AVRO have reportedly approached Chris Mole MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State regarding matters 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, stating that they have to be clear with their answers to not only their members, independent vehicle recovery operators, but also to hauliers and the general motoring public who regularly seek assistance and guidance from the trade association.

 

AVRO claim 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 AVRO state 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 of £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!

 

Viewing the other end of the new scale of charges that affect LGV’s, it is noted 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 would appear 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 addressed to AVRO it was indicated by both Chris Mole MP and Mr Jim Fitzpatrick MP that it is the HA that receive the funds which immediately portrays conflicting views between the MP’s and the HA and adds to the confusion and concern. Indeed it appears through many people’s interpretation that the response and common 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?

 

RO 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 maybe more question’s beyond the aforementioned but it is important to clear up some of these basic questions and observations provided by AVRO, matters can then move on, but equally of course AVRO is keen to see ‘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.’