A Frame Disaster

[funflair]

These posts by a scaremonger.
It’s a risk! You may well get away with it, but it’s illegal in Spain. It depends on the copper on the day, and whether he can be arsed! If it’s breakfast time, you’re likely safe! . I know at least 2 that have been fined, 1 had to buy a trailer as his disabled wife couldn’t drive the toad,,,

Is it really scaremongering though? I have certainly spoken to somebody who was stopped and fined and then made to go their merry way with the car under it's own steam, OK they reattached it down the road and were not stopped again but subsequently started to hire cars in Spain rather than A frame, possibly one persons scaremongering is another persons informative.

 

[DDJC]

These posts by a scaremonger.
It’s a risk! You may well get away with it, but it’s illegal in Spain. It depends on the copper on the day, and whether he can be arsed! If it’s breakfast time, you’re likely safe! . I know at least 2 that have been fined, 1 had to buy a trailer as his disabled wife couldn’t drive the toad,,,

Oh!

Well, it isn't a case of 'claims'. It is a fact!
In Spain, A Frames are not legal and you can get pulled over and ordered to de-couple and possibly fined.
The law is specifically mentioned in 9.3 of the Reglamento General de Vehiculos

My A Frame is gathering dust in the shed and I won't be using it again for reasons I have mentioned earlier in the thread. But I am not anti-A frame.

 

[TonyEmm]

Oh!

Well, it isn't a case of 'claims'. It is a fact!
In Spain, A Frames are not legal and you can get pulled over and ordered to de-couple and possibly fined.
The law is specifically mentioned in 9.3 of the Reglamento General de Vehiculos

My A Frame is gathering dust in the shed and I won't be using it again for reasons I have mentioned earlier in the thread. But I am not anti-A frame.

Conniedriving insists I’m scaremongering but he simply won’t accept the facts and/or evidence with regard to issues towing a-frames. (there are issues with trailer safety too, but this thread is about a-framing).

Firstly, driving abroad. DDJC has specifically referred to Spanish law and folk being stopped and fined.
French law outlaws the towing of one motorised vehicle with another. It’s in the Code de la Route. (French Highway Code). For proof, refer to a gentleman who broke down on a French motorway last year. He was fined €135 (level 4 offence) for towing with an a-frame.
It’s illegal in Germany. For proof, refer to questions for written answers in the European Parliament. I can provide the full text if Conniedriving wishes to see it, but I guess not!

Secondly, issues with certain suppliers. Whilst I obviously can’t name the supplier, reports are now in to DVSA Vehicle Safety Branch, Trading Standards, and NaVCIS, following a recent incident.

With the recent case, there was a breach of contract but, any claim would normally be statute barred as it was more than 6 years ago. The evidence now suggests that there was Passive Misrepresentation at the time,

Passive misrepresentation is when somebody does not disclose a material fact to a person, in an effort to get them to enter into a contract that would put that person in a bad situation with respect to money, damage, or even personal harm.

and this could only come to light in particular circumstances. It remains to be seen if that changes the ‘Statute Barred’ position.

With regard to accidents, see the photo.

Just how much evidence does Conniedriving driving and other naysers need before they will accept there are issues on several fronts?

Just a little extra tidbit, The supplier involved in the current situation sells Cat ‘S’ insurance write off vehicles, converted for a-framing. The practice is not illegal but, the car should be priced accordingly and the prospective purchaser should be made aware of the facts. (Passive Misrepresentation). I’m pretty confident that is illegal! The evidence is there in a current advert, beware if you’re looking for a ready converted toad!

 

[Carpmart]

Wow… I had missed this joyous topic until now!

If I understand it correctly, a ten year old flat two installation wasn’t inspected/maintained and failed. The ensuing RTA is now leading to some spurious legal claim on some dubious grounds?

The only useful thing I could have possibly taken from this thread is the detail of the manufacturer; information which ‘could be’ useful as a supplier to a avoid, yet this ‘for information’ thread doesn’t deliver on this (possibly) most useful piece of information!

What a complete waste of time!!

 

[DDJC]

Wow… I had missed this joyous topic until now!

If I understand it correctly, a ten year old flat two installation wasn’t inspected/maintained and failed. The ensuing RTA is now leading to some spurious legal claim on some dubious grounds?

The only useful thing I could have possibly taken from this thread is the detail of the manufacturer; information which ‘could be’ useful as a supplier to a avoid, yet this ‘for information’ thread doesn’t deliver on this (possibly) most useful piece of information!

What a complete waste of time!!

Need to stress that I am not anti A Frame. I just won't use ours again.

If we had a manual keyed car, I'd feel happy a framing. However, we have recently decided to tow a little cargo trailer and not take a car with us abroad again.

I feel that the fitter who put our A Frame kit in, was less then honest about the legality. I was given a piece of paper, with several translations on it that I was assured I could show a cop anywhere in Yerp and he would let me off. I have subsequently found out that it is clear that towing a vehicle capable of moving on its own is, in most cases, not legal in several EU countries.

