As such, I thought no daft new regulation or rule emanating from Westminster or Brussels could surprise me any more. However, today I was proved wrong.
In addition to the layer upon layer of legislation with which we are already forced to comply - some understandable, some not - our sector has recently had a brand new type of inspection imposed on us. It involves all of a certain type of vehicle being checked over for much of what is already checked in one or more of the seven inspections each vehicle must go through per year. Except this latest one is quite absurd.
For example, we have had vehicles failed, so effectively taken off the road, for trivia such as a factory-fitted - and therefore already EU compliant - air conditioning knob being 'too sharp', and one inch of a seat belt being slightly frayed, amongst other trifling reasons. Another insurmountable failure was for not producing a certificate for an alteration which has never needed certification before, which we can't now get because the company ceased trading three years ago.
But, as I found out today, one of the other fail criteria is so unutterably crazy as to be almost disturbing.
It doesn't matter that these have been working for seven or eight years for us, the new rule is retrospective so they're off the road. Since we deal with specialist vehicles, all parts are priced at a premium so we were looking at a hefty bill if we are to replace so many pieces of glass - as we were told was the only solution by the testing centre - at around £200 each.
It begged the question why BSI kite-marked glass was no longer considered safe, whereas EU marked glass is. It is only thanks to this curiosity that we found that there is absolutely no difference between the two, it is the same standard of glass ... it just isn't marked correctly. The mark, and not the safety of the glass, is why our vehicles have been deemed unroadworthy. Unless the EU mark is visible on the glass, we cannot trade with that vehicle.
Yes, it's a relief not to have to shell out so much money, but it's still staggering that we are being forced - at pain of the vehicles being banned - to pay £50 per window to have the BSI mark erased, and the EU one etched on.
I've learned my lesson. I shall never again be arrogant as to assume I've seen it all from insane tax-funded bureaucrats.
21 comments:
One supposes that the rest of the EU companies in your trade are forced to religiously comply with these new regs? .... or is it as l fear, just in the UK and it's ever growing number of jobsworths?
We have to leave there is no other option. It's almost enough to make one hope the misinterpretation of the Mayan calendars, for there are three, was correct.
That's a very good question, worth investigating further I think. ;)
Is this another case where the EU reg was intended to apply in countries that have no existing equivalent but the Uk (true to form) have applied them on top? Clearly there would be no point in complaining to the department that introduced these regs so why don't you write to - say - Eric Pickles about it?
This is the concern. many EU countries have plenty of form when it comes to ignoring regulations, aparently with impunity. Just as various government agencies have plenty of form for designing tender processes to heavily favour domestic suppliers - something the UK vigorously refuses to do (Bombadier being the most recent high profile example).
You have to wonder sometimes if the public sector (at any level) has the first idea how an economy actually works given they seem to be actively trying to surpress growth at every turn.
Good suggestion. I'm sure my local and business MPs are heartily sick of me by now.
Indeedy.
Interesting, isn't it, that this is the same public sector which is opposing 'cuts' and saying that the coalition isn't doing enough to create growth. Erm ...
Transport Rants, let me join in as I work in the same sector
A factory in cumbria had their production line go down, the company was losing vast sums of money being idle so we were contracted to collect the neccessary parts from the supplier and get them delivered ASAP.
En route our 6 month old immaculate sprinter was stopped by those lovely chaps from VOSA. The inspection revealed that one of the rear brake light bulbs had blown. Not a problem you'd think as it has two more, alas this is VOSA where officialdom and stupidity are mandatory, and the vehicle was slapped with a prohibition notice meaning it couldn't be moved until the bulb was replaced.
I got the officious arse wipe on my drivers phone, can we take the van to the nearest petrol station, buy a bulb and return back for you to check. No absolutely not was his answer.
So I had to ring a taxi, wait for it to arrive, collect my driver, take him the 7 miles to the nearest garage, buy a new bulb, take him back to the van and fit it before numb nut brain was happy.
