RAC refused to help breakdown because they had dogs inside the vehicle

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

thorsoak wrote: »

The vehicle was a 35' MOTOR HOME. The dogs were securely crated in the airline approved crates which were securely fixed in the vehicle.

The RAC were notified of this fact when the initial call for assistance was made - as was the fact that 12 dogs were in the vehicle.

So it was not a normal car, that most breakdowns are responded to, but needed more specialist recovery. Unfortunately this takes time.


I doubt that at the time of the initial incident, any specialist recovery service would have the resources to hand.

Mojisola

thorsoak wrote: »

The first telephone call to the RAC notified them that (1) the vehicle was a 35' motorhome which would require flat-bed recovery; and (2) that there were 12 dogs in the motorhome.

As geri says, they wouldn't have sent out recovery vehicle before seeing if a roadside repair was all that was needed.

Had these facts been assessed correctly by the RAC before sending out the first vehicle, a more suitable vehicle might have been alerted to pick up the occupants and remove them to a place of safety whilst the recovery of the motorhome could await the arrival of the appropriate recovery vehicle.

The RAC wasn't under any obligation to take the dogs anywhere -
https://www.rac.co.uk/pdfs/breakdown/uk-breakdown-terms-and-conditions.aspx
10. If there are any domestic animals in Your Vehicle, their onward transportation is at Our discretion and solely at Your risk. We will not insure any animal during any onward transportation we undertake. Unless there is a safety issue, guide dogs for the blind, or hearing dogs will always be transported with their owners.

catkins

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth wrote: »

Can we stop blaming the RAC as if this vehicle was a normal car. It was a professional vehicle transporting '12 dogs'. This would had required more specialist recovery, than the standard van would have been able to tend to. I also fail to note any sign of a crate!

Sits back and expects Daily Mail readers to ...

Well I could see dog crates in the pictures but I guess if you are determined not to you won't. The dog crated were REINFORCED ones so just show just how hard the idiot lorry driver hit the vehicle.

Mojisola wrote: »

The RAC wasn't under any obligation to take the dogs anywhere -
www.rac.co.uk/pdfs/breakdown/uk-breakdown-terms-and-conditions.aspx
10. If there are any domestic animals in Your Vehicle, their onward transportation is at Our discretion and solely at Your risk. We will not insure any animal during any onward transportation we undertake. Unless there is a safety issue, guide dogs for the blind, or hearing dogs will always be transported with their owners.

Yes, I think lots of people are now aware that they use the words "at our discretion" so in other words if they don't like dogs they won't carry them. Now that more people know this it explains why I know of 25 people now that have cancelled their RAC cover. Wonder how many more there are across the country?

Mojisola

catkins wrote: »

Yes, I think lots of people are now aware that they use the words "at our discretion" so in other words if they don't like dogs they won't carry them. Now that more people know this it explains why I know of 25 people now that have cancelled their RAC cover. Wonder how many more there are across the country?

No, I think it means that they are under no obligation to transport domestic animals.

If people are going to take so many dogs on a long journey, it's not too much to expect them to make plans for "what ifs". We make sure we have snacks and water and a couple of blankets in the car so that we can sit out a breakdown or a traffic hold-up. If we had that many animals with us, I'd make plans on how to keep them safe as well, even if it meant taking two vehicles.

The women involved have had a terrible experience but they were expecting a service from the RAC that wasn't part of their agreement and they didn't exercise due care when they did break down.

Blaming the RAC might make them feel better but it's not really fair on the company.

custardy

catkins wrote: »

Well I could see dog crates in the pictures but I guess if you are determined not to you won't. The dog crated were REINFORCED ones so just show just how hard the idiot lorry driver hit the vehicle.


I cant see them. Could you point out where they are?


Yes, I think lots of people are now aware that they use the words "at our discretion" so in other words if they don't like dogs they won't carry them. Now that more people know this it explains why I know of 25 people now that have cancelled their RAC cover. Wonder how many more there are across the country?