But then a certain motorhome dealer, who shall remain nameless, tried to sell me 4 tonne moho and said Mrs DDJC could drive it even though she has a post 1997 licence. We went elsewhere.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[SpeedyDux]

Certainly too late for a claim for breach of contract but I suspect the customer is arguing that a claim still lies in negligence based upon the date of knowledge.

That’s another can of worms though.

My take is that any claim for physical damage to the Toad caused by negligent A-frame installation would be classed as pure economic loss, not recoverable as damages for negligence unless there was personal injury involved: Murphy v Brentwood District Council [1990] 2 All ER 908 HL is the leading case overruling previous authority in Anns and Dutton. That only leaves the breach of contract possibility, but that is statute-barred as I said earlier.

Had to drag that one out of old Society of Construction Law papers. I used to be the Treasurer. Glad I don't do this stuff any more. My brain hurts.

 

[peterc10]

If the A-frame was installed over 10 years ago, any legal remedy against the installer most likely has become statute-barred. A reputable solicitor would advise her not to waste money on pursuing a futile claim.

Not necessarily. It would be a claim in contract or tort, so the rules as to when the time started are complex.

 

[TonyEmm]

Need to stress that I am not anti A Frame. I just won't use ours again.

If we had a manual keyed car, I'd feel happy a framing. However, we have recently decided to tow a little cargo trailer and not take a car with us abroad again.

I feel that the fitter who put our A Frame kit in, was less then honest about the legality. I was given a piece of paper, with several translations on it that I was assured I could show a cop anywhere in Yerp and he would let me off. I have subsequently found out that it is clear that towing a vehicle capable of moving on its own is, in most cases, not legal in several EU countries.

But then a certain motorhome dealer, who shall remain nameless, tried to sell me 4 tonne moho and said Mrs DDJC could drive it even though she has a post 1997 licence. We went elsewhere.

That sounds familiar!

 

[SpeedyDux]

Not necessarily. It would be a claim in contract, not tort, so the rules as to when the time started are complex.

See my post above. 6 years from the date of breach of contract which is when the limitation period starts to run. At the latest the start date is the date of installation of the A-frame apparently 10 years ago. On the facts as presented I don't see any exceptions.

 

[peterc10]

My take is that any claim for physical damage to the Toad caused by negligent A-frame installation would be classed as pure economic loss, not recoverable as damages for negligence unless there was personal injury involved: Murphy v Brentwood District Council [1990] 2 All ER 908 HL is the leading case overruling previous authority in Anns and Dutton. That only leaves the breach of contract possibility, but that is statute-barred as I said earlier.

Had to drag that one out of old Society of Construction Law papers. I used to be the Treasurer. Glad I don't do this stuff any more. My brain hurts.

Aaah the good old SCL.

Sounds like you were in the same line of business as me. I am still doing the occasional adjudication but will be packing it up soon as I am no longer enjoying it

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Minxy]

I don't think the car owner is seeking any financial redress, they are instead involved in stopping the 'allegedly' poor installations.

 

[TonyEmm]

I don't think the car owner is seeking any financial redress, they are instead involved in stopping the 'allegedly' poor installations.

It was said early on that it’s not about money. It’s about sharp practices, deliberately misleading potential purchasers, deception and of course, poor installations.

this needs to be prevented !

 

[peterc10]

See my post above. 6 years from the date of breach of contract which is when the limitation period starts to run. At the latest the start date is the date of installation of the A-frame apparently 10 years ago. On the facts as presented I don't see any exceptions.

See my typo correction

 

[charliesgrandad]

It was said early on that it’s not about money. It’s about sharp practices, deliberately misleading potential purchasers, deception and of course, poor installations.

this needs to be prevented !

Should it not also be about poor servicing, because from original photos I fail to see this as happened recently when was the vehicle's A-frame installation last serviced, a regular service could surely have prevented this

 

[TonyEmm]

Should it not also be about poor servicing, because from original photos I fail to see this as happened recently when was the vehicle's A-frame installation last serviced, a regular service could surely have prevented this

It should, but the company in question never suggested or offered an inspection/servicing regime, whether it be on installation, or subsequently!

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Pausim]

Should it not also be about poor servicing, because from original photos I fail to see this as happened recently when was the vehicle's A-frame installation last serviced, a regular service could surely have prevented this

I was told which parts of my A frame needed servicing but nothing was said about the the parts attached to the car, other than the Bowden cable. I have never serviced the towing attachments bolted to the motorhome either. How many people do? I, perhaps naively, assume that the bits bolted to my motorhome and car are designed for the job and competently and permanently installed.

The pictures shown suggest that in this case the A frame was simply attached to an existing cross member that was not designed to take the stresses and strains. I have always understood that this is not safe. Perhaps a visual inspections might have revealed some rust but I doubt many owners know how to spot metal fatigue before it fails. My personal opinion is that no amount of servicing would prevent failure of something that was always structurally inadequate.

 

[charliesgrandad]

It should, but the company in question never suggested or offered an inspection/servicing regime, whether it be on installation, or subsequently!

