this isnt new had a firm try this crap in the 80s …problem was when people got tired they made mistakes especialy when it was hrs that turned into days when running irish.from s england pick ups…
i was told about it on a ferry that the boss was fed up wae broken mirrors ,bodies scratched/damaged by low branches etc …i avoided the yard for a few weeks and was finally caught and told to sign the you pay for damage paperwork or move on ,well i said give me a week to think about it …2 weeks later i was wi another firm ,. f them thats what insurance is for if a driver has lots o at fault accidents deal with it.
kr79:
Sadly hear of a few firms doing this and worse still drivers agreeing to it. The current government realy seems to be getting the working classes to tug the forelock again.
No, that’s a result of a recession, over 2.5 million unemployed and when times are good as they are now in haulage, muppets like those on this forum who see nothing wrong with unloading on break etc to get the job done.
Emplyers can apply pressure on employees to pay for damage done, Thats a given.
However due to the unfair contract terms act its unlikely that they could act upon it. Reason being that the employee feels pressured into coughing up or face losing their job.
Due to the amount of variables, parking tickets, minor damage etc its impossible to be definitive.
But say you wrote off your truck and your employer expected payment for this or the sack it would not be unreasonable to cut your losses and refuse to pay. If your employer then deducted the cost from your final payment a small claims action would be succesfull + costs based on the contract being formed under duress.
But don’t take my word for it, seek independant legal advice.
That said if my boss told me I would have to cough up he would be waking up with a crowd round him as I would consider my violent solution to this issue as a satisfactory solution.
Threads like this often make me wonder if truck drivers have been swallowed up by political correctness. Perhaps we need to assert ourselves a bit more, perhaps its time to not take a shafting and stand their dothing our caps like our predeccesors who have buggered the job up working for crap money and long hours and then have the barefaced cheek to come on this forum moaning about the current generation ■■■■■■■ the job up.
The dCPC and driver shortage are about to usher in a new age of higher wages, lets not sit back and take this crap, value yourselves brothers and sisters because if you don’t then no one else will.
bigmiler:
I think I might need to go and see my local ministry depot and bring this to there attention
0300 123 9000 Follow through to Enforcement (option 7 i seem to remember) and then anonymous report (option 1 if i remember) 
no need to go to a checkpoint, quick call and its job done
B…
rob22888:
In what other profession are you expected to cough up and pay for accidentally damaging equipment?
Farm contracting! your stupidity your cost.
TBH I remember when driving a truck was a mans’ job, maybe not the trucks and conditions of today but…
This kind of contract would simply never have seen the light of day.
Lorry drivers in the day would have said “FU2” or words to that effect.
puntabrava:
rob22888:
In what other profession are you expected to cough up and pay for accidentally damaging equipment?Farm contracting! your stupidity your cost.
But farm contracting is a business isn’t it ?
Sadly I think this situation has come about due to some drivers who have a its-not-my-truck-so-screw-it attitude and simply don’t care if they prang it off a fence or scrape it on hedges etc.
Whilst I don’t agree with firms wanting to make drivers pay for damages,I can see why they would.
My 2p… for starters the OP stated “neglect” which is almost impossible to prove - so on that basis it sounds more like a yellow card warning rather than an executable policy. Because it states neglect, it would be incumbent on the owner of the property to take proper legal action and prove that accusation to be a fact - before legally being able to deduct money from the accused’s wages - two simple points of law - both of which would cost more than a couple of hundred quid to impose.
Then there is the other issue of employer responsibility on issues such as training. Any employer attempting to implement such a draconian policy upon its staff could cost itself a small or large fortune, should the case ever come to court and the court decide that the employer is guilty of ignoring its responsibility on training etc.
Anyone who agrees with this principle is lacking something upstairs. People who own companies can be said to make the returns because they take the risk on collateral damage and expenditure. Financial risk. An employee goes to work and provides a service for reward. Normally limited return relatively speaking. If you agree to sign up for financial risk that is quite large relative to projected return of 12.5 percent monthly return (£250 against say a gross £2000 monthly figure) then you’d be quite right to expect the hay day pay when the sun shines. But you won’t get it. It’s another case of off setting liabilities.
