Actual copies of invoices to shipper

[Fkatz]

HEY ALL,
I MIGHT BE OPENING A CAN OF WAX, BUT THIS IS TRUE!!!!!!
JUST WONDERING OUT THERE IF ANY OWNERS, DRIVERS, OR ANYONE IN THE BUSINESS HAS ACTUALLY RECIEVED A REAL INVOICE THAT WAS BILLED TO THE SHIPPER, TO COMPARE WHAT THE ACTUAL RATE, MILES AND ETC THAT WE ARE SUPPOSE TO RECIEVE WITH THE SETTLEMENTS. I KNOW I HAVE NEVER RECIEVED ONE.
ACCORDING TO THE DOT LAWS WE ARE SUPPOSE TO BE ABLE TO WALK INTO OUR COMPANY OFFICES AND REQUEST A COPY OF THE BILLS. HAS ANYONE TRIED. I KNOW A FEW DRIVERS WHO TRIED IT AND WAS TOLD IT WAS CLASSIFIED.

FRANK

 

[tr]

If memory serves me right, my opinion is "if you are being paid a percentage" of the gross you can demand to see the customer billing. Percentage of the gross is the key word.

 

[teacel]

The company is right, that is classified info. BUT!!! You as a lessee are entitled to a copy of the invoice and can get that copy. The only thing that the billing company has to do is to blacken in the part of the invoice that is classified, and that is the name and address of the person or company that is receiving or paying the invoice. Then the billing company can give you a copy of that invoice and all the numbers should match up.

BEWARE!!!!!! And be willing to stand your ground if in fact you press this issue!!!
I worked for a small expedite/courier company a while back and my contract was for 50% of the paid trip. I happen to do a COD once and the company paid me with a check that was for the trip. When I received my settlement it was for 46% of the amount I collected and this opened my eyes. When I questioned it I was told that the 4% was deducted for administrative fees. I checked into it and found that it is illegal for a company to deducted this and ended up getting the monies owed, but didn’t get anymore trips or was offered the tiest trips they had.

 

[tr]

Frank, maybe this will answer your question, here is an exerpt from
Motor Carrier News: Fall/Winter 1999: Volume 5, Number 4


Owner-operators May Sue Trucking Companies For Violating Contract Terms

A federal appeals court affirmed the right of owner-operators to bypass the Federal Highway Administration and directly sue trucking companies that violate contract terms.

Before Congress passed the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act in December 1995, owner-operators were required to petition the ICC for relief and were barred from alternatively bringing suit in federal court for enforcement of the ICC’s truth-in–leasing regulations.

Owner-operators are independent small businesses that typically lease their tractors to

trucking companies and are paid on a percentage of revenue basis. Owner-operators have long complained that they are paid less than what was agreed to and that escrow payments required of them under the lease often are not returned when the lease expires.

Escrow funds protect the trucking company from not being paid the cost of permits, insurance and fuel taxes for which the owner-operator is responsible.

When the ICC was abolished and the remaining federal truck-regulatory functions were transferred to the FHWA, Congress established for owner-operators a right of private action. Owner-operators not paid the amount promised within 15 days of completing a trip, not provided a copy of the actual freight bill, not paid interest on escrow accounts and not having escrow payments returned within 45 days of lease termination were given the right to sue the trucking company. At least 5,000 trucking companies lease owner-operators.

Owner-operators now have a way of protecting themselves from unscrupulous trucking companies. They can now sue trucking companies for violating contract firms rather than relying on the Federal Highway Administration for protection