Courier Business Stuff by a Same Day Courier Manager

The Transport of Fireworks by Road

With the firework season nearly upon us there’s an enormous demand from the firework distributors for large numbers of hauliers and same-day couriers to carry out their deliveries over a very short period.

Considering the obvious hazards of firework transportation, and indeed every aspect of the manufacture, storage and transportation of fireworks, it might be expected that firework manufacturers and distributors would be more careful than most in checking the qualifications and experience of the transport companies they use for their deliveries.

I would expect a responsible firework distributor to fully vet their transport suppliers to ensure that they fully understand their responsibilities under ADR and have access to a competent Dangerous Goods Safety Advisor, to offer their own advice to the transport company on the safe transport of their goods if necessary, and above all to ensure that the transport company is fully aware of the training that their staff and subcontractors are required to undertake before transporting fireworks.

I was surprised then to read a message posted on one of the leading courier industry websites looking for 70 vans to do 172 journeys over a 3 day period delivering fireworks. There’s nothing particularly wrong with that, although I didn’t think that the company were likely to find 70 suitably qualified drivers on the website in question. I was slightly concerned at this stage that although the company had mentioned the need for various items of safety equipment, they hadn’t mentioned any need for training.

The next day the company followed up their posting with the information “You do not need ADR because the NEC (explosive content) doesn’t exceed Read More…

Posted under Hazardous Goods - ADR

Posted by Alec at 1:16 pm, October 4, 2008

Business Opportunities for Freelance Same Day Courier Owner Drivers

Sorry about the misleading title – there are NO ‘courier business opportunities’ on this page, just a few words of warning for anyone thinking about becoming a ‘freelance same day courier’ or a ‘courier owner driver’.

As the recession, or ‘downturn’ to put an optimistic slant on it, starts to bite, particularly in the building trade, we’re starting to see more and more new entrants to the same day courier industry. It seems an inevitable feature of every economic slowdown that the industry is swamped with out of work tradesman and redundant factory-workers, keen to put their unused van (or their redundancy payment) to use starting a new business for themselves.

It’s an easy enough business to get into, just a van and a mobile phone required. Nowadays it’s apparently not even necessary to have a collection of maps, or even any map-reading skills; just spend £75 on a satnav and you’re ready for work. That’s the theory at least.

There will no doubt be no shortage of local and national same day courier companies Read More…

Posted under Courier Basics, Courier Business, Courier Scams, Courier and Freight Exchanges

Posted by Alec at 4:02 pm, September 25, 2008

8 Comments so far

JDT added on November 6th, 2008 at 23:15

Interesting comments - especially seeing as the banners on this site are full of the same ‘get rich quick make 250 quid a day adverts’ you choose to berate…..
Alec added on November 7th, 2008 at 08:20

Yes, they’re deliberately left there for the ironic effect. They’re contributing financially towards the running of a site which is used to criticise their business methods. Every little helps.
JDT added on November 11th, 2008 at 13:57

Like you style m8!!
david added on January 23rd, 2009 at 17:15

is a v.w caddy a car derived van?year 2001 thanks for help
Gary Johnson added on May 4th, 2009 at 14:41

Like your honesty! I was made redundant in April 2009, and would love to become a courier, but reading your comments and those on the COD Forum has given me second thoughts. I probably will go out there and do my best, but won’t expect the earth. I’m just a hard working dedicated bloke who wants to work for a living, believe me, trying to work for myself and just scraping by is a whole lot better than being a ‘jobseeker’ and being turned down for jobs that offer the minimum wage. At least trying to become self employed rekindles my pride. Thanks for confirming my thoughts that couriering is not something to be taken for granted, I just hope my determination can see me through.
Parcel Delivery added on May 13th, 2009 at 17:21

I do agree with this comment. Yes, there will be a lot of people looking for work within this insudtry in the next 2-3 years, until other jobs start picking up.
hoppy added on September 25th, 2009 at 10:56

Thanks for the advice
Milner added on February 19th, 2010 at 10:32

Alex’s comment about a certain national courier paying their owner drivers 44p P.L.M. is spot on. He has not mentioned who they are probably for profesional reasons whereas I have no qualms when it comes to naming……….Step up to the stingy podium……RICO LOGISTICS,…Tarrra !
Yes my friends, since 2003 when I started with them diesel costs were aroun 72p litre.and their rate was then 44p.
Now 7 years later and diesel at around £1.13 their rate is…..44p
Add to this you have to plot on at one of their depots and wait your turn for a job (you could wait all day and not move until you decide to go home at 5 o’clock)You may get lucky, or you could get a local drop for (You wont believe this) 3 quid !!
So if your thinking of signing up with Rico (”Earn £600 per week” )Logistics think long and hard my freinds, As for me, once bitten…….

