Memorandum from the British Vehicle Rental
and Leasing Association (DDB 75)
BONA-FIDES:
BVRLA, THE INDUSTRY
AND ITS
MEMBERS
The BVRLA is the representative trade body for
the companies engaged in the operating leasing of cars and commercial
vehicles. Its Members provide short-term self-drive rental, contract
hire and fleet management services to corporate users and consumers.
The BVRLA has 842 Members of widely differing sizes, who operate
and manage a combined fleet of 2.5 million cars, vans and trucks.
BVRLA Members provide a vital service to UK
industry and commerce, facilitating the movement of goods and
people for essential business purposes. Members buy around one
million new vehicles every year, at a cost of nearly £14
billion, representing the biggest volume of purchases by any fleet
sector. In making these purchases, Members are a major support
to the UK automotive industry. In addition, by way of ancillary
services, our Members spend an additional £2 billion.
Together the Rental, Leasing and Commercial
Vehicle Membership provide the significant voice of an industry,
which purchases over 40% of all new vehicles registered per annum
in the United Kingdom. This, combined with the diversity of BVRLA
Members creates a unique organisation where one Association represents
three combined sectors allowing Members to share representation
on committees and in the activities of the BVRLA.
BVRLA Members subscribe to a Code of Conduct
which sets out stringent standards in terms of the operation of
vehicles and the commercial propriety of their businesses. The
BVRLA adopts a strict process of vetting applications for Membership.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. The BVRLA and its Members share a wealth
of experience and operational knowledge to recognise the rationale
for extending Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA)
to include vehicle rental services.
2. We welcome the opportunity to offer our
written submission to the Joint Committee on the Draft Disability
Discrimination Bill, and for us to share and raise our specific
concerns with the practical implications our Members have highlighted
to us. It is on this basis that we feel this matter should be
sufficiently debated, to ensure that the Bill strikes a fair balance
between removing any undue discrimination that may be being imposed
on the disabled community, and that the obligations imposed on
the vehicle rental sector are; achievable, realistic and importantly
proportionate.
3. We therefore commend that sufficient
importance is placed towards ensuring that future legislation
is sufficiently clear and concise as to what reasonable steps
a rental vehicle company should take, and that this may be delivered
through a Code of Practice, which we have been positively discussing
with Department for Transport, Disabled Drivers Association and
Disabled Drivers Motor Club. As a pre-requisite to our support
of extending Part III to the vehicle rental sector, we endorse
the importance for a Code of Practice that embraces our call for
a pragmatic and realistic approach when dealing with the obligations
to be adhered to by our Members.
4. Moreover, we feel that the obligations
and expectations are achievable, but only if the proposals do
not prove to be unduly onerous or indeed operate in a manner that
threatens the commercial viability of providing the service in
the market place.
5. We note the reference in the invitation
letter to leased vehicles, which we would argue should fall outside
the scope of the Bill, as this is not a provision of transport,
but more a long-term financial arrangement, whereby the customer
will enjoy the use of the vehicle the customer has specifically
ordered, which would include the modification or adaptation of
the vehicle for a disabled driver. Moreover, leasing Members'
customers are predominately corporate entities, to whom the bill
will not apply. Any specific leasing agreement between a disabled
customer would not only be a long-term arrangement, but where
the adaptations would be specifically requested and paid for by
the customer at the time of entering into a financial agreement.
6. We are pleased to have been able to encourage
the Department for Transport to host cross industry working group
last year, which was attended by Disabled Drivers Associations
and Disabled Drivers Motor Club, where some of the issues highlighted
in this submission were discussed.
GENERAL COMMENTS
Contract Hire or Leasing Members
7. In general, contract hire, sometimes
referred to as long term rental, is technically an operating lease
which, when stripped down to its core component, the user (the
hirer) simply hires the use of the vehicle for a predetermined
period, typically 36 months, at fixed monthly rental from the
owner (the contract hire company).
8. Ownership is retained by the contract
hire company and any specific adaptations required by the user
would usually be built into the monthly rental. You will be aware
that our Member, Motability Finance is a leading specialist provider
of vehicles to the disabled customers and have for many years
provided its service to the benefit of some 350,000 registered
disabled customers. This unique and subsidised contract hire scheme
is for three years which includes insurance, maintenance and breakdown
assistance. The hirer is responsible for any adaptations needed
and cost of fitting and removing.
Rental Members
9. Rental Members offer daily, weekly and
monthly rental of vehicles to corporate and retail customers.
10. Again, as above, they have no operational
control over the use of their vehicles.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
11. We note and comment on the following
areas the Committee has requested for specifically.
Question 1: Whether the draft bill's proposals
are necessary, workable and sufficient
12. Predominately, this question raises
several issues, including whether or not disabled drivers are
in effect being currently discriminated against by the vehicle
rental sector. Moreover, and quite specifically, whether the proposed
legislation would go someway to remove any such barriers, should
they exist, for disabled customers to fully utilise a rental vehicle.