I assume that you were present with the owners of the said vehicle when it was installed and collected and that you were present for any subsequent correspondence with the owner.

I am not an engineer or mechanic but class myself as a practical person and I would imagine that when the owner was attaching the aframe and screwing in the bolts, that if the metal had got as fragile as it appears in the photo they would surely have noticed some movement/wobbling of bolts and a frame that would cause some concern before it actually finally broke away

 

[TonyEmm]

I assume that you were present with the owners of the said vehicle when it was installed and collected and that you were present for any subsequent correspondence with the owner.

I am not an engineer or mechanic but class myself as a practical person and I would imagine that when the owner was attaching the aframe and screwing in the bolts, that if the metal had got as fragile as it appears in the photo they would surely have noticed some movement/wobbling of bolts and a frame that would cause some concern before it actually finally broke away

No, I wasn’t present, I didn’t know the others back then, however, just in the last 3 weeks an incredible amount of evidence has come to light, highlighting their malpractice, both in fitting terms and marketing/documentation terms.
I’m unable to elaborate at this stage.

 

[Barclaybasher]

I would like to know on what basis the insurance claim was made...

It wasn't an accident

 

[Pausim]

I would like to know on what basis the insurance claim was made...

It wasn't an accident

Why wasn’t it an accident? Most accidents have an avoidable cause and an element of negligence, that is why we have insurance.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[TonyEmm]

Why wasn’t it an accident? Most accidents have an avoidable cause and an element of negligence, that is why we have insurance.

The claim by the user was like any other claim, on the basis of an RTA. I’m not sure who the company was but they settled quickly, no argument, and double the market value of a similar car of the same age, due to it’s extremely low mileage and former condition.
they’ve also put a temporary block on the disposal company moving it on, pending an inspection by a specialist assessor (nothing to do with the payment).

 

[Conniedriving]

Why wasn’t it an accident? Most accidents have an avoidable cause and an element of negligence, that is why we have insurance.

Like not having a brake away cable fitted

 

[TonyEmm]

Like not having a brake away cable fitted

Nowhere to fit it to…..

 

[Conniedriving]

Nowhere to fit it to…..

Well Tony you know as I do any trailer over 7.5 needs brakes inc a brake away cable supplied or not it’s the driver who is responsible to make sure it’s fitted and that the car / trailer is fit for the road ignorance of law is no defence in a court of law.

 

[Barclaybasher]

Why wasn’t it an accident? Most accidents have an avoidable cause and an element of negligence, that is why we have insurance.

If that vehicle had hit another or a pedestrian who would be at fault?

The owner (from new) or the person that fitted the A frame over 10 years ago?

A question - would the towed mileage show on this toads mileometer or just the miles travelled under its own steam?

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Conniedriving]

If that vehicle had hit another or a pedestrian who would be at fault?

The owner (from new) or the person that fitted the A frame over 10 years ago?

A question - would the towed mileage show on this toads mileometer or just the miles travelled under its own steam?

Mileage does not clock up when being towed
In the 1st post they say they did not notice the car had broken away until they stopped for fuel?
They also say it had a electronic braking system but did not have a brake away cable fitted?
The law says that it is the drivers responsibility to make sure the car / trailer is road worthy

 

[Pausim]

any trailer over 7.5 needs brakes inc a brake away cable supplied

Trailers up to 1500kg do not have to have a break away cable, a secondary coupling is also permitted. Did this A frame have a secondary coupling?

 

[TonyEmm]

Well Tony you know as I do any trailer over 7.5 needs brakes inc a brake away cable supplied or not it’s the driver who is responsible to make sure it’s fitted and that the car / trailer is fit for the road ignorance of law is no defence in a court of law.

Absolutely, I know the law regarding trailer brakes. A breakaway cable is not an absolute requirement. There is scope for alternatives.
The user had a valid reason for thinking their system didn’t require one.

As that is likely to be an argument raised in a court of law, if it ever gets that far, then it wouldn’t be prudent to discuss it any further.

You’re right that the final responsibility for ensuring the ‘vehicle’ is safe and road worthy is down to the user, however, there is a primary responsibility on the manufacturer/supplier to ensure that the system if fully legal in the first place.

Statements made, in writing, led the users to believe their emergency braking system worked in some other way.

You have to remember, not all users are seasoned towers. They hadn’t towed anything of significance before and put their faith in their supplier and what he said.
The worst thing the user can be accused of is naivety.

 

[TonyEmm]

Trailers up to 1500kg do not have to have a break away cable, a secondary coupling is also permitted. Did this A frame have a secondary coupling?

Reg 86a of the Road Vehicles (construction & use) regulations 1986, amendment 551 (introduced 1995).

There was no secondary coupling fitted.

 

[TonyEmm]

Trailers up to 1500kg do not have to have a break away cable, a secondary coupling is also permitted. Did this A frame have a secondary coupling?

A secondary coupling would normally take this sort of form. (See photos).
It needs to be short enough to prevent the front of the coupling striking the ground and to retain residual steering.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}