Engineer's report racket?

Published: Tuesday | October 20, 2009


The Editor, Sir:

It is fashionable and politically correct to point out and talk of inefficiency in government caused by duplication of services and, therefore, increasing the cost of services via increased taxes to the public.

While all of this is going on, many in the private sector are getting away with murder in some quarters, for even though it is often argued that private business is efficient, practical, honest and gives value for money, this is not always true.

I have a 19-year-old Ford van in good running condition that looks reasonably good for that age. It is used as a commercial vehicle and I take it to the government-run examination depot to get my fitness certificate. If there is a problem, I have to get it corrected before I return.

Engineer's report

In recent times, the insurance companies are requesting, in addition to my fitness certificate, an engineer's report, which I consider an unnecessary additional cost for someone to open the bonnet, walk around the vehicle look inside, verify engine and chassis numbers and then write a report. The fitness test at the depot is quite rigorous as it sometimes makes one nervous as to how the vehicle is driven by the examiner.

The insurance companies should be investigated to find out if there is an incestuously corrupt relation-ship with these organisations designated to provide engineer's reports. Their first excuse is that people buy fitness certificates. Yes, a few people do, but it is possible for your vehicle to be ordered off the road, plates removed by another examiner down the road, immediately after leaving the depot if the vehicle is found to be defective.

The insurance companies should stop what appears to be a questionable engineer's report racket.

While there is the contractor general looking over the shoulders of government departments and officials who is policing the private sector for corrupt and/or question-able onerous practices?

I say, get rid of this engineer's report. There is little or no need for it. We should resist it and it should be investigated. It is a duplication of services already provided for at the examination depots. It only sounds more sophisticated and has nothing to do with vehicle engineering.

I am, etc.,

MICHAEL SPENCE

Micspen2@hotmail.com

Liguanea, Kingston 6


 
 
 
The opinions on this page do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. The Gleaner reserves the right not to publish comments that may be deemed libelous, derogatory or indecent. To respond to The Gleaner please use the feedback form.