ADR training wasted on drivers - ‘better suited to traffic staff’

Robert Wilcox, the managing director of Massey Wilcox Transport, has just earned himself a place high up on the list of people I wouldn’t want to work for.

According to this report Mr Wilcox thinks so little of his drivers’ capacity for learning that he believes that ADR training is wasted on them and they should only be trained ‘what to do in the case of an emergency’.

He goes on to say “Drivers are not the best classroom attendees, and whatever is crammed into their heads to get them through the exam is promptly forgotten a week later”. I wonder how Mr Wilcox thinks that his drivers managed to gain their existing professional qualifications, not to mention how he thinks they’ll cope with the new driver CPC qualification. However does he think they manage to drive his company’s vehicles competently and safely if they’re not capable of retaining knowledge for more than a week?

Mr Wilcox makes the case that the traffic staff should have the training because “after all, it’s their decision what is carried and when”.

That might be how Mr Wilcox operates his company, but its certainly not best practice and it’s a possible sign of a company operating on the fringes of legality. It’s for the driver, and no-one else, to decide whether it’s safe for him to take a load out. The driver bears the ultimate responsibility for the safety of his load, his vehicle and himself and no under-trained cretin in a traffic office 200 miles away is entitled to take decisions on his behalf.

It’s this type of attitude - ‘the traffic office knows best’ - which is behind some of the sloppiest and most unsafe practices in the transport industry: drivers’ hours infringements, speeding, overloading, health and safety breaches - all because of the ‘just get it done’ attitude in the traffic office and the pressure put on drivers to do what the traffic staff tells them to do.

Only yesterday I had a call from a same day courier who’d been sent in to an end user to collect a load on behalf of another transport company. The carriage of the load clearly required an ADR trained driver and both the consignor and the transport company were aware of that fact. The owner-driver, Read More…

Posted under Hazardous Goods - ADR

Posted by Alec at 6:02 pm, September 23, 2008

Tags: ADR, Hazardous Goods, Training

3 Comments so far

Robert Wilcox added on November 7th, 2008 at 18:48

Having just read Alec’s comments from the 23rd September, I would like to respond.

I don’t know who Alec is or how long he has worked in the transport industry, and therefore cannot comment if I would consider him suitable for a position in my company or not. But what I do have knowledge of are HGV drivers. After 35 years I certainly know a good one from a bad one and what can and cannot be expected of them.
Some of the best drivers I have had could bearly read or write, and have one now that finds his way around by comparing the shape of the words of a destination to the road signs. He is a very productive driver and quite happy to be working for someone who can live with and help him with his problem.

But the content of a ADR course is beyond him. Even the ones who can pass with no problem do not have a retentive memory. Its not usual for these men to leave a collection point with ADR product on board and yet fail to ensure they have a Trem Card.

I stand by what I say. In the vast majority of cases the decision of what a haulier is going to carry on his truck is made by the traffic management. Providng the product is covered by the driver’s ADR license then that is not a problem. The vehicle or trailer is often loaded in the driver’s absence, and a driver turning in at 4am in the morning is highly unlikely to open up his vehicle to see what is stacked next to what.

These are all decision made by trained traffic management and therefore it is these people would really need the intensive training to ensure the load is safe both in terms of the mixing of volatile chemicals, and the packaging limits.

The driver should have concentrated training on what to do in an emergency, and how to interpret ADR labels amd packaging to ensure the product comes within his license remit.

With regards to the driver CPC training. I would like to point out to Alec that I am currently training my own in house trainer, who will from the September start date, be providing on the job training to each and every driver in excess of the laws requirement of 7 hours per year. in addition to taht will continue with the RHA icon training programme taken up some 3 years ago. So I take exception to his comment that I operate my company “on the fringes of legality”. I abide by the laws controlling every aspect of operating a HGV including ADR. My traffic staff are ADR trained despite the fact is is not a legal requirement and that we only carry printing ink and arable fertiliser. They are also time served drivers and take exception to his calling them “under trained cretins”. Nobody is taking away a drivers need to ensure his vehicle is safely loaded, infact i can only wish some would pay more attention to this requirement.

