VUK Transportation - Legit Carrier

@BCBOY are you the shipper that gave the loads to FTL Trans?

Taking loads from a known double broker with the intent of chasing the shipper or receiver for payment is an interesting business strategy to keep your trucks moving in a down market.

I get emails from Vuk looking for loads, per the email signature, their website has a .ca domain but email address has a .com domain

Try this https://vuktransport.ca/
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: MLCAR
My question is, why does a carrier take a load without checking who they are working with. Same goes with the shipper. The shipper and the carrier should be checking everything. Both are at fault.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cruise
BCBOY said:
My question is, why does a carrier take a load without checking who they are working with. Same goes with the shipper. The shipper and the carrier should be checking everything. Both are at fault.
Click to expand...
This is where you are wrong, we have hauled for entities that check out, and when it comes time to pay they are delinquent. In these times you don't know who is going through it, clients that were once great payers can become tangled in financial troubles and start slowing down on payments in a matter of weeks.

May I also ask, why you have been dodging the question of if you are the shipper in this case?
 
  • Like
Reactions: MLCAR
Didn't see your question Lrgcar, being a neighboring company to the shipper who was included. I wasn't involved. only conversations around the smoke pit and sharing this information to help anyone who cares to listen and add feedback.
 
BCBOY said:
My question is, why does a carrier take a load without checking who they are working with. Same goes with the shipper. The shipper and the carrier should be checking everything. Both are at fault.
Click to expand...
Like I mentioned before, no carrier wants to be taken advantage of by a scammer. The scammer does everything it can to make it look like they are a viable entity and that is how they get away with it. The carrier does not want to chase the money all the way back to the shipper, but the carrier has no choice if the man in the middle has gone missing. If everyone paid what they agreed to pay, there'd be no issue. Of course the carrier would not choose to do business with a new entity if other better options were available such as a load from a person they have done business with before.

The shipper or the BFO, on the other hand, has all the time in the world to vet their carriers or brokers. They don't need to change right providers right away. They can take some time to get to know their vendor and feel them out with one load here or there. They are in the best position to see who is showing up at their door to take their precious goods to their customer that they fought so had to obtain and keep. They also have much more control to see that someone else is picking up their freight than they expected. Finally they should be in communication with the vendor on which truck is coming in to move the goods. If they go with a lower cost option without proper vetting they are the ones starting the problem. They are contributing to allow scammers to continue. If the scammer was stopped here the problem would not ever exist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Igor Galanter and MikeJr
BCBOY said:
My question is, why does a carrier take a load without checking who they are working with. Same goes with the shipper. The shipper and the carrier should be checking everything. Both are at fault.
Click to expand...
Shipper or broker and Vuk did not properly vet FTL Trans (I think this is the actual name 12909499 CANADA INC)

Vuk still has legal recourse to get paid regardless of the shipper or brokers negligence in vetting FTL Trans.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MLCAR, Igor Galanter and JACKBURTON
Interesting read. Regardless of how it came about (if VUK knew they were a scammer or not), the shipper is still liable to pay them. In the future he should be working with a provider who has plenty of experience, good work history and plenty of positive referrals/reviews to back that up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MLCAR
BCBOY said:
Be aware of VUK Trans/ FTL Trans
VUK is taking loads from scammers and when they don't get paid, they will go after the shippers.
They have no honor and blame everyone for their own mistakes, and taking anyone's load.
They take a load from FTL Trans (known scammer), then when they didn't get paid by the scammer will harrass and force a shipper to pay again for the same load
Beware!


Nick Vukojevic
Vuk Transport
Director Of Operations
Phone: 604-500-8959
Website: vuktransport.ca
Email: nick@vuktransport.com
Click to expand...
Well I felt like I have to reach out here to clear the air. By the way, not hiding my identity at all, this is Nick from Vuk Transport Ltd. BC Boy here, ladies and gentleman is non other than Alex from Paige Logistics. To anyone who has the interest I can forward the email communication between Alex and myself regarding this issue. On the other hand Alex, I am wondering why haven't you also wrote here that you asked me to revise the invoice and resend it to your customer for $8.000 CAD as they were wondering why they are getting overcharged (we invoiced $5900 CAD). Not cool to slander people out there for no good reason.

Signature issue: So the main reason you are being redirected to that website when clicking on our signature is because that is the provider we used to link our signatures with our web site. Unfortunately that stopped working for some reason and it's rederecting straight to their web site, which is why you are unable to access our website like that, but you are able to access it when typing it into the browser directly.

