The Claim

Why should my business claim?

The European truck manufacturers (MAN, Volvo/Renault, Daimler/Mercedes, Iveco, DAF, and Scania) have been found guilty of a serious abuse of EU competition rules – indeed, all but Scania admitted their guilt. Over a 14-year period, the manufacturers at senior manager level agreed gross list prices, agreed the cost that truck purchasers should be charged for emissions technologies (Euro 3, 4, 5, and 6), and delayed the introduction of emissions technologies. For more details, please click here.

We believe that you paid too much for trucks you purchased or leased during the cartel and for a period afterwards and that you are entitled to be compensated for the overcharges imposed by the truck manufacturers. The European Commission fining decision will prove the manufacturers’ liability before the Competition Appeal Tribunal.

How much is my business owed?

The RHA and RUTL have only limited information available about the value of the claim at the moment. This is because the cartel operated in secret and only limited details have been published by the European Commission so far. It is therefore difficult to predict the level of potential compensation that might be awarded. The RHA and RUTL will nevertheless be seeking to recover the difference between the price the trucks should have cost in a competitive market as compared with the cartel prices, as well as any other increases in road haulage operators’ costs – for example in relation to fuel – resulting from the cartel activities.

The RHA considers that the overall level of compensation to be awarded may exceed £2 billion.

What can my business claim for?

• All brands of truck, including DAF, Daimler/Mercedes, Iveco, MAN, Renault, Scania, and Volvo
  New trucks purchased (either outright or on finance) or leased between 17 January 1997 and 31 January 2014 

• Second-hand trucks purchased (either outright or on finance) or leased between 17 January 1997 and 31 January 2015.  However, because the infringement period was between 17 January 1997 and 18 January 2011, it is possible that you will not have a viable claim for the additional period of time (known as the “run off period”), or that the run off period will be shorter. This will be determined in the legal claim.

• Trucks of 6 tonnes and over registered in the United Kingdom

• Any additional costs incurred by operators of such trucks through the coordinated delay to the introduction of successive Euro emissions technologies
• Interest on the claim

Who can join the RHA’s collective claim?

Any firm, company, or individual who entered into a contract for the purchase or lease of a new truck between 17 January 1997 and 31 January 2014, or for the purchase or lease of a used truck between 17 January 1997 and 31 January 2015,provided the truck was registered in the UK for road haulage operations (both hire and reward and own-account).

You do not need to be an RHA member to join the claim.

Personal representatives of the estate of any person falling within the class who died on or after 18 July 2018 can also sign up.

Note that you cannot join the RHA’s claim if you are already bringing legal action against the truck manufacturers in relation to the cartel unless you discontinue or apply to stay those proceedings.

Note also that you cannot join if your business provided road haulage services exclusively on a cost-plus (or “open book”) basis where the customer of the haulage services paid in full for the cost of the trucks used to provide the service and that customer could inspect your books. Similarly, any truck that was used for road haulage services provided on a cost-plus basis cannot be included within the RHA’s proceedings.  Also, if you were the recipient of road haulage services provided on a cost-plus basis and paid for the cost of the trucks used to provide those services, you will not be able to claim within the RHA’s proceedings for the cost of such trucks.

You cannot claim on behalf of any person who died before 17 July 2018 or for a legal entity that has been dissolved for a continuous period of more than 6 years since 17 January 1997 (unless the right of action by that legal entity was transferred to another legal entity which does exist).

You also cannot join the RHA’s collective claim if you purchased or leased trucks as a consumer (e.g., for transporting horses).  For more information, please contact Backhouse Jones on 08450 30 50 30.

What are the benefits of joining the RHA’s claim?

There are real benefits in joining the RHA’s group claim, including:

• The Competition Appeal authorised the RHA to bring the only collective claim on behalf of the UK road haulage industry
• The RHA is highly respected within industry – its significant clout and power may help to reach settlement
• Claimants can “stand behind” the RHA which is fronting the legal case
• The RHA is acutely aware that operators will continue to have business dealings with truck manufacturers after the claim and will conduct proceedings in a measured and constructive manner
• Operators (many of which are small or micro businesses) cannot afford to take action on their own
• The RHA has secured third-party litigation funding on very competitive terms and so there is no cost to operators in signing up
• The RHA has appointed a first-rate legal team who have worked for organisations such as FIA, FIFA, Google, GSK, Samsung, Sky, and UEFA
• The RHA has put in place multi-million pound insurance in case the claim is lost – the insurance protects the RHA and the individual operators
• The RHA will not profit from acting as representative, maximising compensation returned to operators

How long will the case take?

While it could take several years for the case to conclude, there will be every opportunity as the RHA presents the case to the truck manufacturers for settlement to be earlier.

Claims relate to new and used trucks

The collective legal claim relates to the purchase of both new and used trucks given that the cartel may have had an impact of the prices of both of these. There is a conflict of interest between purchasers of new trucks and purchasers of used trucks. This is because those who purchased new trucks have an interest in showing that none of the higher truck prices they suffered as a result of the cartel (overcharge) was passed on when they came to reselling their trucks. On the other hand, those who purchased used trucks will have an interest in showing that the new truck overcharge was passed on to them.

The conflict means that the RHA cannot simultaneously advance the interests of both purchasers of new trucks and purchasers of used trucks. A similar conflict may exist in relation to the leasing of new trucks and the leasing of used trucks. To deal with this, RUTL has been appointed as sub-class representative to act for purchasers and lessees of used trucks on the question of whether they suffered loss as a result of the cartel. 

The RHA and RUTL have taken steps to make sure that both new and used truck operators have their interests fully represented. These steps include:

• The separate representation of new and used truck operators by the RHA and RUTL, respectively;
• The RHA and RUTL have appointed separate legal advisors, expert advisors, and are receiving separate funding (although the separate funding for both the new and used claims is being provided through Therium); and
• Putting measures in place to make sure those teams do not, accidentally or otherwise, inappropriately pass information to each other about the claims of the class members they represent. This is referred to as a Chinese wall.

The RHA and RUTL have an insurance policy to cover the risk of paying legal costs to the truck manufacturers if the Claim is not successful. That insurance policy is shared. That means the RHA cannot recover legal costs from RUTL and vice versa, in the event one succeeds in its arguments against the other. The advantage to this is that (a) the RHA and RUTL both avoid the risk of having to pay the other's legal costs, and (b) neither has to expend additional funds to buy further insurance, which would materially reduce any damages payable to the claimants (as it would increase the legal costs of the claim). However, the downside to this is that if one party incurs costs successfully defending an argument from the other, it would not benefit from recovering those costs from the other, and so the overall pot of funds available to distribute to the relevant sub-class would be lower than it may have been. However, the RHA and RUTL both believe the likely cost to the class is lower in this shared policy arrangement and that this arrangement is overall in the best interests of claimants.

The Competition Appeal Tribunal has considered these arrangements and confirmed that they are acceptable.

Further detail on the conflict is set out from page 4 of the Rule 81 Notice here.