I can assure Alec that my drivers are not expected to exceed the legal limits of anything, and I would be very pleased to show him my drivers tachograph records, both analogue and digital, infringement reports signed off by the driver concerned,DGSA annual reports, maintenance records, infact anything he would care to inspect. The only problem is that I don’t think he would get past the “under trained cretins” in the traffic office in one peice.

Alec’s comments regarding drivers being asked to colect ADR goods they are not licence to handle, reflect the corners that some operators both large and small are prepared to cut. Please do not count me amongst them without first qualifying your asumptions.
Alec added on November 8th, 2008 at 10:19

Your response seems to only confirm the opinion I had formed about the way you operate your company. Drivers who can’t read road signs, drivers who ignore basic requirements of ADR and traffic office staff whom you seem to imply would resort to physical violence if anyone dared to question their wisdom.

I suggest you pay more attention to the legal requirement that your drivers are competent to carry out their work in a safe manner and spend less time voicing your opinion that they actually require LESS training.

As I made clear in the original posting, I entirely agree that traffic office staff require better training in ADR, I just disagree completely that drivers need less training – and the United Nations and the DfT seem to share that opinion.
Robert Wilcox added on December 16th, 2008 at 16:26

According to you then Alec anyone who hasn’t received the high level of education you so obviously enjoyed should be denied the right to gainful and properly paid employment. I don’t judge my people by their acedemic skills as you seem to do, and am not prepared to write them off if they are able to carry out their duties in a fit and proper manner. As for the traffic office staff, please remember it was you that voiced a derogatory opinion of them, and why should they sit back and take that from you.

All my drivers who handle ADR have received the proper training, along with traffic office staff,and will continue to for as long as they remain in my employ. As far as I am aware this is still a free country and until such times that we are forced to employ only a Pseudo Aryan race that you purport to, I retain the right to form and voice my own opinion of the content of ADR training for drivers.

Speed limits for vans - are the DfT even more confused than the rest of us?

For many years there’s been confusion among some van drivers over the speed limits that apply to their vans. This has led to many prosecutions of drivers of medium and large vans for exceeding the speed limit.

Many van drivers just assume that the speed limits for their vans are the same as for a private car. In many cases, particularly for smaller vans, they may be right, but for anything bigger than a small van they’re wrong.

The maximum speed limits for all goods vehicles of 3500kg and less, unless lower limits are indicated by signs, is 70mph for motorways, 60mph for dual-carriageways and 50mph for single-carriageway roads. The only exemption is for ‘car-derived vans’ with a maximum loaded weight (GVW) of 2000kg or less, to which the speed limits for cars apply (70, 70, 60).

For many years it seems that the police have interpreted ‘car-derived van’ as meaning any small van with a GVW of 2,000kg or less. This would include many of the vans typically driven by same day couriers, vans like the Escort, Courier, Berlingo/Partner, some Doblos, Combo, Nemo/Bipper/Fiorino, Kangoo, as well as some of the more obvious ‘car shaped’ vans like the Astravan, Fiesta, Corsa and Punto.

In December 2007 the Department for Transport (DfT) issued a document Read More…

Posted under Courier Basics, Speeding, Vans

Posted by Alec at 7:48 pm, September 22, 2008

Tags: car-derived vans, speed limits

14 Comments so far

Roland added on September 24th, 2008 at 10:13

Good article - you’re right that a great many drivers don’t realise that speed limits are different to those for cars.

However, I’m not sure things are as confused as you say. The DfT page you link to also states that “the van design must be a derivative of a car body”. This clearly rules out all but car->van conversions, like the Astravan.

The DfT also says that taxation class is unrelated to speed limits. Speed limits (it says) are related to the load capacities of the vehicle and whether or not it is used for carrying passengers.

I do agree that it seems bizaare that a Nemo is subject to lower speed limits than an Astravan, however. I think it is a case of vehicle designs overtaking the law - these small vans with big payloads didn’t really exist in 1984, when the van speed limits were introduced, did they?

