Is your payload adequate?

[Mickydripin]

Hi Brian can you tell me if you have quoted this from a book or from an official document or are you an expert on this kind of thing the reason I am asking is that my solicitor has asked me these questions in case I have to use it and quote from it in court I have made a copy of it (I hope you do not mind) for him but it would help if it was a bit more official like thanks.

Mike.

[Mickydripin]

May be people do not weigh there motorhome because it is too expensive.

I know it is more expensive if you are caught overloaded.

 

If the weighbridge owners were a more responsible lot and charged less owners may be encouraged to weigh more.

the weighbridge that I use charge me £10 per weigh E.G front rear and mass and £30 is a lot for a few Min's but it is the same old thing they think if you are a motorhome owner they can fleece you

[davenewellhome]

Surely £30 for three weighings to establish where you stand legally is small change compared to (1) the potential costs of being caught overloaded and (2) the price you payed for your shiny new motorhome? What was it, £25,000, £30,000, £35,000, £40,000 or more?

 

D.

[Derek Uzzell]

Mickydripin,

 

You might want to look at the following:

 

http://www.outandaboutlive.co.uk/forums/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=10827&posts=19

 

The weigh-bridges I've used in the past have been French and either DIY and free or DIY and a couple of euros per 'weigh'.

 

I don't know what the going-rate is for weigh-bridges in the UK, but there are plenty of them. See:

 

http://www.chrishodgetrucks.co.uk/

 

If I were facing a charge of £10 per weigh, I'd be keen to obtain a weight-readout of the whole vehicle and of just one axle, and then subtract the latter figure from the former to calculate the weight on the other axle. That would reduce the overall cost by a third to £20, but I believe I recall reading that some weighbridge operators are reluctant to cooperate with this technique.

 

In your case, where court action is involved, I'm sure it makes better sense to pay the extra and have separate weigh-bridge 'tickets' for overall, front and rear axles loadings.

 

I doubt if weigh-bridge charges much influence whether or not motorcaravanners bother to weigh their vehicles. It's far more likely that most motorcaravanners don't visit a weighbridge because they are either unaware their motorhome has a weight problem, or are pretty confident it has not.

 

My own motorhome has plenty of available payload and its individual axle-load maximum authorised limits are fairly generous. The main reason I weighed my vehicle was to obtain real-world axle loadings when the motorhome was fully loaded so that I could seek advice on most suitable tyre inflation-pressures.

 

I have known one (recent) instance where someone who had ordered a new motorcaravan subsequently became concerned about its payload and demanded from the dealer that the vehicle be weighed when it was delivered, threatening that, if the weigh-bridge readings exceeded the motorhome manufacturer's brochure figures, he would reject the vehicle. The dealer agreed to this, the motorhome was weighed and the weigh-bridge and brochure figures were found to match. I'm certain, though, that such cases are few and far between.

[Mickydripin]

So you think £30 is little change do you well some motor homers pay most of there life savings then more for accessories and then tend to go over the top for our little luxuries.

We then realize that you never stop paying out, When we go to the weight bridge if things are not right there is mostly a queue behind us and we can not fiddle about moving things around so we pull off and do just that and then it costs another £30.

I have read on the posts that people have had to pay a visit to the weighbridge two or three times before they are satisfied.

Yes we do pay 30. 35, £40,000 or more for our motorhomes but do you read MMM there are many stories about people trying to cut costs and taking risks when parking up and wild camping or going that last mile to get to a free Arie we would all like to be in the same position as you seam to be in and not worry about money you are one of the lucky ones a lot of pensioners are motor homers and have to look after there meager pensions.

 

What are you going to say to them. Quote! Well if you can not afford it dont do it..DURRRRRRRRRR

[davenewellhome]

I'm sorry Mickey, I seem to have hit a raw nerve there. My point was simple, as you are heading towards a legal battle then a weighbridge ticket giving front axle, rear axle and overall actual weights would be to your benefit and £30 to gain that information compared to the £30,000 upwards price tag of a motorhome is surely not a great problem. I don't understand why you would need to weigh the 'van, move off and readjust your load and then re-weigh it. If you know what your 'van weighs empty and what all of your bits and bobs weigh then it ain't rocket science to work out your total weight with everything on board or how to position items in your 'van to stay legal. I've used several weighbridges over the years and only once have I encountered a queue.

 

And to answer your last point, yes I would say "if you can't afford it don't do it!". For the simple reason that if a pensioner (or anyone else for that matter) cannot afford to own and run a motorhome but goes ahead and does so then the only way they can fund it is by either borrowing money that they probably cannot pay back or by other devious means.

 

I am not flush with cash as you seem to suggest but I do prioritise where I spend it and using a weighbridge once in a while to make sure I stay legal used to be included in that. I say used to be because I now own a Reich caravan weight control device which lets me weigh each wheel individually as often as I like.

 

D.

[Brian Kirby]

Mickydripin - 2008-12-06 7:44 PM Hi Brian can you tell me if you have quoted this from a book or from an official document or are you an expert on this kind of thing the reason I am asking is that my solicitor has asked me these questions in case I have to use it and quote from it in court I have made a copy of it (I hope you do not mind) for him but it would help if it was a bit more official like thanks. Mike.

This is a longish, and old, string now Mick, so I'm guessing the bit you're interested in relates to the definitions, and measurement, of Mass In Running Order (MIRO).  If so, yes, there is an official document.  It is a British Standard, BS EN 1646-2 but, as stated above, manufacturers are not obliged to adhere to this.  However, it is a useful document, because it is based on a European Standard (a "Euronorm") that will have been adopted by all EC states, so would apply equally in Italy, where your van was made.  The idea is a level playing field in all member states.  However, so far as I know, there is no obligation to comply in Italy either.  So, if no-one has to comply with it, why do I think it is useful?  Firstly, because many, probably the majority of manufacturers, do and secondly, because it establishes what, for Europe, is deemed a reasonable allowance for user load in a vehicle sold as a motorhome.  Someone who sells a motorhome with a much reduced load allowance, therefore, would have to explain how they are able to claim their product reasonably qualifies to be described as a motorhome.  This is by no means watertight as a legal argument, and I'm not a lawyer, but if cited in court in a case like yours, it should establish, for the benefit of the court, what is generally considered reasonable.  I think they would then more clearly appreciate how your van is "not fit for purpose".

However, I thought you had now established that your van has been built on the wrong chassis: i.e. the 3,300Kg chassis instead of the 3,500Kg chassis?  If that is the case, that is surely a far more secure basis for rejecting the van and demanding your money back from the dealer.  The goods supplied do not match their description, and the mis-match is a significant one, so you should have a pretty cast iron case for rejection.

Re weighing the van, all you need to do is load it to the requirements of the above BS, get someone else to check all is correct, and to go with you to the weighbridge to verify that the van was weighed in that state of load.  Then, park it with all four wheels on the weighbridge platform, and both get out before the vehicle is weighed.  Take the weighbridge ticket, which should have the registration number, date, time and weight, all printed on it.  You will now have the vehicle weight to BS EN 1646-2, but minus the driver, for which the BS says a 75Kg allowance is to be made.  Your witness can confirm that the weighbridge ticket shows the weight without driver or passenger, so all you need to do is add 75Kg to the weighbridge ticket value, to get the full BS EN 1646-2 MIRO for your van. 

However, if your van is on the wrong chassis, you should not need to weigh it, it has 200Kg less payload than claimed, it does not match the seller's description of it, and that alone should be adequate grounds for rejection.

Oh, and no, I'm no expert!

[Brian Kirby]

Mickydripin - 2008-12-07 10:46 AM So you think £30 is little change do you well some motor homers pay most of there life savings then more for accessories and then tend to go over the top for our little luxuries. We then realize that you never stop paying out, When we go to the weight bridge if things are not right there is mostly a queue behind us and we can not fiddle about moving things around so we pull off and do just that and then it costs another £30. I have read on the posts that people have had to pay a visit to the weighbridge two or three times before they are satisfied. Yes we do pay 30. 35, £40,000 or more for our motorhomes but do you read MMM there are many stories about people trying to cut costs and taking risks when parking up and wild camping or going that last mile to get to a free Arie we would all like to be in the same position as you seam to be in and not worry about money you are one of the lucky ones a lot of pensioners are motor homers and have to look after there meager pensions. What are you going to say to them. Quote! Well if you can not afford it dont do it..DURRRRRRRRRR

Mick

Have a go with the link to Chris Dodge Trucks that Derek has posted.  When you find one near you, give them a ring and ask how much they charge, and when is a quiet time to visit.  Then just use the cheapest.  For your purpose, you don't need three weighings, just the one weighing to represent the BS EN 1646-2 MIRO.  I would recommend you stick to just that one weight for now.  If you need it in court, the less additional information it contains, the clear its meaning will be.

However, if/when you do need to check the axle weights, as well as the total weight, all can be included on a single ticket.  You'll need a public weighbridge at a location handling bulk materials, say a scrap yard, or a builders merchant who sells bulk sand and ballast by weight.  When you arrive, tell the weighbridge operator what you want.  The usual routine is either a delivery, or a collection.  The truck arrives, is weighed in, delivers or picks up its load, and is then weighed again before leaving.  The difference between the two weighings is the weight of goods delivered/collected.  The trick is that these weighbridges are connected to a computer, which records the first weighing (A) against the vehicle's registration number, so when it comes back again it calculates the difference between its first and second weighings (B) and then prints a ticket with A and B and A-B all shown. 

So for your van, as Derek says, once the weighbridge operator understands what you want, he will decide to set you up as though you were making a delivery or a collection.  Say he decides to treat you as making a collection.  You place first the front wheel only on the platform, and he records the weight (A), then you drive the whole van onto the platform and he takes that weight (B), the machine then calculates (B) - (A) as though you had collected bulk goods, but in your case the figures will represent the total weight of the van (B) - the front axle weight (A) = the rear axle weight (B) - (A).  All that should go on the single ticket, and should only incur one charge.  Our local builders yard charges £7.50, and all they ask is not to arrive before 10:00 AM or after 16:00 PM or lunch time, when the operator, for some strange reason, isn't there!

However, I have to agree with Dave.  Motorhomes are expensive to run and to own, as well as to buy.  If money is tight, it is not a good idea to spend to the maximum to buy the thing; you do need to keep a good wad in your back pocket, to cover all those annoying extra costs you never thought of at first!

[Mickydripin]

HI Brian the question that I asked you is, Is there any official document that covers the information that you posted on payloads as my solicitor will not accept ear-say are you an expert on this kind of thing as you seam well clued up on this subject.

[Derek Uzzell]

Mickey,

 

It appears possible to obtain the British Standard (BS EN 1646-2:1998) document Brian mentions via the following link:

 

http://www.standardsdirect.org/standards/standards1/StandardsCatalogue24_view_12133.html

 

However, I agree with Brian that the payload issue does not seem to be a particularly significant factor in your dispute with your dealer. The most important thing is surely that you were sold a motorhome built on a 3300kg chassis rather than on the 3500kg chassis you had every right to expect.

 

It's one thing to believe you will be buying a motorhome with a 3500kg chassis capability and to decide this will be adequate for your needs regarding carrying capacity, but quite another to make plans based on a 3500kg chassis and then find you have been 'short changed' by 200kg when the motorhome is delivered to you.

[Brian Kirby]

Mickydripin - 2008-12-07 12:27 PM HI Brian the question that I asked you is, Is there any official document that covers the information that you posted on payloads as my solicitor will not accept ear-say are you an expert on this kind of thing as you seam well clued up on this subject.

Mick

In case unclear, a BS (British Standard) is a pretty official document - issued by the British Standards Institute on behalf of the British Government.

[BGD]

Just a quick update:

 

Many many moons ago, when we were discussing this siubject, I did ask the UK Department of Transport (Technical Standards Unit) for the actual definiations, as contained in the actual Legislation, for both "Unladen Weight" and for "Mass in Running Order".

 

With typical Public Sector urgency, marginally faster than glacial flow, the good people there that you all pay for replied to me ... ..... ........ .......... .......... .............. ...................................... today.

 

 

 

I've copied their reply below.

Their legal definition of "Unladen Weight" is exactly as per the definition we had already gleaned from other sources.

They did also confirm that the term "Mass In Running Order" is not something referred to or defined anywhere within UK Construction & Use Regulations:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Dear Mr Dowding

 

Regulation 3 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986, as amended (C&U), defines unladen weight as follows: “the weight of a vehicle or trailer inclusive of the body and all parts (the heavier being taken where alternative bodies or parts are used) which are necessary to or ordinarily used with the vehicle or trailer when working on a road, but exclusive of the weight of water, fuel or accumulators used for the purpose of the supply of power for the propulsion of the vehicle or, as the case may be, by which the trailer is drawn, and of loose tools and equipment.”

 

Mass in running order is not a definition set down in C&U or other legislation.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Jillian Smith

DfT – Transport Technology and Standards

 

 

 

 

[Brian Kirby]

Thanks Bruce.

The definition of Mass In Running Order (MIRO) is given in British Standard, BS EN 1646-2.  So far as I know, this is in turn based upon EC Commission Directive 95/48/EC, which contains the following:

Commission Directive 95/48/EC of 20 September 1995 adapting to technical progress Council Directive 92/21/EEC relating to the masses and dimensions of motor vehicles of category M1

Official Journal L 233 , 30/09/1995 P. 0073 - 0085

..................................................

1.1. Definitions

'Mass of the vehicle in running order' means the mass of the vehicle with bodywork in running order (including coolant, oils, fuel, spare wheel, tools and driver).

..................................................

As can be seen, this is basically Unladen Weight, plus all tools and other things necessary for propulsion, including the driver (not stated in the abstract above, but at a nominal 75Kg).

This is an assumption, so is not entirely safe as regards the actual wording of the BS, but I'd guess it will be pretty close. 

I would have quoted from the the BS, but I'm too tight to shuck out £30 to buy it just to satisfy my idle curiosity!  :-)

[Silicongyro]

Brian

May I also add my thanks for your valuable work (again) and article.

 

I have a supplementary question I would appreciate the forum views on - that of estimating my motorhome unladen weight from the MIRO for the purposes of UK speed limits.

I have a Laika Italian built motorhome with a manufacturer stated MIRO of 3177Kg. I am clearly interested in making a reasonable determination of my unladen weight to convince me, and if necessary the police, that it is less than the critical 3050Kg . This would allow me to drive at normal car speeds if lower than 3050Kg.

 

I have taken off 75Kg for the nominal driver, 64Kg for the weight of 90% of 80 litres of fuel, and 90Kg for the weight of 100 litres of fresh water. This leaves 2948 Kg which seems safely below 3050.

 

Is my thinking reasonable for the unladen weight for this purpose ?

 

 

[davenewellhome]

Silicongyro - 2009-01-14 8:30 PM

 

Brian

May I also add my thanks for your valuable work (again) and article.

 

I have a supplementary question I would appreciate the forum views on - that of estimating my motorhome unladen weight from the MIRO for the purposes of UK speed limits.

I have a Laika Italian built motorhome with a manufacturer stated MIRO of 3177Kg. I am clearly interested in making a reasonable determination of my unladen weight to convince me, and if necessary the police, that it is less than the critical 3050Kg . This would allow me to drive at normal car speeds if lower than 3050Kg.

 

I have taken off 75Kg for the nominal driver, 64Kg for the weight of 90% of 80 litres of fuel, and 90Kg for the weight of 100 litres of fresh water. This leaves 2948 Kg which seems safely below 3050.

 

Is my thinking reasonable for the unladen weight for this purpose ?

 

 

Well yes but why not go with the lower limits and then there's no likelihood of a problem and you'll almost certainly save fuel too.

 

Plus of course it is not our opinion that counts, you would have to convince a magistrate/judge which is a whole different kettle of fish.

 

D.

[colin]

Silicongyro - 2009-01-14 8:30 PM

 

Brian

May I also add my thanks for your valuable work (again) and article.

 

I have a supplementary question I would appreciate the forum views on - that of estimating my motorhome unladen weight from the MIRO for the purposes of UK speed limits.

I have a Laika Italian built motorhome with a manufacturer stated MIRO of 3177Kg. I am clearly interested in making a reasonable determination of my unladen weight to convince me, and if necessary the police, that it is less than the critical 3050Kg . This would allow me to drive at normal car speeds if lower than 3050Kg.

 

I have taken off 75Kg for the nominal driver, 64Kg for the weight of 90% of 80 litres of fuel, and 90Kg for the weight of 100 litres of fresh water. This leaves 2948 Kg which seems safely below 3050.

 

Is my thinking reasonable for the unladen weight for this purpose ?

 

 

Have you allowed 5% (appox150kg) for manufacturing tollerance? If not it could come out at between 2800 to 3100, you would need trip to weighbridge to check.

[Derek Uzzell]

Silicongyro:

 

Your calculations seem convincing enough to me, though, as unladen-weight is vehicle specific, the only way to be sure that your Laika's is sub-3050kg would be to do as Colin suggests and weigh it.

 

There has been a good deal of earlier forum discussion about the relationship of UK speed limits to the 3050kg 'unladen weight' limit. For example:

 

http://www.outandaboutlive.co.uk/forums/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=6483&posts=14

 

There must be plenty of motorhomes UK-registered in the Private/Light Goods class that can't manage to limbo their way beneath the 3050kg limit - particularly those that are down-plated from originally over-3500kg chassis and are being operated with minimal payload. It's a prehistoric regulation that many motorcaravanners will be blissfully unaware of and that is impossible to police with any precision.

[Brian Kirby]

Given your stated weights, and the need, as Colin so rightly points out, to allow for the 5% upward tolerance  (which itself is liable to seasonal variation as the van's moisture content fluctuates), I would say, I'm afraid, that you're trying to be "too clever by arf".  :-)

I agree with Dave, just accept that you're borderline, and proceed as though above the 3,050Kg limit.  It won't make much difference to actual journey times in UK, and you'll in any case be subject to the lower limits pretty much throughout Europe - including in Germany on the autobahnen - because you are over 3,500Kg MAM.  Safest option?

[Silicongyro]

Thanks for your useful inputs guys.

 

I now accept prudence says assume my unladen weight is not safely below 3050Kg and to drive accordingly!

I believe the onus would be on the prosecuting authority to prove the unladen weight was indeed greater than 3050Kg - which previous posts have indicated in practical terms it would be difficult for them to do.

My desire was mainly in relation to level/downhill quiet single carriageway trunk roads where 60mph would be useful.

Oh well!!

 

silicongyro

 

[Mickydripin]

Hi Brian

 

I have just had a letter from Fiat UK if you remember my original post I said that I had been sold a 3,300 motorhome when it should have been a 3,500 well Fiat have said that although structurally the 3,300 and the 3,500 light chassis /cabs are essentially the same the 3.5 has a more powerful braking system with thicker front discs, different front calipers and a larger master cylinder suitable for its higher weights there may also be differences in the springing and shock absorbers.

they also go on to say that they do not authorise any uprating of the weights for the 250 series ducato model and would certainly not condone the re-rating of this 3,300 vehicle to 3,500KG.

they also go on to say that it seems clear to me that on this occasion they have used the wrong chassis as the base for this vehicle. well on this basis the solicitor said it looks as tho Ihave a concret case.

But what of the motorhomers out there that have uprated this chassis or have had the same thing done to them I hope that they read this post and sort it out as soon as possible as when I contacted a company in Leyland that do this sort of uprating they told me that it could be done.

 

Mike

[colin]

It's my opinion that any chassis below 3.5tonne is not suitable for a paperwork upgrade, I think the only chassis suitable for this is the maxi which is downplated to 3.5tonne but built to take 4tonne

[carolh]

Is your payload adequate? - NO

We have a rapido 741 mgw 3500kg - payload is about 350kg, we have a fiamma awning and a solar panel and bike rack.

I am in the process of having it re-plated to 3850kg, it's only a paper exercise as our vehicle is on the maxi chassis.

We went out for the day today to give the van and run and on the way back called into our local public weighbridge - we had:-

 

both of us in the cab - neither of us are porkies - but not slimline either!

full fresh water - 90litres or thereabouts

full 6kg gaslow bottles x 2

3/4 tank of fuel.

hardly any clothes

maybe enough tinned food for 2 days.

oh yes we do have a mattress topper on the fixed bed.

 

we were 3480kg!!!

Doesn't bear thinking about does it?

 

OK so we don't need to travel with full fresh water tank. But it still doesn't give us much to play with, we left the bikes at home last summer when we went over to france to work for the summer, but I want to take them this year.

 

Hence the re-plating.

 

[Mickydripin]

Hi Brian and other people that sent answers to my posting I would just like to update you on what is now happening.

After much much money and letters back and forth to my solicitor I have a date for what is called a case management directions in June so that it can proceed to trial all this has affected both myself and my wife badly health wise so weather the dealer is hoping that we will back out due to the shortage of cash I don't know but I would not hold there breath if I were them should we lose god knows what will happen but after the extremely great help and backing from Fiat UK that should not happen but with the lies and the dealer denying everything you never know which way it will go. I hope that I will have some good news to tell you later this year so thanks for all your support. Mike.

[Brian Kirby]

Mike

Whatever the value of your claim against the dealer, do remember to add onto it all of your out of pocket costs, solicitor's fees etc, and make sure your solicitor frames your claim to include these.

Also, if you get judgement in favour (and you should unless your solicitor is a total klutz!), remember you then have to get the money out of the dealer.  You may need to send in bailiffs, for which you will have to pay, and their costs too can be added to the judgement provided you do this via the court. 

If you get judgement, you should also apply for (solicitor again!) and get costs, meaning the dealer becomes liable for the lot.  Remember that if the dealer refuses to pay, the court will enforce the judgement on their own behalf, but not necessarily on your behalf.  Be aware that once you have judgement it will fall to you to pursue payment of your money - no one else will do so.  Also be aware that there are set timescales that may stipulate how soon after the event you can move to the next level, or to how long after the event you can initiate further actions.

If the dealer won't pay up within a reasonable time, and you have a uncontested judgement, you should be able to apply for what I think is called a garnishee order, that has the effect of freezing a similar sum in his bank account.  To obtain release of his money, he will have to pay you.  The costs, so far as I know, are also payable by the dealer, though again, you will have to ensure they are added onto his bill.

If you can get into your local court in the near future you should find you can get very useful information leaflets that guide you through much of the process.  Some will be aimed at the small claims process and, although I would assume your claim may fall outside small claims scope, it might be worth getting them to see whether there are useful general hints on what to do (and what not to do), and when.

My final thought is it may be worth trying to get a meeting with the dealer and his solicitor (and yours) once a date for the hearing has been set, since it is then they will know they are looking down the barrel of a gun and, with the uncertainty of the trial before them, they may be more amenable to reach agreement.  However, this should only be proposed and arranged by your solicitor, and should preferably take place at one, or other, solicitor's offices.  Your full costs should be presented, including the cost of any such meeting, court fees etc, so that they can clearly see the magnitude of your claim.  The outcome of the meeting might prove useful in court later, if you cannot reach agreement, but be very guarded what you say because it may also be of use to them!! :-)

[Guest JudgeMental]

 

What a great thread this is and well worth resurrecting........Good luck with the case Mike!