Regarding towing

[Raywood]

I suspect the problem is not that the club might lose the case, which is possible, but the time and hassle you would have to suffer, even if you are proven to be covered. Disputing the case could involve you in several months, or even more in the worst cases, arguing and never being sure you will win. In simple terms it is not worth the risk.
Similar exclusions appear in several other policies, so do be aware.
In practice if the Government website was wrong it might get you through if you relied on it though. It would be more use in defending a criminal conviction where you would be able to show you took reasonable steps to get it right.

 

[Buckman]

There are two issues with relying on the information given on the Governments web site.

The first is the webpage is not the defining document of the law, it is only a Civil Servants vastly skimmed down interpretation of the relevant Act of Parliament or Regulations.

And the second issue there are nuances of the underlying document which are missed out or not understood by the author, or as was the case regarding the definitions of the driving licences cat B definition which missed the crucial difference between the use of weight and weight limits in definitions.

The upshot is when comes down to minutiae and detail you can't trust the portal, you should always refer to the original source documentation.

You are correct, but where would one find the actual legislation defining the Mass In Running Order? I did search and came up with a blank, but may have been using the incorrect parameters for the search?

Hopefully Lutz can improve on my feeble attempts at searching for the legalise terms and provide a link if possible? LOL!

However either way in the event of a claim I think that if the CAMC object, it will probably be a non starter however as it is a "cover" policy, they can probably include what could be deemed as unfair terms?

 

[otherclive]

You are correct, but where would one find the actual legislation defining the Mass In Running Order? I did search and came up with a blank, but may have been using the incorrect parameters for the search?

Hopefully Lutz can improve on my feeble attempts at searching for the legalise terms and provide a link if possible? LOL!

However either way in the event of a claim I think that if the CAMC object, it will probably be a non starter however as it is a "cover" policy, they can probably include what could be deemed as unfair terms?

Why should the CMHC policy incorporate unfair terms. Since the CMHC Caravan Cover ostensibly gives protection via FCS and Ombudsman then if it contains unfair terms any referrals to those bodies would most likely rule against the CMHC.

You really have a thing against the CMHC Caravan Cover. As DD commented “it was done to death ……” and yet you still keep the digs coming.

 

[Buckman]

Why should the CMHC policy incorporate unfair terms. Since the CMHC Caravan Cover ostensibly gives protection via FCS and Ombudsman then if it contains unfair terms any referrals to those bodies would most likely rule against the CMHC.

You really have a thing against the CMHC Caravan Cover. As DD commented “it was done to death ……” and yet you still keep the digs coming.

I think you misunderstood my post regarding the kerb weight / MIRO issue? I don't understand why you think I am having a dig at the CAMC cover as that certainly was not intended. Maybe time for you to climb off your high horse and have a bottle of wine?

 

[RogerL]

Why should the CMHC policy incorporate unfair terms. Since the CMHC Caravan Cover ostensibly gives protection via FCS and Ombudsman then if it contains unfair terms any referrals to those bodies would most likely rule against the CMHC.

You really have a thing against the CMHC Caravan Cover. As DD commented “it was done to death ……” and yet you still keep the digs coming.

The addition of a 100% kerbweight limit does seem to have been introduced when the club changed from offering caravan insurance to offering caravan cover. The person I spoke to yesterday seemed to have no concept of contract law and the need to define everything in legal terms.

 

[Lutz]

I suspect the problem is not that the club might lose the case, which is possible, but the time and hassle you would have to suffer, even if you are proven to be covered. Disputing the case could involve you in several months, or even more in the worst cases, arguing and never being sure you will win. In simple terms it is not worth the risk.
Similar exclusions appear in several other policies, so do be aware.
In practice if the Government website was wrong it might get you through if you relied on it though. It would be more use in defending a criminal conviction where you would be able to show you took reasonable steps to get it right.

If nobody contests an unwarranted claim by an insurance company there will never be any clarification of the issue.

You are correct, but where would one find the actual legislation defining the Mass In Running Order? I did search and came up with a blank, but may have been using the incorrect parameters for the search?

Hopefully Lutz can improve on my feeble attempts at searching for the legalise terms and provide a link if possible? LOL!

