major retailer was involved in a road traffic accident. They
were charged £6000 by the HA for all of the work associated with the recovery and removal of the casualty vehicle, the operator received £3500 for completing both phases of the work. The retailer wanted to know why he had to pay an additional £2500, what was the payment for and what happened to the money, accordingly to the public this appears to be a very thinly disguised Tax as it is seen that the Government is directly “profiting” from their misfortune?
The HA senior management claim they do not benefit from the residual monies, their Chief Executive stated at a public meeting that the HA do not receive any money from the statutory charges, they say the money goes to the Secretary of State, the very department that approved the charges in the first place after a review that was funded by the HA, and it was the HA that agreed the new charges in consultation with the Home Office, the HA being the very same organisation that appears to be the main beneficiary?
In recent correspondence it is indicated by both yourself and Mr Jim Fitzpatrick MP that it is the HA that receive the funds which immediately portrays conflicting views between yourselves and the HA and adds to the confusion and concern. Indeed it would appear from our interpretation of your response and our understanding of the situation, that a scheme previously wholly operated by the Police was at least £10m per annum cheaper than the current HA scheme. It seems also an admission that they are taking and using the £10m that was previously paid to vehicle recovery operators under Police schemes.
We understood a budget had been allocated by the Government for the whole of the HA vehicle recovery project on the SRN and this was ongoing with the main target focused on reducing road traffic congestion on the SRN, this included the cost to the HA of a NVRM, so why are additional monies being taken to fund operations that were included in the HA budget for the project?
There is considerably more to investigate beyond the aforementioned but maybe if we can clear up some of these basic questions and observations we can move on, but of course our aim is to install appropriate rates of payment for the people who actually provide the vehicles, equipment and expertise to clear the roads efficiently and effectively, they are the ones operating in one of the most dangerous workplaces in today’s modern work force.
We look forward to your attention to what we see as a serious matter with the information that is currently available.
Yours sincerely,
Gary Satchwell
AVRO Chief Executive.
