Breakdown Cover & Dogs (3 Viewers)

[GJH]

Ralph and Bev,

[HI]Wha on earth are you on about" they should have had cover," why do you think they and I are members of the RAC, that is cover if you break down, [/HI] I am looking into my membership with the RAC yes I hold them responsible, and then the lorry driver, not much said about him, was he a foreign driver, ? it nust have been a nightmare for the ladies involved, I am wary of foreign drivers, have been for years, when we were at Calais waiting for the ferry home, my husband pointed to this foreign driver about this bald tyres and cracks in them, he just shrugged his shoulders,said no matter. nothing more to be said

.This is not good for the RAC .they should take the driver to task. they ought to be sued. lack of care leaving members in that situation. JMOP.

But the point is that they didn't have cover. As has been mentioned on this and other threads, they hadn't taken note of the exclusion for animals in the policy.

Whatever else has come out of this incident, at least all should now be aware of the need to ensure (not assume) that the policy provides the cover required - and that other general breakdown policies from other companies have similar exclusions.

 

[Phill D]

But the point is that they didn't have cover. As has been mentioned on this and other threads, they hadn't taken note of the exclusion for animals in the policy.

Whatever else has come out of this incident, at least all should now be aware of the need to ensure (not assume) that the policy provides the cover required - and that other general breakdown policies from other companies have similar exclusions.

i agree with your second paragraph completely.

The big worry for all is that you dont know you dont have cover until a specific recovery driver comes along and decides; it seems he / she is the one that decides if you have cover or not the RAC say "its the drivers discretion"

 

[camcondor]

It is a shame that some nasty little tin pot hitler /tosser gets to decide if you live or die if you dare to travel with a much loved pet. Nasty little creep that treated those ladies like that, hope karma catches up with him someday. Whether he was "entitled" to decide to leave them all in such an unsafe situation or not, a little bit of basic humanity and decency would not have gone amiss - he could actually have advised them to relocate the dogs outside in their crates in a safer situation and moved his lazy arse to help them if he had a iota of decency, before leaving the scene

Miserable jobswerth plonker whose callous and nasty behaviour led to the needless deaths of the dogs and serious injuries to humans involved. Seems to be that's what Britain is all about today even if his towtruck was too small for the MH / he didn't want to transport the dogs or the people, he could still have helped them all move to safety before buggering off with a snigger. Toss Pot.

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

 

[Phill D]

whats the position on this in EU

so as a follow on from this incident does anyone have any idea if the transportation of dogs is under the same " Discretion" in France , Spain, Germany etc...

 

[rainbow chasers]

Good old blame culture!

I am a little confused as the ladies in question state they were 'WAITING FOR RECOVERY'

RAC spokeman has stated that they 'WERE EN ROUTE TO THE SCENE'

The camper would NOT have been covered by the same recovery that you would have as it was a BUSINESS VEHICLE (Dog Show Journal) and was full of not only dogs, but filming equipment used for that business.

Business users PAY for recovery - they don't get club membership (or shouldn't if you read the small print) They should also have a licence to carry that number of animals, and being transported in a business use, signwritten vehicle.

If this was the case as it should have been, they would have known all the small print and have special cover in place such as PRP Rescue to cover the animals.

I suggest, that much of what is being discussed is more chinese whisper and mass panic than fact.

Sad thing is, that animals have died - in what appears to be a tragic accident!

 

[GJH]

i agree with your second paragraph completely.

[HI]The big worry for all is that you dont know you dont have cover until a specific recovery driver comes along and decides; it seems he / she is the one that decides if you have cover or not the RAC say "its the drivers discretion"[/HI]

It should not be a big worry. If a proper assessment of the risks to be covered has been made (by the customer, as with any insurance) then the extent/limit of the cover should be known in advance.

Every time I've taken out or renewed insurance (of any type) I have been made aware that it is up to me to make sure the cover meets my needs. That message is repeated when the policy documents arrive.

EDIT: If "driver's discretion" does not give adequate cover then the answer is to find a policy without that restriction.

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

 

[daisy mae]

The RAC recovery is if you break down, I joined again 3 months ago, and it is known I have a motor home, thing is it is not the vehicle that is covered it is the member, I am covered whatever vehicle I am in, even as a passenger, in someone else`s vehicle, whether it is a car, van, motor home.I was told that if I break down, they would want to know where, type of vehicle for them to send the correct breakdown to deal with it, they have trucks that can carry motor homes, the AA do not when I asked.
It should never be left to one person to decide the motorists fate,

One of the ladies, who was involved has put out a message saying what really happened, they kept ringing the RAC when the firstrac guy turned up and then left them, they did get out of the vehicle but it was so cold they had to go back in, she also said that if they were outside, their injuries could have been so much worse, due to the debris and the chassis flying far and wide.So I believe she knows what really happened as it was her dogs that got killed, another one has died from its injuries since. :Sad:

I believe in Karma, and hope that RAC guy gets his just deserts. maybe harsh but that is I and many others feel, perhaps he was annoyed at having to leave his comfy abode.

This is dreadful, I travel everywhere with my dog, a friend hasn`t had any problems when she broke down with one of her dogs, she is with Green Flag.

The more I hear of folk, the more I love my dogs.

 

[GJH]

The [HI]RAC recovery is if you break down[/HI], I joined again 3 months ago, and it is known I have a motor home, thing is [HI]it is not the vehicle that is covered it is the member[/HI], I am covered whatever vehicle I am in, even as a passenger, in someone else`s vehicle, whether it is a car, van, motor home.I was told that if I break down, they would want to know where, type of vehicle for them to send the correct breakdown to deal with it, they have trucks that can carry motor homes, the AA do not when I asked.
It should never be left to one person to decide the motorists fate,

One of the ladies, who was involved has put out a message saying what really happened, they kept ringing the RAC when the firstrac guy turned up and then left them, they did get out of the vehicle but it was so cold they had to go back in, she also said that if they were outside, their injuries could have been so much worse, due to the debris and the chassis flying far and wide.So I believe she knows what really happened as it was her dogs that got killed, another one has died from its injuries since. :Sad:

I believe in Karma, and hope that RAC guy gets his just deserts. maybe harsh but that is I and many others feel, perhaps he was annoyed at having to leave his comfy abode.

This is dreadful, I travel everywhere with my dog, a friend hasn`t had any problems when she broke down with one of her dogs, she is with Green Flag.

The more I hear of folk, the more I love my dogs.

Exactly. It is the member who is covered not any animals which the member may have with them at the time.

As other posts on this and other threads have pointed out, that factor is not unique to the RAC, it is a general one. Anyone requiring cover for animals needs to take out a policy which specifically includes that.

Your friend who is with Green Flag was lucky as one of their general exclusions is "Transportation of horses or livestock". Also, in the general conditions, they clearly state that onward transportation of any animal is at their discretion.

 

[Tootles]

This is not good for the RAC .they should take the driver to task. they ought to be sued. lack of care leaving members in that situation. JMOP.

IF it had been the police, or Highways Agency that attended, they would not have left such a vulnerable vehicle unprotected on the hard shoulder until it was either in the safe hands of a breakdown agency, or had been recovered. These ladies should have immediately phoned the police when the RAC left them. All road aware agencies, including the police. prioritise when women break down on the motorway system, you just have to let them know!!

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

 

[rainbow chasers]

[HI]I am covered whatever vehicle I am in[/HI],

You are covered for any vehicle up to 3.5t - although they will cover up to 5t where available. Anything over this will need specialist Heavy Recovery, as even the larger vehicles have a weight limit! They EXCLUDE anything used for business, and anything that is overweight or suspected to be.

[HI]they would want to know where, type of vehicle for them to send the correct breakdown to deal with it[/HI]

Yes, if you are in a larger vehicle, have excess animals, excess weight then they can make provisions for taxis, vans, or a heavy recovery company to be deployed. You don't tell them - and the wrong vehicle may arrive!

[HI]they have trucks that can carry motor homes, the AA do not when I asked.[/HI]
AA have more trucks than RAC; They carry the same weight capacities as RAC. The difference with AA is that they employ 'seasonals' in 7.5t to take the strain of the excess car recoveries in busy periods. It is cheaper than using contractors, and means their core fleet are doing the heavy work. You may see AA men in plain white trucks - these are the seasonals. Don't foget that even the 14 ton trucks actually only carry a 4 or 5t load. My old twin deck transporter would only cope with 4t!

[HI]guy turned up and then left them,[/HI]

Why? Aspersions are being cast but out of the reasons this woman alledgly has given...which one? Did he leave due to dogs? The number of Dogs? The Length of the Vehicle? Vehicle being too heavy for this truck?

Which one?????? Take your pick!

[HI]perhaps he was annoyed at having to leave his comfy abode[/HI].

How would you know? Did he do what most would do and try arrange alternative travel whilst sat in his cab - taxis, vans etc?? How do you know he just couldn't be bothered an left - recovery drivers do not do that, they are used to being outside the cab, rescuing people and being abused and shouted out for taking so long, when the job only came in 15 minutes before, or because their cambelt has snapped and destroyed their engine and they are demanding you fix it roadside in the 30 minutes stated.

It is what recovery lads do!

[HI]a friend hasn`t had any problems when she broke down with one of her dogs, she is with Green Flag.[/HI]

Green flag use contractors - so he has the greatest chance of having the correct vehicle - but all is at the discretion of the driver - all drivers will allow dogs to travel in the vehicle unless it presents a danger or their is a welfare issue.......which is why I believe there is more to this than meets the eye.

With what they have stated the vehicle was loaded with - I suspect the vehicle was overweight. The driver may not have had the right vehicle - he may have decided to go back an get a bigger one himself as no drivers were available (done that before!) who knows?

 

[Caztur]

[HI]guy turned up and then left them,[/HI]

As I understand it, this is a myth, no RAC vehicle had been to the scene and left. RAC had been trying to find a suitable recovery vehicle that could handle a large motorhome. One had been found and was on its way when the crash happened.

 

[DavidG58]

We all need to know the facts before judging, one thing I have not seen criticised is the apparent lack of interest from the authorities, apologies if I have missed the entry, I have just scanned the last few pages again

I find it unbelievable that no Highways Agency or Police vehicle passed the MH while broken down, even overnight I would expect patrols on the road, there seem to be CCTV cameras on all motorways now, we regularly check the traffic on the M1 near us before setting out

It beggars belief that nobody with powers and ability to assist didn't, this was the M40 not a country lane

Ultimately the lorry driver is probably by far the biggest blame in all this, but even he might have a vehicle or medical problem and it was just a freak and very sad combination of events

David

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

 

[daisy mae]

The lady who was in the vehicle said that a driver did turned up, as she was there and we weren`t.

The Kennel Club is now on this case. the dogs could have stayed in the vehicle in the cages, no danger to anyone.not they they were anyway, they were only little dogs. RAC knew they had dogs and there were crated. The Rac driver didn`t need to go in the mh it was a clutch/gear problem.If only he had warned oncoming traffic by putting up warning lights, until a larger truck came there wouldn`t have been an issue.

 

[camcondor]

When we broke down years ago on a dangerous section of road and I called the RAC, the operator advised that they would be alerting the police as that was what they were trained to do in respect of such circumstances. The police arrived very quickly and protected us and our vehicle with cones and their cars until the recovery truck arrived. Wonder why on earth the RAC operator that took these poor ladies call could not have done the same?

As for seeing Highway patrols regularly passing by - well, you don't. I commute hundreds of miles in a week on some of the busiest roads in the country and rarely see Traffic/ Highway patrols out unless there is an accident.

 

[andyman]

If this is correct then no RAC patrol arrived and then left.
Link Removed

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

 

[rainbow chasers]

As I understand it, this is a myth, no RAC vehicle had been to the scene and left. RAC had been trying to find a suitable recovery vehicle that could handle a large motorhome. One had been found and was on its way when the crash happened.

This is what I was outlining. The highlighted parts were quotes from a previous poster who seemed to want to blame the recovery company and driver for everything. I have nothing against the poster, but feel we need to know the full story before blaming and casting aspersions left, right and centre.

I know how recovery works - I have been a driver and recovery company owner in the past.

 

[rainbow chasers]

If this is correct then no RAC patrol arrived and then left.
Link Removed

Similar info as I had seen - only more precise and detailed. I was also under the impression that the recovery were en route, rather than left as we are being told the lady had stated. Her version of events with the media on this occasion makes no mention of another truck being sought - so confirms my original suspicions of chinese whispers!:thumb:

 

[Janine]

But isn't it still the case that the were left in a vulnerable position on the hard shoulder of a motorway for 3 hours?

Whether the RAC had attended or not, surely someone had a duty of care after the ladies reported their van broken down?

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

 

[dave newell]

But isn't it still the case that the were left in a vulnerable position on the hard shoulder of a motorway for 3 hours?

Whether the RAC had attended or not, surely someone had a duty of care after the ladies reported their van broken down?

They were told to get out of the vehicle but chose, because it was cold, to stay in the vehicle. They were in a motorhome for goodness sake surely they had sufficient clothing with them to get out and stay out. Yes 3 hours does sound excessive and without the full facts it is not my place to comment but as for duty of care they had a duty of care to themselves, in fact as I understand it the one lady "employed" the other two which imposes a duty of care on her to ensure their safety.

D.

 

[johnp10]

It seems the women, not the RAC Driver (not yet arrived...a "virtual" driver, then?) are at fault.
They shouldn't have been in the vehicle on a motorway hard shoulder.
The crash demonstrates why.
The dogs?
12 dogs in the vehicle?

The vehicle was carrying out a business function as an animal transporter, not a social one, so should have been covered by a business recovery scheme.

Is anyone going to retract what they said about the RAC or the alleged RAC driver, or the names he was called?
Will the advice to think again about using RAC be retracted?

Naah.

Where drivers having discretion regarding carrying animals in the cab, that's right and proper.
The driver only has the owner's word that the dog in question is stable and not aggressive.
He may have a condition which is aggravated by dog hair, or have had bad experiences with dogs.
There are a number of valid reasons to refuse carriage, none of which give reason to castigate anyone.

Full info before name calling from high horses is the message.

 

[GJH]

But isn't it still the case that the were left in a vulnerable position on the hard shoulder of a motorway for 3 hours?

Whether the RAC had attended or not, [HI]surely someone had a duty of care[/HI] after the ladies reported their van broken down?

If they were sufficiently concerned they could have contacted the police/Highways Agency themselves couldn't they?

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

 

[johnp10]

But isn't it still the case that the were left in a vulnerable position on the hard shoulder of a motorway for 3 hours?

Whether the RAC had attended or not, surely [HI]someone had a duty of care [/HI]after the ladies reported their van broken down?

I would argue the women did.
Sitting in the vehicle in a vulnerable position hardly exercises duty of care.
What we have on this thread is largely "blame someone else.

The Insurance claim will be interesting if the vehicle isn't covered as a commercial animal transport, which it now appears it should have been.

 

[camcondor]

If they were sufficiently concerned they could have contacted the police/Highways Agency themselves couldn't they?

It is traumatic enough to end up breaking down in such a situation, which is why Recovery Companies are supposedly there to provide not just a recovery service, but also advise the relevant agencies about a potential hazardous situation. 3 hours waiting time sounds crazy and unacceptable, and there is no reason on earth why the RAC call operator could not have informed the police of the situation, given the dangers involved, regardless of there being dogs in the motorhome. The RAC certainly did that when we broke down on a hazardous section of road. IMO Being flippant and sarcastic about their predicament is not particularly clever :Angry: a lot of ordinary people in traumatic situations would not perhaps immediately consider the fact that a truck was about to ram them, smash up their motorhome, kill their dogs and severely injure one of them

Hope the sanctimonious responders on here never end up in difficult circumstances either.

 

[maz]

Predictable responses from at least two known dog haters.

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

 

[camcondor]

I would argue the women did.
Sitting in the vehicle in a vulnerable position hardly exercises duty of care.
What we have on this thread is largely "blame someone else.

The Insurance claim will be interesting if the vehicle isn't covered as a commercial animal transport, which it now appears it should have been.

Must be nice to be so all-knowing abut everything? And why would the motorhome be an "animal transporter" ? Or are you an insurance expert as well? Just because I convey pets in a vehicle does not mean it becomes an "animal transporter", it depends on a whole lot of factors, not just the fact that a few small dogs are going to a show with their owners in a motorhome. The dogs may well not have been transported for profit or as part of a business at all, but as part of their owners wanting to show them.

 

[Phill D]

surely the my main point for us on this forum from this sad incident is to learn;

from my point.....

do i have breakdown cover .... yes

do i have a dog i transport in our vehicle .... yes
is a dog Livestock? ...... NO... its a domestic pet, and that is clear in all i have read so far.

did i think that i would be allowed to carry our dog in the cab of the recovery vehicle ....No
did i think that this would be at the discretion of the recovery agent...... yes
did i know this when i bought the policy...yes

did i consider there may be an issue with carrying our dog in our van during recovery if he was appropriately restrained .... No
Is this point at the discretion of the recovery agent... ?? i am still not clear, but it would appear so.



could things have been done differently in the incident in question..... undoubtedly by all parties... but its easy with a DEGREE in hindsight.
who is to blame for this incident ...... not within my remit .


does this incident make me re evaluate my insurance / cover and be more aware ... you betcha ...

 

[GJH]

It is traumatic enough to end up breaking down in such a situation, which is why Recovery Companies are supposedly there to provide not just a recovery service, but also advise the relevant agencies about a potential hazardous situation. 3 hours waiting time sounds crazy and unacceptable, and there is no reason on earth why the RAC call operator could not have informed the police of the situation, given the dangers involved, regardless of there being dogs in the motorhome. The RAC certainly did that when we broke down on a hazardous section of road. IMO Being flippant and sarcastic about their predicament is not particularly clever :Angry: a lot of ordinary people in traumatic situations would not perhaps immediately consider the fact that a truck was about to ram them, smash up their motorhome, kill their dogs and severely injure one of them

Hope the sanctimonious responders on here never end up in difficult circumstances either.

Predictable responses from at least two known dog haters.

None of my comments on this thread have anything to do with being flippant or with hating dogs.

If you look at them you will see that they are aimed at pointing out that people need to know what cover they have and take responsibility for themselves, not simply assume that somebody else will do it for them.

If that makes me unpopular then tough.

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

 

[rainbow chasers]

But isn't it still the case that the were left in a vulnerable position on the hard shoulder of a motorway for 3 hours?

Whether the RAC had attended or not, surely someone had a duty of care after the ladies reported their van broken down?

Unfortunately, this is fairly average in busy times. Don't forget the road had been closed - and recovery vehicles are currently not allowed to use the hard shoulder unless authorised by the Police - otherwise they have to sit in the traffic too!

A30 Temple Bank Holiday- 9 vehicles to be recovered (overheating) We had to sit for 2 hours the same as everyone else to get to them, took two families at a time, crammed them in and back to base. Each relay took 4 hours to complete including loading/unloading...people had waited 6 hours each on average that day. It happens!

It is traumatic enough to end up breaking down in such a situation, which is why Recovery Companies are supposedly there to provide not just a recovery service, but also advise the relevant agencies about a potential hazardous situation. 3 hours waiting time sounds crazy and unacceptable, and there is no reason on earth why the RAC call operator could not have informed the police of the situation, given the dangers involved, regardless of there being dogs in the motorhome. The RAC certainly did that when we broke down on a hazardous section of road. IMO Being flippant and sarcastic about their predicament is not particularly clever :Angry: a lot of ordinary people in traumatic situations would not perhaps immediately consider the fact that a truck was about to ram them, smash up their motorhome, kill their dogs and severely injure one of them

Hope the sanctimonious responders on here never end up in difficult circumstances either.

Recovery is just recovery - they are not allowed to do anything else! It is nice to have Police rearguard - that is something that is done when available. If no Police/HA are available you are on your own....it isn't nice for the person broken down, or the recovery driver dodging the traffic!

Must be nice to be so all-knowing abut everything? And why would the motorhome be an "animal transporter" ? Or are you an insurance expert as well? Just because I convey pets in a vehicle does not mean it becomes an "animal transporter", it depends on a whole lot of factors, not just the fact that a few small dogs are going to a show with their owners in a motorhome. The dogs may well not have been transported for profit or as part of a business at all, but as part of their owners wanting to show them.

The motorhome was a sighwritten motorhome, which was there to document a dog show as that is what the newspaper/journal is about. It had cameras and other filming equipment on board for doing this - it would be very hard to say anything other than it was being used for business, and was loaded with that equipment. Even if you are taking your own dog, it makes no difference as the trip is for reward/business. You need documention for this as it is classed as animal transport.

No different than if you borrowed a taxi driver friends cab to get to work one day for example. You may only be doing your own private journey - but you need a licence to drive it - even though it would be privately used.

No-one is picking holes, it is just the facts need to be facts. It was a tragic accident, there is no doubt about that - but it is not uncommon and happens all the time!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-14567676

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co...news/recovery-driver-hit-by-car-on-m60-800183

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/mourners-pay-tribute-break-down-recovery-1833221

There are dozens and dozens of reported incidences I could post up.

All the flashing lights in the world will not protect you - every day there are near misses and incidences where people have hit recovery vehicles recovering people.

 

[johnp10]

Must be nice to be so all-knowing abut everything? And why would the motorhome be an "animal transporter" ? Or are you an insurance expert as well? Just because I convey pets in a vehicle does not mean it becomes an "animal transporter", it depends on a whole lot of factors, not just the fact that a few small dogs are going to a show with their owners in a motorhome. The dogs may well not have been transported for profit or as part of a business at all, but as part of their owners wanting to show them.

No, not all knowing.
I leave that to you.
Yes, it must be nice. Is it?

I will express an opinion, which others are free to disagree with.
Yours, on the other hand, are obviously correct in every aspect (because they are yours) and therefore unassailable.
I may not agree, but I will respect yours and others' opinions.
Please afford me the same courtesy without resorting to insults.

I say the vehicle is an "animal transporter" because of the number of animals carried. "A few small dogs" hardly covers 12.
Business use: read Rainbow Chaser's last post.

I agree with Graham.
The women could have called the Police, rather than relying on RAC, could they not?

I don't profess to be an insurance expert either.
I was just wondering how the claim would go down, nothing more.
If that's ok with you, that is.

Maz,
Not a dog hater at all.
I just don't accept that everyone but the dog owner is wrong.

 

[dave newell]

I don't know who the "dog haters" are but I do hope nobody thinks I'm one. Breakdown services are just that, they deal with broken down vehicles. As a driver of any vehicle we all have a duty of care to ourselves and others we come into contact with, it is not the responsibility of a breakdown company to ensure the safety of people who ignore the advice to leave the vehicle and stay as far away as you can from it.

When I was just 20 years old I had to go out to collect a broken down car from the M6 near Hilton services. When I got there with a Marina pickup and four wheel trailer I found a 28 Tonne lorry embedded in the rear of the Marina which itself was embedded in the rear of an AA transit. I had to wait while the vehicles were separated. When they finally got them apart I was horrified to find the AA man in the back of his transit DEAD AND CUT OFF AT THE KNEES! Turns out the Marina had broken down, AA turns out and as it was raining ignored the regular instruction to park 100 yds behind the broken down vehicle with flashers going. Instead he reversed up to the front of the broken down car and raised the tailgate to protect him from the rain as he worked. The lorry had a nearside front blowout which dragged it onto the hard shoulder and straight into the back of the broken down car shunting it into the back of the transit with the AA man in between.

Who's fault was this accident? Lorry driver? NO! he had no way of knowing the tyre would blow out and when it did go he had no control of the vehicle. The AA man was at fault for ignoring the regular instruction on where to park his vehicle. If he had followed that rule would the accident have been different? Very probably yes, because the lorry would have hit the transit which would have dissipated some of the truck's energy and possibly diverted its course. The AA man would have almost certainly been seriously injured but he'd have had a better chance of survival than being kneecapped and then spread around the interior of his own vehicle.

These women ignored advice on where to put themselves, yes the dogs would still have died and that is tragic but the women's injuries would probably have been minor if any were received.

I have a 4.2 Tonne GVW motorhome but the RAC will not give me breakdown cover because it is used for business purposes so I have to pay a fair bit more for commercial cover, if I regularly carried lots of dogs I'd also make sure the breakdown service were aware of and could cope with this.

Its a tragic accident but without full details of it from start to finish we just don't know what happened. As I said earlier its normal for the first response to be a small van, the AA currently use Renault Traffic, not sure what RAC use but it will be same sort of size and not capable of towing a 5 Tonne, 28 ft, tandem axle motorhome with 3 people and 12 dogs on board. Never mind legalities of trying the small van just wouldn't do it! The first response will then typically contact the control centre and request a recovery giving details of what type of vehicle is to be recovered and what type of recovery vehicle will be required. A 28ft tandem axle motorhome with a rear overhang of around 2 metres plus will not be recoverable with a spec lift because the tail end will ground out so it will need a low loader of minimum 17 tonne GVW which is not an everyday unit so a delay will be probable. It is unrealistic to expect the first response to hang around until the recovery unit arrives, there will be other jobs for him to deal with, the occupants of the broken down vwhicle have a duty of care to themselves to put themselves "out of harm's way" the cab and foremost rear seat of the motorhome is not such a location and they were told to get away from the vehicle by the control centre but chose to ignore that advice.

If I understand the situation correctly the one lady employed the other two, she runs a commercial dog kennel, she was transporting 12 dogs in proper cages. These dogs are not family pets, they are being transported for business purposes. She as an employer has a legal duty of care to ensure that her employees are not put in a situation with a likelihood of danger. SHE FAILED!

D.

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