It cost me about £50 in time and expense, added around 2 hours to the job, but cost the poor factory tens of thousands of pounds over a bloody bulb.
I expect this (and other nonsenses like it) has something to do with my brother losing his job. He works - until next Thursday - for a small delivery business with contracts that take him all over Britain. However his boss can no longer afford to employ all his drivers, so he, being first in, is first out.
Nothing to do with “cuts” or “austerity” (hah!), and - I'm quite sure - everything to do with overtaxation, overgovernment, and overregulation. Well done, everyone. Knighthoods all round!
He was obviously an imbecile.
So he's given you a PG9 notice and rated the severity as 'immediate' rather than 'delayed'. There's no way a brake light shouldn't have been afforded the 10 days to fix it, let alone a few minutes.
Please say you raised merry hell with VOSA?
I think you'll probably find that all the EU countries already have the mandated E8 stamp on their windows, but for the UK market they are marked with the kite mark because that is (was) the UK requirement. Brussels has now decided that the UK must have the same mark and the jobsworths are wetting themselves with excitement because it means they won't be made redundant next month.
Alas no, don't get me wrong I wanted to, but been in this game over 25 years and have learnt you can't win against officialdom, any resistance means a little flag on your vehicles and then they get pulled all the time.
Fair point. You're far more pragmatic than me, your blood pressure is probably more stable too. :)
Sympathies to your brother but, yes, it may very well have something to do with it. We are forever in the situation in being able to take 10 to 20 more staff on (that or reward our current staff more generously) if it weren't for the astounding legislation we are forced to pay for. And I'd estimate that 60%-70% of it has nothing whatsoever to do with safety or I'd agree with it.
Or ... you give them so much resistance that indeed they do flag you ... but with instructions to leave well alone. May l also suggest you use recorders should your drivers be stopped. We've found officials tend to behave when they know they are being recorded.
Why don't you just ignore them, carry on and get THEM to prove that the things they've pointed out are unsafe?
I would imagine all they need to, is to show that you are in breach of a rule rather than prove it is unsafe to be in said breach.
So the E8 standard is identical to the old Kitemark, yet VOSA are serving notices because the markings aren't right? That's hardly a major contribution to road safety.
You're probably right. In fact almost certainly right. That's what really boils my piss about all these petty rules and regulations. Nothing to do with benefit to anyone, and everything to do with ticking the correct boxes. Meanwhile, the poor sap trying to run a business is compelled to perform utterly pointless and very expensive exercises just to satisfy the dead minds of the otherwise-unemployable jobsworths who exist only to justify the punitive taxes taken by force from those same business owners.
Yes, that's correct. I guess that this E-mark rule was shovelled in along with the other ones which were vaguely based on safety. Then it is just the regulation which exists and it's something which we have to get our vehicles past or VOSA will come down on us if they are stopped for a roadside check.
The fines, by the way, are hefty and can be applied per vehicle for which we are licensed, not just a fine for the vehicle concerned. For example, if licensed for 25 vehicles and the fine is £1,000, the total payable might be £25,000.
Dear Tirgerr
A formal written approach is worth it, if only to establish that whether or not the oaffishial acted correctly - phrase as a question - 'please confirm ...'. If he did not, he will be the one with a black mark and if he gets enough will be sent for 'retraining', or promoted to somewhere where he can do less harm. If he was 'korrekt', there is scope for questioning the policy with VOSA, your friendly, useful MP and on trade fora. There ought not to be a backlash from VOSA. Whatever the result, there will be a paper record of the matter.
Further, the customer may be able to sue for consequential loss if it is proved that oaffishial acted incorrectly.
An alternative may be for the driver simply to drive off to the nearest garage. If it came to court, before a jury I am certain the verdict would be 'not guilty'. Unfortunately our government is abolishing jury trials so that common sense will not be part of the judicial process.
A set of replacement bulbs, and having drivers check each others' vehicles before vital runs a la pilots' pre-flight checks
could avoid a repetition.
DP
Post a Comment