Recovery truck shutterstock

Recovery firms are demanding a review of Highways England’s (HE) statutory recovery scheme amid concerns about a lack of financial transparency.

The Association of Vehicle Recovery Operators (AVRO) said the scheme was being “torn to pieces” because of frustration to do with an apparent disparity between how much recovery operators are paid and how much hauliers are charged.

It came as a Freedom of Information request made by MT revealed that HE is receiving just £15 in “administration fees” from each vehicle it arranges to have removed from its road network.

In a written response, HE said: “For vehicles 18-tonne to 44-tonne which are laden, the charges are £4,500. Of this, we would receive £15 and the contractor would receive £4,485.”

However, AVRO chairman Stephen Smith said recovery operators were simply not receiving anything like those amounts. He claimed that a large proportion was instead being lost in management fees.

Read more

“I think there’s a real transparency issue going on here. We have never got to the bottom of where the money actually goes. For example, recovery operators are taking £2,500 instead of £6,000,” he said. “100% should go to recovery operator."

He added: “Operators are turning away from the statutory removal network because of the amount of money being taken out.”

At the same time, hauliers whose vehicles have been recovered under HE’s statutory scheme complain that they are being charged over the odds.

KBC Logistics told MT it was charged £3,000 when its lorry experienced a breakdown on the A14.

Dave Ashford, a director at KBC Logistics, said HE’s scheme allows recovery firms to hide behind HE’s authority.

“It practically encourages the recovery operators to bump up the job,” he said. “Why would they not do so when they would be paid £3,000 for a job that they would normally get £500 for?

“They use the HE authority to impound the vehicle and hold it to ransom; in all honesty that disgusts me.”

MT approached HE’s contracted recovery management firm, FMG, about AVRO’s claims but had not received a response as this article was published.

Image: Shutterstock