Web Site: Yes, I agree that web-site is not a great looking, however that web site was created by non other than my younger brother (keep in mind this is still family owned and operated business) as a way to motivate him and to include him into the family business. Needs a ton of work, I agree. He also chose the domain, which is why it's .ca and not .com. Still, web site does not demonstrate service or competence out there in the market. After all, Tesla Logistics had a great website and ended up stealing bunch of freight.

Research: I agree that trucking companies should do the research before taking the loads from brokers, however brokers should do the same. What in the world made you onboard FTL trans and give them 4 loads Alex? You forgot to mention that you gave them multiple loads and not only one. When carrier is stuck and has a hard time moving the truck, that is when more in depth checks are suffering. Drivers being unhappy to sit and wait, layovers, lost revenue, etc... Broker has way more time and less pressure to validate the carriers being used and prevent double brokerage. Broker only has a pressure of covering the load itself, you don't have to thing about 10 other things like asset carrier does.

Invoicing the customer: So If this is dishonest, would you also call Ronan from E.T dishonest as he is advising carriers to do this as well? This is the law. Also, one thing that you forget to mention is that we do contact the broker for an extensive period of time and we do warn multiple times that we will contact the customer if no resolution has been provided.

For all of you out there who want's to know more about us, who we service and what we do we are just one phone call away. We do not double broker our loads and we do integrate with Macropoint and Fourkites. References are available as well.

Best of luck and God bless!
 
  • Like
Reactions: misterbuk and MLCAR
BCTruckin said:
Well I felt like I have to reach out here to clear the air. By the way, not hiding my identity at all, this is Nick from Vuk Transport Ltd. BC Boy here, ladies and gentleman is non other than Alex from Paige Logistics. To anyone who has the interest I can forward the email communication between Alex and myself regarding this issue. On the other hand Alex, I am wondering why haven't you also wrote here that you asked me to revise the invoice and resend it to your customer for $8.000 CAD as they were wondering why they are getting overcharged (we invoiced $5900 CAD). Not cool to slander people out there for no good reason.

Signature issue: So the main reason you are being redirected to that website when clicking on our signature is because that is the provider we used to link our signatures with our web site. Unfortunately that stopped working for some reason and it's rederecting straight to their web site, which is why you are unable to access our website like that, but you are able to access it when typing it into the browser directly.

Web Site: Yes, I agree that web-site is not a great looking, however that web site was created by non other than my younger brother (keep in mind this is still family owned and operated business) as a way to motivate him and to include him into the family business. Needs a ton of work, I agree. He also chose the domain, which is why it's .ca and not .com. Still, web site does not demonstrate service or competence out there in the market. After all, Tesla Logistics had a great website and ended up stealing bunch of freight.

Research: I agree that trucking companies should do the research before taking the loads from brokers, however brokers should do the same. What in the world made you onboard FTL trans and give them 4 loads Alex? You forgot to mention that you gave them multiple loads and not only one. When carrier is stuck and has a hard time moving the truck, that is when more in depth checks are suffering. Drivers being unhappy to sit and wait, layovers, lost revenue, etc... Broker has way more time and less pressure to validate the carriers being used and prevent double brokerage. Broker only has a pressure of covering the load itself, you don't have to thing about 10 other things like asset carrier does.

Invoicing the customer: So If this is dishonest, would you also call Ronan from E.T dishonest as he is advising carriers to do this as well? This is the law. Also, one thing that you forget to mention is that we do contact the broker for an extensive period of time and we do warn multiple times that we will contact the customer if no resolution has been provided.

For all of you out there who want's to know more about us, who we service and what we do we are just one phone call away. We do not double broker our loads and we do integrate with Macropoint and Fourkites. References are available as well.

Best of luck and God bless!
Click to expand...
My question is why are you taking double broker loads? And then harrassing customers for payment when its already been paid. and according to this you reported the costs to everyone did you collect your payment from FTL on the double brokered load you took? I feel as though Paige has a right to be upset by you diving into a mess of a scammer group of companies.
 
BrokenAxle said:
My question is why are you taking double broker loads? And then harrassing customers for payment when its already been paid. and according to this you reported the costs to everyone did you collect your payment from FTL on the double brokered load you took? I feel as though Paige has a right to be upset by you diving into a mess of a scammer group of companies.
Click to expand...

What? My impression of BCtrucking post is that they were not paid by FTL who took a load from Paige and VUK went to the shipper to collect payment, this seems reasonable in this situation. Paige should have done a better job vetting their carriers, and if VUK is the one that provided the service no matter the shortfall in their vetting and has the right to collect from the shipper. This is very clear cut and the laws favor the actual carriers that are providing the service.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MLCAR, NTravels and BCTruckin
BrokenAxle said:
My question is why are you taking double broker loads? And then harrassing customers for payment when its already been paid. and according to this you reported the costs to everyone did you collect your payment from FTL on the double brokered load you took? I feel as though Paige has a right to be upset by you diving into a mess of a scammer group of companies.
Click to expand...
Why is the broker giving loads to double brokers? We are not harassing the customers for payment. We are following the law. As mentioned we try to resolve the issue with the broker advising multiple times that we will eventually contact the customer directly as it's our right. We have not been paid by FTL not have we ever asked for double payment, but make no mistake, we will not run our trucks for free.
What about Paige asking us to commit fraud and revise the invoice solely because customer started questioning rates they are paying?
 
  • Like
Reactions: MLCAR
I don't think Paige has a right to be upset with Vuk at all to be honest, he has a right to be upset, but only because he hired a scammer (obviously not intentionally of course), we all make mistakes, it happens. Live and learn. I think Vuk is completely within his rights, and sounds to me like he followed standard protocol to try and collect without contacting the client. When that failed, he did what anyone in his shoes would do, contact the client.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MLCAR, hrb604, Deisel1 and 1 other person
BrokenAxle said:
My question is why are you taking double broker loads? And then harrassing customers for payment when its already been paid. and according to this you reported the costs to everyone did you collect your payment from FTL on the double brokered load you took? I feel as though Paige has a right to be upset by you diving into a mess of a scammer group of companies.
Click to expand...
As i see it Paige gave the load to the scammer.
 
DIETCOKE said:
Am I the only one that is confused?
Click to expand...
I think i have it figured out.

VUK/BCtruckin - Actual carrier who hauled the load.
Paige/BCboy - Broker of record. The one who got the load originally from the shipper/customer
FTL Trans - The scammer who got 4 loads from Paige and double brokered them.

Paige ultimately in my books is at fault. They hired a scammer.

VUK/BCtruckin is only trying to get paid and within their rights to go after the shipper/customer. Also sounds like Paige got caught with their hand in the honey jar when it came to profit margins are these loads in particular. Sounds like they were billing around $8000 but paying carriers $5900.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LrgCar, BCTruckin, MLCAR and 4 others
Sounds like both companies got scammed and need to let bygones be bygones. Scammers bring out the worst of us.. Looks like Paige got the worst of it since they had to pay for the same load twice.. They are probably not happy about that.. but they paid out.. and that's what makes them a good broker. I have worked with Paige before for a few loads and they are honest folks. Haven't worked with Vuk, but also sounds ok.
Watch out for scammers... Don't take any wooden nickels..
 
  • Like
Reactions: LrgCar, MLCAR and BCTruckin
cdngoodguy said:
Sounds like both companies got scammed and need to let bygones be bygones. Scammers bring out the worst of us.. Looks like Paige got the worst of it since they had to pay for the same load twice.. They are probably not happy about that.. but they paid out.. and that's what makes them a good broker. I have worked with Paige before for a few loads and they are honest folks. Haven't worked with Vuk, but also sounds ok.
Watch out for scammers... Don't take any wooden nickels..
Click to expand...

I don't think Paige paid twice, and this is the issue.

They are refusing to pay VUK, which is causing VUK to go to the shipper.

Edit for transparency - ^^ this was proven to not be the case. Paige did pay VUK eventually.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: MLCAR
Fr8Guru said:
I don't think Paige paid twice, and this is the issue.

They are refusing to pay VUK, which is causing VUK to go to the shipper.
Click to expand...
As we are not involved in business of lies and slander, Paige did pay us in the end but only after extensive pressure from the customer. At the end, everything was resolved however I didn't really liked when Alex called us dishonest company here when he started this thread.

Nick
Vuk Transport Ltd.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MLCAR
BCTruckin said:
As we are not involved in business of lies and slander, Paige did pay us in the end but only after extensive pressure from the customer. At the end, everything was resolved however I didn't really liked when Alex called us dishonest company here when he started this thread.

Nick
Vuk Transport Ltd.
Click to expand...
Gotcha. I edited my comment for transparency as well
 
  • Like
Reactions: MLCAR and BCTruckin
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom