#151620  by Skiwi
 Wed May 22, 2019 5:09 pm
BUSRSQ wrote:
Wed May 22, 2019 4:58 pm
Why should they be lowered ?
It's in the petition....
 #151623  by vansvilla
 Wed May 22, 2019 5:53 pm
They should be lowered as more than a few are caught out with the RUC being charged on the GVM and not the actual weight.
This is quite a goodly amount for some.
I know, there are other operators that suffer the same fate but M'homes are very easily split out of the run of the mill trucks and buses, so why not?
 #151624  by NeilV
 Wed May 22, 2019 7:32 pm
Yep, my 6.4T Tare and 7.2T fully fueled and fully loaded (fulltime living) in a bus with 10T GVM is a perfect example.

If I paid my ‘fair share’. by being in the 7-9T RuC range I would pay $114/1000KM instead of 155/1000kms... a saving of $41/1000 ($410 in the last year alone!)

Since my ‘fully loaded’ weight has 1.8T ‘leeway’ before triggering the ‘9-12T’ rate, there is no possible way I’d ever be able to be overloaded, and I’d still be paying my “fair share” even though I’d be right at the lowest end of that group in actual road wear&tear!
Pay with Paymate Express