How hard? A flimsy camper van vs an HGV at M/way speeds
Would only take a clip to cause massive damage
So what happens if this 'idiot' driver had to swerve to miss a vehicle veering into his lane? would he still be an idiot?
personally I think the 25 people cancelling without knowing the full story are the idiots

Edit: on closer inspection of the pics
I see this is a twin rear axle motor home
well outside the scope of a standard tow. So you tell me. How exactly could the driver tow it?
I that situation with a Transit(we assume) he cant tow it
So what does he do?
have 3 people and 12 dogs in the cab?

meritaten

Mojisola wrote: »

No, I think it means that they are under no obligation to transport domestic animals.

If people are going to take so many dogs on a long journey, it's not too much to expect them to make plans for "what ifs". We make sure we have snacks and water and a couple of blankets in the car so that we can sit out a breakdown or a traffic hold-up. If we had that many animals with us, I'd make plans on how to keep them safe as well, even if it meant taking two vehicles.

The women involved have had a terrible experience but they were expecting a service from the RAC that wasn't part of their agreement and they didn't exercise due care when they did break down.

Blaming the RAC might make them feel better but it's not really fair on the company.

so who should 'show animal' owners get breakdown insurance with? Dont the owners say on the application form they often transport large groups of animals to 'shows'? if they had to pay a little more than normal vehicles which may contain one or two domestic pets - then that would be fair would it not? if it meant that the RAC (or any other company) immediately knew the situation and sent out a vehicle capable of towing this motorhome (at 35 foot it definitely isn't a 'campervan' - that's the average size of a static caravan - its huge!).

oh and I can remember the advice used to be (when motorways first opened), to drive onto the 'hard shoulder', stay in your vehicle and wait for help!

custardy

So the RAC is out

So is the AA

m. Transporting animals
The transportation or arrangement of the transportation of any animal (guide dogs or
hearing dogs will be transported together with their owner, unless this is not possible
for health and/or safety reasons). The AA will not recover horses or livestock. If the AA
does at its absolute discretion, agree to transport an animal, then this will be at Your own
risk. It is Your responsibility to secure any animal being transported or to make alternative
arrangements for its transportation

Im guessing it will be fairly standard across the board

or Green flag

. You are responsible for the security of the
contents of the Insured Vehicle, caravan
or trailer. We will not recover or repair
a vehicle, caravan or trailer if there is a
person or animal in it.

lostinrates

Fwiw, those of us who tow other animals behind on our cars are not covered by break down cover on those same vehicles not towing horses or livestock.

, but I'll hold my hands up and admit I've never checked and never had problems with breaking down with dogs/ cats in my car. When I'd had dogs in the car in a break down they have never been crated.

My guess is this is an ideal thing for suppliers to have as an 'add on' fee above normal cover ?

custardy

lostinrates wrote: »

Fwiw, those of us who tow other animals behind on our cars are not covered by break down cover on those same vehicles not towing horses or livestock.

, but I'll hold my hands up and admit I've never checked and never had problems with breaking down with dogs/ cats in my car. When I'd had dogs in the car in a break down they have never been crated.

My guess is this is an ideal thing for suppliers to have as an 'add on' fee above normal cover ?

unfortunately I doubt many companies want it.
think about companies using 3rd parties for recovery etc. How do you cover that?
Do these 3rd parties have insurance that covers animals?
However I would expect Joe average with 1 dog wouldnt have much issue

thorsoak

There is a company that covers people who show dogs/share vehicles with other dog show people - http://www.prprescue.com/html/showstart.html

It is important that anyone who takes their dog - or dogs out for the day/on holiday - realises that dogs are transported "at the discretion of the recovery driver".

And of course, people who use motorhomes do realise that it will cost more to service any problems - and that is why they pay extortionate membership rates - if you were to check on the RAC webpages, you will see that there is a special quote section for motorhomes.

Joe Public could have a problem if Reg RAC doesn't want to have Fido in his cab if Joe Public's family car breaks down!