Thanks for taking the time to highlight this, look forward to seeing your response from the DfT…

Roland
Alec added on September 26th, 2008 at 18:05

Well I’ve had my reply:

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your enquiry (copied below) and request that we list car-derived vans: Because of the limited definition in law of a car-derived van, the only test of whether an individual vehicle falls into that category is via a court of law. Government departments cannot make that judgement and so do not issue lists of car-derived vans.

When asked to comment on a specific vehicle this department has applied a rule of thumb that;
- vans sharing the same chassis and body shell with a car but with some of the window apertures filled with metal, appear to satisfy the definition of car-derived van.
- vans comprising a car chassis throughout and the car body-shell from front bumper to “B” post (the door-post behind the front-doors ;with, say, a box body behind), appear to satisfy the definition of car-derived van.

Using those criteria, this Division recently advised an enquirer that the Vauxhall Combo did not appear to be a car-derived van since its wheel-base and track are different from those of the Corsa car. However, we added the caveat that our advice was subject to any decision made in a court of law. In the case of the Vauxhall Combo Kombi; this vehicle appears to be derived from the Combo van not the other way about. And therefore the Combo cannot be described as car-derived.

To answer your last point, about the police application of the law: As the law stands at present the only recourse for a motorist is to challenge the speeding prosecution in court.

I regret that I cannot advise you further.

Malcolm Burch
Senior Policy Advisor
LRI 2
Department for Transport
Alec added on September 26th, 2008 at 18:22

I can’t see really this ever coming up in court to provide a definitive answer. For once the police seem to apply the law in the way any reasonable person would expect it to be applied – if the vehicle is registered as a car-derived van and has a GVW of 2000kg or less then (as far as I’m aware) they treat it as being subject to the same speed limits as a car.

As far as I can tell all small vans with a GVW of 2000kg or less are automatically registered with the DVLA as ‘car-derived vans’, while all small vans with a GVW of over 2000kg are registered as ‘panel vans’. It seems to me that the police use the vehicle definition that’s returned when they search the DVLA database to determine the vehicle classification and therefore the applicable speed limits.

Despite the assertion of the Senior Policy Advisor from the DfT I’ve never heard of a Berlingo or Combo driver being prosecuted for doing 70 on a dual carriageway – Caddy drivers, Transit Connect drivers and Doblo drivers, yes; but I’ve never heard of a driver of a vehicle with ‘car-derived van’ on its V5 Vehicle Registration Document being prosecuted for doing 70 on a dual-carriageway, or 60 on a single-carriageway. If anyone knows different then please let me know.
Alec added on October 2nd, 2008 at 10:29

It turns out that not all vans under 2000kg GVW are described as CDVs on their V5. I’ve seen examples of a Doblo and a Kangoo both described as ‘panel van’, so it seems that the V5 description can’t be used to define the vehicle type.
christopher inman added on October 19th, 2008 at 20:42

I have a ticket for a Vauxhall Combo for 69mph on the A27 dual-carriageway at Holmbush (Hove/Portslade) dated 23/08/2008. It is a hire van (long-term) and I do not have the registration document. Sussex police, by the way.
matt added on November 23rd, 2008 at 19:58

I am so confused now . I have just bought a vauxhall combo and start a new contract same day delivery tomorrow. What the hell speed am I spose to be doing ! Surely if your V5 states its a car derived van then thats your answer…. it is a govenment document after all ??????? isnt it ????
I cant take a day off to argue it in court everytime I get flashed by a stuffing camera. They need to get their heads out their backsides and sort it out !
david added on January 20th, 2009 at 15:40

great web site, please could you help me,i have just got a notice of intended prosecution, in a v.w. caddy,tdi.reg 02.it tell me recorded speed was 76mph,speed limit 70 mph,vehichle limit 60 mph. the registration certificate says its a panel van,light goods vehicle,2270kg cross revenue weight,wheelplan 2 axle-rigid body,vehicle category N1.is this a fine i should pay? or is the law wrong here? greatful for any help thankyou dave
Alec added on January 20th, 2009 at 15:58

