Representatives from AVRO, RRRA and RHA/RRG once again met with FMG senior management to discuss progress in their role as National Vehicle Recovery Manager (NVRM) for the Highways Agency (HA).
During the course of the meeting it was established for the first time, certainly with industry representatives, that NVRM contractors are required to operate within a 15 mile radius from their base.
In amongst a number of topics under discussion, there was an issue prompted by the 15 mile radius declaration, concerning members that had been contracted without having yet received any work and are unlikely to receive work simply because they are more than 15 mile radius away from the motorway. Traffic officers only operate on motorways and nearby access routes. Why would FMG assume to contract the VRO in such circumstances? It appears the NVRM have built up a network regardless of whether there will be a recovery situation in a certain area or not. It is a back-up to protect targets if there is a need, and this is quite understandable in their situation, but the main point here is that transparency reduces conflict and confusion.
There was insufficient transparency filtering through generally, unlike promised transparency at the highest level made by both FMG and the HA from the outset, if members had known they were being asked to invest for a contract that did not produce any work they obviously would not have wasted time tendering for the contract but that would not have been helpful to the back-up..
Then there are the members that receive work but in minor portions, this is mainly down to the fact that the police force in that area of the country have decided to retain the vehicle recovery/removal work or at least the greater percentage of the work available. It is a pity these matters could not have been resolved before the project began. Vague assumptions could have been transferred into facts that would have been more helpful to the HA, FMG and more importantly to independent vehicle recovery operators.
A presentation was made by FMG to all delegates providing useful facts and figures of the scheme operation to-date which RO hopes to reproduce for readers in the next issue with the kind permission of FMG management.
It appears since the meeting there may now be an additional problem relating to some contracted operators who have made the investment, have received the work but it is claimed have now been advised they do not have the capabilities to carry out all of the work originally intended and are now faced with a reduced workload. It is quite understandable to avoid presenting work to operators lacking the ability to perform certain tasks, if this is indeed the case, but how was the selection made in the first place?
