Winseer:
If a driver is to be liable for damage, then either the agency, haulier or both are under or not insured. If the firms ARE fully insured, and are attempting to recover additional monies from the driver, then this is also Fraud.
Often companies have a significant insurance excess these days. In any event, fraud would only take place if the company misrepresents the extent of any recovery possible from a third-party when making their insurance claim - if a company says it cannot recover losses from the driver, agency or other third-party, but recovers losses without the insurance company’s knowledge, that would be fraud. There is no fraud if the company recovers what it can from its insurers, having told them exactly what it can recover from third-parties. So long as there is full disclosure to the insurance company, it makes no difference if the amount recovered from third-parties, especially through claims in contract against the driver or agency, is greater than the insurance excess.
Winseer:
Wages Theft, Fraud, Breach of Contract, and demanding money with menaces are all examples of laws that may well have been, or are about to be broken here. 
I would imagine for example, that the agency are now going to confiscate outstanding wages towards this so-called bill. 
This would be an example of theft, if it is done without your consent in a signed by YOU contract - ie NOT a contract signed between agency and haulier!
The common law rule of incorporation will almost certainly hold anyone signing a contract to all of its terms, even if they did not read those terms before signing. However, any employer seeking to rely on a clause requiring damage payments should expect that clause to be interpreted contra proferentem, that is, it will be interpreted so far as is possible against the interests of the employer. In other words, a damage clause will be interpreted by the courts in the way that is most favourable to the driver without actually departing from the words of the contract.
Even if there’s no explicit contractual term about damage, drivers who provide their services as a limited company and possibly those who are self-employed may fall foul of the section 13 Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 implied contractual term that services supplied in the course of a business must be carried out with reasonable care or skill. This could leave self-employed drivers (and, for that matters, agencies) liable for driver damage in breach of contract. (My cursory check of case law didn’t dig up any authorities on whether the self-employed are ‘a business’ for the purposes of SGSA 1982, though IÂ suspect they are bearing in mind the definition of ‘business’ in s. 18(1) of the Act includes ‘profession’).
Section 2 of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 invalidates clauses attempting to limit negligence liability in some cases. In other words, clauses attempting to exclude s. 13 SGSA 1982 liability may be of no effect.
The important lesson here is that anyone dealing as a business, possibly including those who are self-employed, may be responsible for negligence damage in breach of contract, even if there is no explicit contractual clause about damage.
Absent explicit contractual terms about damage or a s. 13 SGSA 1982 claim, the company or agency can probably do very little. The common law tort of negligence doesn’t help the company or agency, as damage to the truck would be pure economic loss, which can only be recovered in contract, not in tort.
Winseer:
Claiming money from the driver when a parallel insurance claim has already gone in would be insurance fraud.
Not necessarily. There would, as IÂ said, only be fraud against the insurance company if a false declaration was made about what can be (or has been) recovered from other parties. In any event, the commission of insurance fraud does not negate any claim against the driver.
Winseer:
Breach of contract applies if there is nothing in the contract that says the agency can do this to you directly.
Not every contractual clause is explicit in the contract. As I said earlier, drivers offering their services on any other basis than being employed may find they are ‘a business’ for the purposes of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. Drivers who offer their services as a limited company are definitely ‘a business’ for the purposes of the 1982 Act.
Winseer:
The contract between agency and haulier however is a different matter, and does not apply to the driver. Attempting to make third-party contracts apply to the driver is also attempted fraud & breach of contract combined! 
The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 allows the benefit but not the burden of contracts to be passed to third parties in some cases. Of course, this means that liability for damage cannot be passed on - it’s burden.
Winseer:
Contact the county court and apply for winding up petitions against both companies (warning sent via your solicitor’s letter) if a full refund of stolen wages, your legal overheads, and severance pay (since you won’t be working there again regardless!) is not made within 14 days of receipt of the recorded delivery letter. 
A winding-up petition could only come way down the line. You would have to obtain a county court judgment for the debt owed and attempt to enforce it unsuccessfully (i.e. employ bailiffs) before winding-up was an option. You can’t go for winding-up on the basis that you believe you have a claim - you first have to prove that claim in the eyes of the law.
Winseer:
The poor publicity may well bring the firm down in any case, as who wants to do business with a firm with outstanding debts & a winding up petition before any criminal matters are even considered?
Here you really have gone off into the fanciful. The likelihood of a winding-up petition being obtained is very low - if a firm believes they have a defence, they’ll try it in the County Court. If their defence fails, they’re going to want to settle the CCJ so as not to dent their credit rating too much or run up pointless extra costs in bailiffs fees.
If the firm feels they have no defence, they’re likely to settle rather than letting the matter get to court.
Winseer:
If the agency or haulier want drivers to take on their own liabilities, then they should be paying wages that reflect that.
I’m guessing here that this isn’t the case. 
Strange how adverts still persistently say “6 points ok” when applying for the work in the first place eh?
As always, it is a matter of judgment as to whether to enter into a contract. Not carrying out your “due diligence” before signing could cost you dear.
As with all my posts about the law, these are just the thoughts of a law undergraduate, whose knowledge of contract and tort is limited, and is certainly willing to be corrected if I’m wrong. Switchlogic, if you’re reading, you’ll encounter most of this stuff in Unit 14 of your current course.
) and a lens on the back of the unit, and all these were whilst fully employed.
- I’m sure there are some steadfast honest people out there in positions of power - somewhere…