13. Having comprehensively discussed the
matter with our rental Members, it has been reported that to the
level of demand for rental vehicles has been less than ½%
of the total number of rental transactions per annum for those
Members that offer assistance, through the provision of temporary
adaptations, for those disabled customers with either upper or
lower body restricted mobility. It may be helpful to clarify that
there are a limited number of Members that offer the facility
or provision of temporary adaptations to enable disabled drivers
to securely and safely operate the vehicle. It must nevertheless
be stressed, that these adaptations can usefully be used by only
a small proportion of disabled drivers, especially as the adaptations
are wholly dependant on the extent of the drivers disability together
with the level of experience they have in operating such devices.
14. Worryingly, it has become patently clear
there is currently no national accredited or Government approved
standards for these adaptations, this includes the lack of any
legal framework, requiring the testing of these products. Also,
there are no minimum standard or competency levels to which an
installer of such devices would be required to meet. We understand
that this is to be covered under the proposed work projects for
MAVIS in 2004, however, we understand that this is still subject
to ministerial approval at this stage. We would encourage this
project to be carried out, as our Members are increasingly concerned
with quality of the product, together with issues surrounding
poor installation liability issues, which are inevitable, when
dealing with the high level safety matters related to the operation
of a motor vehicle.
15. From our initial discussions with the
Department for Transport, it is clear that this area is complicated
by the fact that the adaptations can only used with certain vehicles,
ultimately depending on the make and model. As highlighted below,
this area is of great concern to our Members due to the manner,
in which their vehicle fleet is utilised, they would not know
the availability of the exact make and model of the vehicle, until
the point of hire. This would make it extremely difficult for
our Members to marry the type of adaptation required with the
specific make and model of vehicle.
16. We questioned a sample of our rental
Membership that do not currently offer the availability of such
temporary adoptions, as to the level of enquiries or requests
they have received from disabled customers for such provisions.
Again, to date, the demand from the disabled community has been
less than 40 enquiries per annum, against annual consumer rental
transactions of four million.
17. For us to be able to comment accurately
on whether the proposals are workable requires us to know the
potential number of consumers that are likely to exercise their
rights under the DDB. Whilst we note there are approximately eight
and a half million disabled people in the UK, it remains unclear
what percentage of this group could be considered as potential
or existing renters of vehicles on a short term basis.
18. There are three key issues that the
rental industry fully need to understand, to ensure that the proposed
changes contained in the Bill are sufficiently targeted at addressing
the issues of discrimination.
19. As an agreed action point at our last
cross industry group, the Disabled Drivers Associations and Disabled
Drivers Motor Club agreed to survey their Members. Unfortunately,
to date we remain disappointed that this has not been carried
out, especially as it creates further uncertainty for our Members
in being able to ensure that they assist pragmatically in removing
any barriers that may exist. Ultimately, this level of information
would go someway in equipping the rental industry with the degree
of confidence, that the investment and steps they take, are not
only necessary, but match the needs of disabled drivers and is
sufficient to meet their demands.
20. We note that Clause 3 of the Disability
Discrimination Bill inserts a "21ZA—Application of
sections 19 to 21 to transport vehicles and in particular, 21ZA
(2)(a) which makes reference to the proposal that it would never
be reasonable for transport service providers to make alteration
or removal of physical feature of a vehicle used in providing
the service. It is arguable that there are going to be a higher
number of instances whereby a rental vehicle provider will be
unable to reasonably meet the requests of a disabled driver, as
it would alter or remove a physical feature of the vehicle. Whilst
there are a limited number of adaptations currently in the market
place, it remains unclear the extent to which this would potentially
alter or remove a physical feature of the vehicle.
21. It must be at this stage reinforced
that our Members would be reluctant to install any devices that
would permanently damage the vehicle, as they would not necessarily
be the fiscal owners of the vehicle. Rental Members would normally
either lease their vehicles, or the fleet would be subject to
a Manufacturer buy back scheme. In the latter, the manufacturers
operate a policy of zero tolerance on damage or modification,
and would impose high penalties for any damage caused to their
vehicle.
22. Another area of concern for us is the
practicalities and time it would take our Member to ring fence
a vehicle for a disabled renter. Our Members will only know which
vehicle is for which renter on the day of rental. In addition
to changing this procedure they will need a day either side of
the rental for fitting and removal. This could cause great operational
difficulties for our Members.
Question 2: When the bill's provisions should
come into force
23. Given the difficulties with the areas
raised above, we believe that there should be a minimum lead in
time of one year.
24. We feel that there should be greater
appreciation on the impact the installation of such features will
have across the diverse range of vehicles in the market place,
together with a clear understanding of what the disabled customers
demands and needs are.
Question 3: What should be in the regulations,
orders and codes of practice proposed in the draft bill
25. We would expect Codes of Practice for
our industry to contain the following:
(a)
The extent rental companies need to take to adapt
their vehicles including advice on practical implementation.
(b)
Definition of reasonable including the factors that
will be taken into consideration when defining reasonable, for
example:
— Staff training and knowledge.
(c)
What steps a rental company would be expected to
take.
(d)
With no national accredited or Government approved
standards for adaptations, including the lack of any legal framework,
requiring the testing of these products we would require information
along these lines to be included in a Code of Practice. Our Members
are increasingly concerned with quality of the product, together
with issues surrounding poor installation liability issues, which
are inevitable, when dealing with the high level safety matters
related to the operation of a motor vehicle.
KEY ELEMENT
FOR A
CODE OF
PRACTICE:
26. By way of a summary, we outline below
some helpful examples provided to us by the Department for Transport,
which would endorse that should be reflected in a Code of Practice:
— It would not be unreasonable for
a rental company to refuse to adapt fully the rental vehicle if
they did not have suitable adaptations available or be expected
to provide an automatic vehicle if they were not part of their
fleet. However, refusing to offer an automatic vehicle where one
is available, could be deemed as unreasonable and therefore discriminatory.
— The extent a rental company would
need to go in adapting a vehicle for a severely disabled person.
For example, one of our Members recently had to refuse to rent
to a disabled driver who was a paraplegic as they were unable
to provide suitable adaptations. We would hope that this would
not be deemed discriminatory.
— Expectations on rental companies
when no vehicles are available.
— Confirmation as to whether a rental
company could make a charge for the additional equipment required
by a disabled customer.
27. To assist on this point, we have extracted
from correspondence that offers the Department's thoughts on these
specific points raised:
"As a guiding principle, it is unlikely
to be regarded as discriminatory if the charge levied is applicable
on all renters. If the disabled customer is being asked to pay
a charge over and above that charged to an able bodied renter,
then this would be deemed as discriminatory—eg the basic
cost of the rental is increased just because the customer is disabled,
also an automatic vehicle is requested, then a rental company
is able to charge the normal tariff for vehicles falling in an
automatic vehicle category."
Question 4: The adequacy of the enforcement procedures
28. You will see that for our industry,
the proposals contained in the Bill, predominately rotate around
the issues of what reasonable steps our Members would be expected
to take. As such, we feel that an independent body, such as the
Disability Discrimination Commission should be sufficiently empowered
to oversee the issues of reasonableness and proportionality as
part of its enforcement remit.
Question 5: Whether the draft bill achieves the
right balance between securing the rights of disabled people and
imposing duties and costs on the private and public sectors
29. We attach a copy of our formal response
to the consultation paper at Annex A (not printed), in which we
highlight our concerns with the following key areas:
(a)
The importance for obtaining clarity as to what "reasonable
steps" a rental company would be expected to take and,
(b)
Whether these steps are pragmatic, and can be realistically
achieved, without creating too many day-today practical difficulties.
(c)
Clear guidance as to what role, if any, a rental
company would be expected to take in selecting the appropriate
adaptation, to suit the disability of the driver.
(d)
The importance of ensuring that there is a minimum
notification period, to enable the rental company to source in
the adaptation from a third party, to deliver and install, we
have suggested a period of not less than 72 hours.
(e)
Rental Members should be permitted to make a reasonable
charge to cover the cost of the equipment requested by the disabled
driver.
Question 6: The Proposed change to the Definition
of Disability
30. Whilst we do not have any specific comments
on the proposed definition, as explained above, it would be helpful
if the accompanying codes of practice provided a set of clear
guidance on the various levels of disability, so that vehicle
rental operators are offered with some degree of clarity as to
whether or not they would be able to offer their services.
31. This point was well made in a recent
incident involving a rental company, who was approached by a severely
disabled customer requesting that our Members adapt the vehicle
for a few days. The level of adaptation requested, not only meant
that the vehicle would have had to undergo extensive alterations,
but would effectively leave permanent damage to the vehicle, created
by holes being drilled into the dash for the adaptation to be
securely fixed into the vehicle.
Question 7: Whether the range of "triggers"
in the draft bill for requiring reasonable adjustments are appropriate
32. As indicated above, we feel that the
bill as is currently drafted, does not offer a sufficient guidance
as to whether or not the steps a rental company takes would be
deemed to be making reasonable adjustments to a rental vehicle.
It is envisaged that the accompanying codes of practice should
help address this gap, and ensure that businesses are offered
the degree of clarity and certainty as to their obligations.
Question 8: How the draft bill reflects the Government's
2001 manifesto commitment to extend basic rights and opportunities
for disabled people
33. We are satisfied that the draft Bill
does help match the Government's manifesto commitment.
February 2004
| 