The important thing in the case of the Caddy is the weight - it’s firmly in the ‘goods vehicle’ class, rather than being a car-derived van, and it’s subject to the lower limits. Sorry about that.
david added on February 1st, 2009 at 16:25

thanks alec for reply, but i have look at manufacturers plate,it says 1770 kg then 2770 kg, (1)-890kg,(2)-950kg,typ 9kvf,looking at this plate,i think it means 1770kg is the g.v.w.is the vehicle weight?and the 2770kg is the revenue weight for taxin of the van? i could be wrong,i have been in touch with v,w, an they tell me that my van is on the volkswagen germany data system as a caddy derived van 66 tdi 5 speed. any more advice thanks david
david added on February 4th, 2009 at 12:38

dear alec,any comment on david (9)posted february 1 st 2009?
Alec added on February 4th, 2009 at 13:10

I missed the ‘02 plate’ of your original message - that’s an old shape Caddy, the same as the SEAT Inca? If so it’s under 2000 GVW so it would pass as a CDV on that point but may fail on another point. I don’t think that the front end is identical to a Polo or an Ibiza, in which case it would probably fail on the DfT’s ridiculous definition of a CDV - if you pay any attention to their opinion.
david added on February 5th, 2009 at 13:21

hi Alec,yes it is the old shape caddy,and i do feel the police are wrong,because they told me my van,was not a car derived van,but on the log book it is,but then they told me it gos on the weight of my van,and the only weight on the log book was 2770 kg under revenue weight,there seem to be alot of confused people about a cdv van? i am not to sure what to do at the moment,pay the fine,or go to court?at this moment of time i think i should try the courts,what do you think? thanks Alec
Alec added on February 5th, 2009 at 14:03

As far as I’m aware the revenue weight on the log book is always the same as the GVW, and 1770kg is about right for the old Caddy – it’s definitely under the 2000kg anyway. The 2770 is the Gross Train Weight, which has no bearing at all on the issue, it just shows you how much weight you can tow. Have you got an error on your log book maybe?

So if they’re JUST basing their prosecution on the weight issue then you’ll be OK, as long as you can convince the court that the actual GVW of the van is less than 2000kg. If there’s an error on your log book then you probably just need to contact the DVLA to get it corrected.

If the police decide to argue that the van’s not car-derived because of the shape then you’re back in that grey area I’m afraid. Personally I think you could maybe convince a court that it was similar enough to the Inca or Polo to be classed as car-derived. Even if that was to fail then the argument that it clearly has filled in rear window panels, holes for the fitting of rear seatbelt anchorages and a filled in rear passenger footwell area may be enough to show that the van is based on the car (windowed version of the van) rather than the other way round.
Jon added on August 11th, 2009 at 15:55

What I don’t understand is that the Renault Kangoo is actually a van derived car. Until some time after the car version was released, people were advised that the speed limit for vans applied to the car - because I know someone who had one from new and was advised of this by the local plod.

MTvan, Courier Finance Ltd & Tim Gilbert: Physician, heal thyself

It looks like Tim Gilbert has finally exposed himself as the arse that I’d always suspected he was. Tim of course is (or maybe was, who knows) head of the failed (or maybe failing, who knows) Courier Finance Ltd ‘empire’, which included Speed Couriers, MTvan, CFL and some slightly dodgy-looking ‘learn how to be a courier’ websites designed to either part courier owner-drivers from their cash or to steer them towards the Mtvan website which would do the same.

Somewhat of a self-proclaimed courier industry guru, Tim is quite profuse with his advice to other, less experienced, businessmen on how they should run their same day courier businesses. Some would say that he was well qualified to give such advice, having started Speed Couriers from scratch (along with Martin Rutty) and then apparently playing his part in steering it through its troubles in 2001-02.

The collapse of OnDigital, one of Speed’s largest customers, and their foray into the home delivery market caused severe problems for the business back in 2002, so it might be expected that Tim would be more wary than most of allowing a single customer to become too important to the business, of allowing a business with no history of profitable trading to run up a significant (and Read More…

Posted under Courier Business, Courier and Freight Exchanges

Posted by Alec at 11:13 am, September 16, 2008

Tags: Amtrak, MTvan, Netfold

5 Comments so far

stan added on October 1st, 2008 at 11:38

cfl were owed less than £50K (quite a bit less) so how did that sink “a multi million pound turnover business”? (as he put it), also mtvan has “ceased trading” but isnt in liquidation…..work that one out
BILLY added on October 13th, 2008 at 09:23

regarging stans comments if cfl were owed £50K then CFL shouldn’t have ceased trading BAD BAD BAD DECISION AS IT DAMAGED MTVAN.COM. CFL AND MTVAN BEING THE SAME OWED BSC LOGISTICS LTD £24329. NO LIQUIDATOR APPOINTED IS HE RUNNING OFF WITH MONEY???????. ALSO STARNGE DHL HAVE SOME OF CFL’S ACCOUNTS

BILLY
BILLY added on October 15th, 2008 at 14:10

Update for those concerned

TENON RECOVERY HAVE TAKEN OVER CFL’s AFFAIRS
PLEASE SEE COMPANIES HOUSE WEBSITE

THANKS BILLY
Alec added on October 15th, 2008 at 14:17

Courier Finance Ltd
c/o Tenon Recovery
3rd Floor
Lyndean House
43/46 Queens Road
Brighton
BN1 3XB

Tel: 01273 725566
Fax: 01273 724502

brighton@tenongroup.com
BILLY added on October 27th, 2008 at 15:04

To whom it may concern, might be a little late but there is a credditors meeting today

thanks billy

MTvan gone bust?

For some weeks I’ve been controlling my anger about the latest shady trick played by Courier Finance Ltd, the owners of MTvan.com. I’d planned to write something in the next few days about their way of doing business, which I’ve considered for some time to be slightly less than honest and open.

Not content with lying to their original members about their membership fees giving them life membership, they sneakily bought the courier forum www.link4couriers.com while hiding its ownership from its members, saturating the site with advertising for their associated (and I think highly questionable) business ventures and claiming for two years that it was “by far the largest independent forum for couriers and courier owner drivers”. Independent my arse, about as independent as their courier exchange site that was actually run by a company that was quietly in competition with many of its members.

Anyway, it seems that events have overtaken me and I won’t get the chance to launch the scathing attack on their business that I had intended to. It turns out that the experienced businessmen at Courier Finance Ltd decided that after Amtrak had gone into liquidation in 2007 it would be a good idea to extend credit terms to the newly-formed Netfold Ltd, which bought the business from the liquidators. It also appears that they didn’t notice when Netfold failed to file its first accounts on time in March 2008 and seemingly continued to provide credit to them until they went into administration at the Read More…

Posted under Courier Scams, Courier and Freight Exchanges

Posted by Alec at 7:41 pm, September 10, 2008

Tags: Amtrak, Courier Finance Ltd, Link4couriers, MTvan, Netfold

7 Comments so far

Robert John added on September 11th, 2008 at 15:10

I just found out about MT Van and am a little aggrieved to say the least. I was getting paid every week like clockwork until about 6 weeks ago then the payments stopped. Spoke to Holly who reassured me nothing was wrong and told I would receive payment soon. Am still owed £700 by them and have no chance of ever seeing it. Rob from Cardiff.
Neil Holden added on September 12th, 2008 at 11:26

found out about MT Van from their site. I had a couple of items in a warehouse belonging to Courier Plus/Independent Logistics (who it seems went down last thursday)and now have no idea how to contact anyone who has access so i can retrieve my goods. Found this page by a quick search can anyone help me out?
Alec added on September 12th, 2008 at 12:17

You could try asking at http://www.gtmuk.com/forums.php - there’s at least one person around on there that should know something.

Failing that try contacting Companies House and see if an Administrator’s been appointed for Independent Logistics Co Ltd yet.
Alec added on September 17th, 2008 at 17:53

Anyone owed money for work they’ve done through MTvan for Royal Mail Sameday (that’s Royal Mail Courier Services Ltd, or RMCS Ltd) is advised to contact:

Royal Mail Courier Services
Minerva Business Park
Lynch Wood
PETERBOROUGH
PE2 6FT

For jobs undertaken before 4th August an invoice is required. Jobs carried out between 4th and 31st August will be paid on a self-billing basis and jobs done from 1st September will need to be invoiced.

RMCS can be contacted on 01733 405005 for any payment issues.
Geoff Finney added on September 18th, 2008 at 11:53

hehe great article-can rely on you Alec!
Ian Brown added on October 13th, 2008 at 22:11

Hi All,

Has anyone spoken to Tony or Tim over last few weeks ? I have covered work for IND Logistics to be stung for £3,000 I have heard a rumour Brian is about to setup business again. Any thought or news on the matter please email me.