If you go to the legislation.gov.uk website and enter "mass in running order" as keywords in the advanced search function, you will find no end of references to Commission Regulation (EU) 1230/2012 which defines it.

 

[otherclive]

If nobody contests an unwarranted claim by an insurance company there will never be any clarification of the issue.



If you go to the legislation.gov.uk website and enter "mass in running order" as keywords in the advanced search function, you will find no end of references to Commission Regulation (EU) 1230/2012 which defines it.

Yet using that search feature I find no reference to kerbweight, which supports so much that has been stated on this thread, and many previous other threads. Any further discussion is speculative pending Roger L receiving a reply to his query.

 

[Lutz]

Yet using that search feature I find no reference to kerbweight, which supports so much that has been stated on this thread, and many previous other threads. Any further discussion is speculative pending Roger L receiving a reply to his query.

In that case, enter "kerbside weight" as keywords in the same legislation.gov.uk website advanced search function. It will lead you to The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 which define it under the heading "Interpretation".

 

[Buckman]

If you go to the legislation.gov.uk website and enter "mass in running order" as keywords in the advanced search function, you will find no end of references to Commission Regulation (EU) 1230/2012 which defines it.

No different to chaff or rubbish throw up previously so none the wiser regarding "mass in running order" in UK legislation.

 

[Lutz]

No different to chaff or rubbish throw up previously so none the wiser regarding "mass in running order" in UK legislation.

OK, then let me lead you straight to the wording of Commission Regulation (EU) 1230/2012 which has been incorporated into UK legislation and states under Article 2, Definitions, Item 4:

‘mass in running order’ means

(a) in the case of a motor vehicle:

the mass of the vehicle, with its fuel tank(s) filled to at least 90 % of its or their capacity/ies, including the mass of the driver, of the fuel and liquids, fitted with the standard equipment in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications and, when they are fitted, the mass of the bodywork, the cabin, the coupling and the spare wheel(s) as well as the tools;

(b) in the case of a trailer:

the mass of the vehicle including the fuel and liquids, fitted with the standard equipment in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications, and, when they are fitted, the mass of the bodywork, additional coupling(s), the spare wheel(s) and the tools;

In Regulation 2021/535, standard equipment was subsequently defined under Part 2 Section A, Definitions and general provisions, Item 1.1 as:

‘standard equipment’ means the basic configuration of a vehicle which is equipped with all the features that are required under the regulatory acts referred to in Annex II to Regulation (EU) 2018/858, including all features that are fitted without giving rise to any further specifications on configuration or equipment level;

 

[Buckman]

Thanks as very informative and again sinks the CAMC version of kerb weight. It seems that the above does not include factory fitted options? Coupling is mentioned but not sure if it refers to a tow bar?

 

[Lutz]

Thanks as very informative and again sinks the CAMC version of kerb weight. It seems that the above does not include factory fitted options? Coupling is mentioned but not sure if it refers to a tow bar?

Unlike the definition of Mass in Running Order, the definition of kerbweight doesn’t exclude factory fitted options. It must therefore be assumed that it is an actual weight including all options, as the name “kerbside weight” would suggest.

 

[Dustydog]

#49:from Gafferbill tried to put some sensibility into this crusade. .
Ripe caravan Insurance make no mention of weights in their policy. Very wise!
I cannot find one incident on the FOS records where a claim has been rejected by CAMC or Caravan guard regarding the weight clause. On the basis this still rests with CAMC to respond to Roger I am happy to wait and have a rest from being overloaded with all these weights😁😁

 

[ProfJohnL]

This Caravan cover issue brings many of the same concerns that have been raised against the so called UK caravan tow matching advice where novice's are advised to keep the caravan's MTPLM the under 75% of the tow vehicles Kerbweight and only raised towards a maximum of 100% as experience is gained.

If this only "advice" then why are The Caravan and MotorHome Club (CMHC) attempting to enforce it when there is no legal basis for it.

Enquiries have been made industry wide on numerous occasions to identify who is the custodian of the advice, and who is responsible for ensuring the advice is fair and accurate, and what evidence was used and the reasons for the choices of the values the advisory body chose.

The industry has steadfastly refused to reveal the answers, nor to deny the choice of values (e.g. 75% and 100% MTPLM to Kerbweight) were just arbitrary values plucked from the air with no substantive evidential basis.

When the rest of the world has not found it necessary to introduce similar advisory limits why does the UK caravan industry try to be so high handed?

 

[RogerL]

#49:from Gafferbill tried to put some sensibility into this crusade. .
Ripe caravan Insurance make no mention of weights in their policy. Very wise!
I cannot find one incident on the FOS records where a claim has been rejected by CAMC or Caravan guard regarding the weight clause. On the basis this still rests with CAMC to respond to Roger I am happy to wait and have a rest from being overloaded with all these weights😁😁

As I posted in #63 and #68 the Club uses "Mass-in-Service" but calls it "kerbweight" - taking my car's options into account it mean that the Club's "insurance" would limit me to about 93% of true kerbweight - maybe I should have had it weighed when it was new, it'll be heavier now due to accumulated mud, etc underneath.

 

[RogerL]

This Caravan cover issue brings many of the same concerns that have been raised against the so called UK caravan tow matching advice where novice's are advised to keep the caravan's MTPLM the under 75% of the tow vehicles Kerbweight and only raised towards a maximum of 100% as experience is gained.

If this only "advice" then why are The Caravan and MotorHome Club (CMHC) attempting to enforce it when there is no legal basis for it.

Enquiries have been made industry wide on numerous occasions to identify who is the custodian of the advice, and who is responsible for ensuring the advice is fair and accurate, and what evidence was used and the reasons for the choices of the values the advisory body chose.

The industry has steadfastly refused to reveal the answers, nor to deny the choice of values (e.g. 75% and 100% MTPLM to Kerbweight) were just arbitrary values plucked from the air with no substantive evidential basis.

When the rest of the world has not found it necessary to introduce similar advisory limits why does the UK caravan industry try to be so high handed?

From international forums, it's clear that Americans tow heavier "travel trailers" at higher speeds than we're "allowed" in the UK - with no structural changes to the vehicles I'm familiar with EXCEPT for higher noseweight limits. Australians also tow heavier caravans but not at the higher speeds of the USA.

 

[ProfJohnL]

I have noted similar trends, but without studying the details of the relevant regulations form each country there may be differences in the engineering that do allow apparent increases in "tongue weight)"

But we are very unlikely to any changes to the UK regulations to allow greater legal towing capacity.

This thread is more about artificially small limits being set by caravan insurers.

 

[RogerL]

I have noted similar trends, but without studying the details of the relevant regulations form each country there may be differences in the engineering that do allow apparent increases in "tongue weight)"

But we are very unlikely to any changes to the UK regulations to allow greater legal towing capacity.

This thread is more about artificially small limits being set by caravan insurers.

I don't think we need any changes in EU/UK regulations - although it's technically a different test, car makers set towing limits using very similar criteria in EU/UK, North America and Australia resulting in the same or similar towing limits where car models are sold globally.

I agree, it's absolutely about caravan insurers setting artificially low limits.

 

[Lutz]

The only country that I know of which has legal weight ratio limits is Germany. They are staggered and only apply if towing at 100km/h. Otherwise, one is limited to 80km/h. The conditions are as follows:

1. The trailer must be fitted with hydraulic dampers (shock absorbers) if the weight ratio exceeds 30%.
2. The trailer is a caravan. It is braked and has dampers. Then the limit is 80%
3. The trailer is a caravan. It is braked, has dampers and an approved stabiliser. In this case the limit is 100%.
4. If the trailer is not a caravan, then the weight ratio limits are 110% and 120% instead of 80% and 100% respectively.

 

[otherclive]

The only country that I know of which has legal weight ratio limits is Germany. They are staggered and only apply if towing at 100km/h. Otherwise, one is limited to 80km/h. The conditions are as follows:

1. The trailer must be fitted with hydraulic dampers (shock absorbers) if the weight ratio exceeds 30%.
2. The trailer is a caravan. It is braked and has dampers. Then the limit is 80%
3. The trailer is a caravan. It is braked, has dampers and an approved stabiliser. In this case the limit is 100%.
4. If the trailer is not a caravan, then the weight ratio limits are 110% and 120% instead of 80% and 100% respectively.

What weight spec is used for the car defined weight? Caravan is easy as it would be MTPLM.

 

[ProfJohnL]

The only country that I know of which has legal weight ratio limits is Germany. They are staggered and only apply if towing at 100km/h. Otherwise, one is limited to 80km/h. The conditions are as follows:

1. The trailer must be fitted with hydraulic dampers (shock absorbers) if the weight ratio exceeds 30%.
2. The trailer is a caravan. It is braked and has dampers. Then the limit is 80%
3. The trailer is a caravan. It is braked, has dampers and an approved stabiliser. In this case the limit is 100%.
4. If the trailer is not a caravan, then the weight ratio limits are 110% and 120% instead of 80% and 100% respectively.

Theres an important difference here, the limits in Germany are set out in law, where as in the UK there is no similar law, but some insurers are setting limits in caravan policies, which they are entitled to do, but they have not provided evidence based reasons.

We also have the UK caravan industry advising us to limit weight ratios, again without declaring the evidence used to establish the effectiveness or otherwise of the advice. The advices calculation employs imprecise criteria such as Kerbweight, and UK caravan MTPLM, which the industry have also mucked around with to confuse customers.
It like juggling jelly!

I can see what they are trying to achieve which is to encourage caravanner's to running the lightest caravans possible, a process I agree with, but it's the methodology and the very specific limits they have adopted which are neither clear or indeed responsive to the true capabilities of the vehicles involved, and the industries total failure to show the evidence of how the ratio advice was formulated, and whether it's been verified as effective or really needed.

 

[Buckman]

I checked our handbook regarding the MTPLM and another clause cropped up stating that the caravan is designed to be towed at a maximum speed of 60mph. Although 60mph is the legal limit does this mean that you you travel at 61mph the caravan is going to fall apart? LOL! I think in France depending on the caravan it can be towed at a higher speed?

It certainly demonstrates that figures are made up as they go along. Even the MTPLM on the sticker is probably below the actual plated maximum weight allowed on the axles?

 

[otherclive]

I checked our handbook regarding the MTPLM and another clause cropped up stating that the caravan is designed to be towed at a maximum speed of 60mph. Although 60mph is the legal limit does this mean that you you travel at 61mph the caravan is going to fall apart? LOL! I think in France depending on the caravan it can be towed at a higher speed?

It certainly demonstrates that figures are made up as they go along. Even the MTPLM on the sticker is probably below the actual plated maximum weight allowed on the axles?

The speed limits in France are linked to the (dare I say it) plated weight of the outfit. It matters not one jot if the car and caravan are empty they are still governed by the plated weights. Plated 3500kg being the dividing weight. But I think that the Dutch are exempt from this legal requirement.

European speed limits

Know your speed limits when touring abroad, whether you’re in a car towing a caravan or travelling in a motorhome.

www.caravanclub.co.uk

 

[Hutch]

I checked our handbook regarding the MTPLM and another clause cropped up stating that the caravan is designed to be towed at a maximum speed of 60mph. Although 60mph is the legal limit does this mean that you you travel at 61mph the caravan is going to fall apart? LOL! I think in France depending on the caravan it can be towed at a higher speed?

It certainly demonstrates that figures are made up as they go along. Even the MTPLM on the sticker is probably below the actual plated maximum weight allowed on the axles?

The speed limit in France when towing depends on your Allowed Train weight. If your vehicle, allowed, Train weight is above 3500 kg, you are not allowed tow above 90 kph.
So if like my Santa Fe, my allowed Train weight is 4500 kg, even with a trailer of 1000kg , I am not allowed to tow above 90 kph.
Yet a car with an allowed Train weight of 3000kg
Say, a BMWx1, at 1500 kg can tow a 1000kg trailer at 110kph.
I don't actual know the weight of a BMWx1, that is for example.

 

[otherclive]

The speed limit in France when towing depends on your Allowed Train weight. If your vehicle Train weight is above 3500 kg, you are not allowed tow above 100 kph.
So if like my Santa Fe, my allowed Train weight is 4500 kg, even with a trailer of 1000kg , I am not allowed to tow above 100 kph.

In France its 90/80kph if your GTW is above 3500kg