Road Runner/Prime Logistics - Woodstock, ON

Status
Not open for further replies.
Walterk, I don't think there is any product on the market that can "secure" the credit you offer your customers. The Canadian Development Bank offers some insurance when the transaction involves international trade i.e. you're selling goods to Nigeria, but for North American transportation services, you are pretty much on your own. As you mentioned, due diligence and perhaps more importantly, your "gut feeling", are all you have to make an intelligent business decision when extending credit. There are recourses available when things go sour, such as making a claim against a brokers US surety bond, following up with the shipper/receiver, and of course Ontario Small Claims Court, but making the right decision in the first place is always the best course of action.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Igor Galanter
We always ask for 3 carriers they are currently working with that we know and somewhat trust, if they cannot come up with any then red flag. We go on this site check all of them out, get to know who you can trust on this site and take their word. Check them out on how they are registered in the US (do they have the US Surety Bond) If you go with what they give you they would be morons to give you people who are not going to give them a good reference. If they all of a sudden want to give you a lot of loads it is a big red flag, we don't know them and they don't know us so they would be foolish to trust us as we would be foolish to trust them. Only give them credit that you can afford to lose as in if a $1000 won't hurt you but $1500 will then give them the $1000 and wait until they pay to do another load then wait again. Trust your gut if it is too good to be true it usually is.
 
ShawnR said:
as per his MC921955 he is carrier, so yes if he gave away a load, he double brokered it... as for not paying, many guys who illegally double broker will purposely not pay simply so they can keep the money, all the money... that's the scam, plus his MC is quite new so this isn't an old company gone south, it seems to be a new setup that just scammed people

look here;
COMMON ACTIVE SINCE
JUNE 24, 2016
Click to expand...


Why was it double brokered? Carrier can't have direct customers? They where Roadrunner Logistics no Prime in the name until recently. I was by the yard on the weekend they are still running out of the house in Eastwood(Woodstock) that they always have.

Good luck getting paid I have no idea what is going on there at one time they where doing quite a bit of local moves for me but a couple customers complained about their drivers and I stopped using them.
 
Shawn, I'm not standing up for anyone. Just don't agree with your business model. Not really sure you want to get Rob started again on this? Unless you're a sucker for punishment...
 
The fact that it was mentioned that RoadWay Transport called the shipper Dasco, and Dasco told them they paid Road Runner Prime means that it was a direct customer relationship so it was not double brokered. But I agree with Shawn that they had no authority to broker the freight, and the buyer at Dasco should have known this. I would go up the chain at Dasco. The person who hired Road Runner is going to try to skirt it because he's likely going to be in trouble for this. Road Runner in the US is a completely different animal ... it's a fairly large group of companies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ShawnR
Co Brokering is double brokering that isn't behind somebody's back. If a broker/transport company has a contract with another party who is a 3PL whether it's a freight broker, warehouse company etc that allows it to arrange transport for goods on equipment that is not their own, this is what it's referred to.
 
Htcollections, co-brokering is a situation where freight broker A has a load from one of it's own customers and gives that load to freight broker B to find a truck to put under it. The carrier who performs the move bills freight broker B, who in turn, bills freight broker A (including a mark-up), who finally bills his customer (with his mark-up included). Sounds a lot like double brokering doesn't it? Why does it happen you might ask? Well, perhaps freight broker A is not very experienced and finds it easier to let another broker do the actual work. Or, maybe the particular shipment is in an area that freight broker A is not familiar with. There are different reasons, but the long and short of it is.......it exposes freight broker A to additional risks that neither he nor his own customer should be exposed to. Whether or not you enter into this type of arrangement with your eyes open, or shut, the risks remain the same.
 
If a carrier has freight from one of its customers but does not have the capacity to move it with their own equipment, they are acting as a freight broker if they sell that freight to another carrier and as such must hold freight broker authority (for US/Can shipments). If they sell that same freight to a freight broker, they are engaging in double brokering.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Salma, hauling_ass and Igor Galanter
I agree with Loaders. It is arguably worse when it's from another carrier because that carrier is misrepresenting their services to the customer in all likelihood and may not have authority to do so. Double brokering is typically 'slight of hand' meaning people in the chain are blind to it, co-brokering is authorized. In most cases, I view them both as equally bad though there are notable exceptions.
 
So correct me if im worng. Co-brokerage is ok but not double brokerage...Its all the same no?
 
In most cases, I think that it's the same and I don't agree with it. There are a few instances where a company like Ryder may be managing and paying for freight but there is input on the routing guide from the actual customer who knows that some freight is routed through a broker. Because a contract between Ryder (for example) and the actual broker would need to be a 'co-brokerage' agreement, it's still considered co-brokering.

But if a US carrier has freight lanes that it moves for a customer of theirs that they 'broker out', and it goes to another broker, that's where increased risk, reduced visibility etc comes into play. In this day and age, I don't see why it needs to happen when information is so free ... it was a valid business model in the '90s and maybe early '00s and I would venture to say that a lot of Canadian brokerages were originally built on it, but have moved on. I know I aborted the process myself in about 2002-2003.
 
Regardless of what you call it, there are inherent risks associated with this activity. I believe I identified some of them in a previous post, but here are the ones I am most afraid of.
1) The second freight broker will most likely be giving your freight (your customer's freight to be more precise) to a carrier you don't know and you have no idea of what their past performance might be.
2) The second freight broker's payment schedule to his carriers may be different from your own.
3) If the actual carrier doesn't receive his payment in a timely fashion from the second broker, your customer might be receiving a rather nasty phone call from an irate, unpaid carrier. As the carrier doesn't have any knowledge of your involvement in the transaction, you will probably not be contacted at all, until it's too late.
4) You are giving up a great deal of control of the freight movement. Care and control of all freight movements is something that a good broker takes pride in and is usually the keystone of his marketing strategy. Why relinquish it, exposing yourself to being the "last person" in the chain of communication?
It is my opinion that the exposure to risk for both yourself and your customer is too great. We just don't do it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hauling_ass
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom