RHA gets green light to pursue truck cartel for compensation

18-year-old who has just passed their driving test could be handed the keys to a 7.5-tonne lorry.”

And on the introduction of LSTs, Goldin said: “You need to complete a special test currently to show manoeuvring competency, so will a retrospective test be applied to these longer trailers?

“Is there a mandatory multiple blind spot camera requirement? Because expecting a driver to navigate and cover all blind spots on this length of trailer is asking a lot of a normal human.” n A decision on whether to allow longer heavier vehicles (LHVs) up to 60 tonnes on the roads could be made in the autumn, according to Hazcomp boss Kevin Buck. He said he recently met with transport minister Richard Holden MP, who was “confident” that the results of a consultation into the use of LHVs, which could be as long as 25.25m, will become available within a few months.

Thousands of HGV operators represented by the RHA have moved one step closer to winning compensation from a cartel of truck manufacturers after the Court of Appeal rejected a legal challenge brought by DAF and MAN.

The case looked at the Competition Appeal Tribunal decision last year to grant the RHA the first ever opt-in collective proceedings order to pursue the claim on behalf of more than 17,000 truck operators.

DAF and MAN, along with UKTC, who are rival applicants, appealed against the tribunal decision on the grounds that there was an irreconcilable conflict within the group of claimants, between those who purchased new vehicles and those who purchased used vehicles. They argued that this conflict between the two groups of purchasers meant that the RHA should not be authorised to bring the claim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, giving the RHA the green light to continue with its collective claim. However, it disagreed with the Competitions Tribunal on the point at which the conflict between new and used truck purchasers needs to be addressed. While the Tribunal was content not to have this dispute addressed until later in the proceedings, the Court of Appeal determined that the conflict needs to be dealt with now and before the collective proceedings order (CPO) is made.