Regards

Ian Brown
Parcel Delivery added on May 13th, 2009 at 17:36

MTV are and they have been for a long time the worst investment an owner driver could make. You could only get some rubbish work from ParcelForce/Royal Mail. The system itself is miles behind other exchanges. I’d not shed a tear if they go bust…

Apparently this is the perfect time to buy or lease a new van

According to this report van prices have dropped by 9% in the last three months and dealers are now offering attractive low rate finance deals.

The article quotes Duncan Coleman of vansunited.co.uk as saying “We’ve not only seen retailers and manufacturers reduce their new and used prices, but they’ve applied finance offers to LCVs that were once the preserve of the car market. Now is the perfect time to buy for those businesses wanting to secure a strong deal.”

I suppose if you’re set on buying a new van in the next year or so then now might be the time to do it, but I’d question whether this is really the perfect time to buy.

While the last six weeks or so have been encouragingly busy for many same day couriers there’s no certainty about the future at all. Whether we’re on the brink of a cataclysmic recession or not it’s clear that many companies aren’t in a position to last the next few months, never mind considering investment in new vehicles.

There are many bargains to be had at auctions at the moment, nearly new vans Read More…

Posted under Fuel Prices, Vans

Posted by Alec at 6:15 pm, September 9, 2008

Tags: Finance, Hire, Lease, Recession, Rental, Vans

Amtrak goes into administration again

I know there are a few same day courier companies who’ve been subcontracting to Amtrak who will have had their fingers burnt, yet again, on this one. A bit of homework could probably have avoided most serious losses.

Yes, Amtrak Express Parcels has gone bump for the second time in 20 months. This time it’s Netfold Ltd, the ‘white knight’ that bought the business from the administrators of Amtrak Express Parcels Limited in January 2007, that’s been put into administration.

This one caught me by surprise a bit – I predicted last summer that one of the parcel networks had less than a year to survive, but not Amtrak. As it turns out the two companies that I’d earmarked as possible contenders for the wooden spoon have both reported increasing turnover and profits, the one that I predicted would do great things this year seems to be in terminal decline and now Amtrak, acquired on presumably very good terms from the administrators, has gone into administration.

Alarm bells first started to ring in April when I noticed that Netfold Ltd had failed to file its accounts by the due date. It may seem slightly naïve of me but I’ve always held the belief that a company that doesn’t file its accounts by the due date is either suffering from incompetent management, Read More…

Posted under Courier Business

Posted by Alec at 4:29 pm, August 26, 2008

Tags: Amtrak, City Link, Insolvency, Netfold, parcel carriers, Target, Tuffnells

3 Comments so far

Alec added on August 27th, 2008 at 20:14

It’s becoming clear that there will probably be no last minute rescue of the Amtrak business.

According to various reports Business Post have acquired the personal details of Amtrak customers and are approaching them offering their services, while at the same time delivering the parcels that were left in Amtrak’s system on Friday evening.

Meanwhile it’s apparently been announced that all the staff at Amtrak’s head office and main hub at Aldridge will be made redundant.

Parcel firms swift to target Amtrak’s customer base Birmingham Post

Amtrak’s last post? Road Transport

Anger as firm sheds 230 jobs Express and Star
Alec added on August 28th, 2008 at 15:15

According to this report by The Birmingham Post the administrators Ernst & Young have now confirmed that they have been unable to find a buyer for the business and it is now in the process of being wound up.

The report quotes an Ernst & Young spokesman as saying: “The business will be wound up by the end of the week.

“So far 50 staff at the Aldridge site have been made redundant but it is likely that all employees will be made redundant by the end of the week.”
Alec added on August 29th, 2008 at 16:21

According to this report Business Post haven’t acquired the goodwill or the customer base of the company, although that doesn’t explain the reports that they seem to have personal details of at least one of Amtrak’s ex-customers.

“A spokeswoman for Business Post confirmed it had stepped in to deliver the consignments still in Amtrak’s warehouse.

“There was a large amount, and I know we have been working around the clock,” she said. “But we haven’t taken over the customer base or anything like that.” “

« Previous Entries

Courier Business Stuff

The Transport of Fireworks by Road

Leave a Comment