To the poster that mentioned companies being fed up of damage caused by foreign labour perhaps said companies would do well to take responsibility for the quality of staff they employ regardless of origin rather than penalise the entire workforce by offsetting liability that they as an employer should shoulder.
A place I used to work at decided to change our contracts, the director gave everyone a copy of the new one said sign that and give it back to me.
I hung on to my copy for a week, when he asked about it I said I never sign a legal document without my soliciter looking it over and I would get back to him.
Couple of days later I saw the director and said contracts not bad but couple of things I have issues with,we disscused them and he amended my contract.
Years later when the company closed we were having a Chinwag and he brought up abut me taking my contract to a soliciter,
I
Laughed told him I hadn’t but didn’t like his attitude when he said sign here.
Hi had a now defunked agency try this one on insisting that i needed to pay a share of insurance/ drivers neg
until i pointed out that it was the agencys responabillity to do so not the drivers and any such payments are met out of the agency fee
not the driver their business their cost
we have it written in to the contracts driver pay the excess if they are at fault (this is only for the biggies not for the odd scratch dent etc) , and for every bump/ crash /damage they loss £50 off there xmas bonus (£250)
the last one was a 12 month old transit van cost me £19k new, driver hit another car his fault van a right off, insurance paid out £9k driver paid £500 excess, nice lose in 12 months 
more and more companies will start doing this before long then people might start giving a ■■■■ about what they are driving, and not doing the normal ■■■ it, its not mine why should i bother 
big company round here charge excess + % of the repair 
, if they get a speeding fine and dont tell anyone in the office that they might have got caught speeding, they get 28 days suspended from work
I know of a company that will deduct a certain amount if a load is damaged,so i assume it will be their excess,? Not sure if they charge a driver if the load was damaged due to how it was put on the pallets etc,lack of enough shrink wrapping or no re enforced corners or lots of small packets that should of been put inside a proper box so they cant move /collapse during transit , or the way it was loaded by the sender,
Or if they only charge the driver due to the way they drove the truck, or if a result of being involved in a rtc
I personally can see where the companies who charge drivers are coming from, but i don’t agree with them being able to do this, where will it end drivers having their own GIT and fully comp lgv insurance ?
had an agency ring me last week to see if i used agency drivers, when i told him i might think about, but these are my terms, driver does a no show the agency will be charged, damage the agency would be charged, late into work the agency would be charged
he then put the phone down
Time and time again this rears it’s ugly head on TNUK if your firm can’t afford proper insurance report them to the TC,when you employ people it’s the chance you take! to any drivers,if your firm uses this scam tell them to FRO 
All this deductions for damage bull [zb] could be avoided if companies did PROPER assessments, not some half-baked 5 min quick drive round the block and then reverse on a bay with more area to manoeuvre in than the size of Kent. The boss of the smaller companies/ODs etc should go out with the driver on trial for absolute minimum 1 full shift to see how he drives and what his attitude is to traffic/other road users etc. I bet that after a full shift of being “supervised” very very few drivers would impress a gaffer enough to be given the job. Those that do drive great and get the job should then be entrusted to do the job to the best of their abilities without have damage clauses written into their contracts hanging like a dark cloud over their heads all the time. No-one is perfect, mishaps can happen occasionally through a quick lapse of concentration or carelessness but if you’re having more than one or two minor scratches per year then you’re a ■■■■ driver and doing it wrong.
You read to the bottom of the original post you will discover that the op sits at home watching Jeremy Kyle and probably penning letters of outrage to the the daily mail. His mate told him all this guff so it must be true.
i’m very confident in my own abilities, but wouldn’t work for a firm who operated a scheme like this, unless absolutely desperate. i would never guarantee i wouldn’t make a mistake and anyone who does should probably be avoided.
any business employing humans who doesn’t factor in them making mistakes, or says don’t make a mistake and you’ll be fine, is making a mistake.
a no damage bonus is fine by me.
Just to help you out user left hand down they already have a contract without any damage money being deducted but the company Reid Freight from Stoke-on-Trent want to introduce this well to be hones Dave Reid and his son’s don’t it is all his ex wife’s idea Juile Reid and to be honest the drivers have told her where to go trouble is she has not gone yet but they live in hope thanks for all your comments on this subject been out of work now for 10 years but that is the price for calling a spade a spade if you are an arse I will tell you that you are an arse director or no director. 