It would appear so.Does that say TQL? Or am I reading it wrong?
Yep, And the "Q" with the eyes, eh...Does that say TQL? Or am I reading it wrong?
Just for clarity sake. The full story has come out and honestly, it almost makes it better.If this is the one I read about they got him on something to do with one skid of produce and are refusing to pay him 8k for other loads until he pays a bogus claim. Seeing a lot of small US guys saying they are having claim issues with TQL anyone up here have issues?
If this is the one I read about they got him on something to do with one skid of produce and are refusing to pay him 8k for other loads until he pays a bogus claim. Seeing a lot of small US guys saying they are having claim issues with TQL anyone up here have issues?
With holding fright charges for the shipment that has the claim is one thing. With holding all payables, including shipments that have nothing to do with the claim is not ethical. I assume that's what happened here. If some brokers feel that it is ethical to do that type of practice to garner the "attention" of the carrier to respond to a claim, then why is it any different when a carrier holds freight hostage for previously unpaid freight invoices? It goes both ways folks, or at least it should.I am certainly not defending TQL’s policies in any way shape or form, however, there are some occasions when withholding freight bill payments is the only way to get the attention of some carriers who refuse to respond to legitimate claims. It would be a wonderful world indeed if every transport company was well versed and experienced in the freight claims process.
My response was strictly limited to withholding the freight charges payable for the shipment that incurred the damage. Using unpaid invoices as leverage is just as unethical as holding freight hostage. Neither of which have any place in our industry.With holding fright charges for the shipment that has the claim is one thing. With holding all payables, including shipments that have nothing to do with the claim is not ethical. I assume that's what happened here. If some brokers feel that it is ethical to do that type of practice to garner the "attention" of the carrier to respond to a claim, then why is it any different when a carrier holds freight hostage for previously unpaid freight invoices? It goes both ways folks, or at least it should.
The guy is a hero.An article from the O/O's side of things has emerged. Puts a few things in perspective:
![]()
Owner-operator pays a visit to TQL's office over nonpayment
Owner-operator Gabriel Scott explains what led up to him driving his truck up to TQL's office and confronting the brokerage in person after $8,000 in payments were withheld.www.overdriveonline.com
That's a money maker right there at the detention terms, eh..Insane terms by TQL:
- DETENTION POLICY: $30/h after 4 hours; capping @ $120 in total per load. BOL must notate in/out times and be signed off by a representative at the particular shed. Carrier must be tracking for the full duration of the shipment to be eligible for any accessorials. In the case of a layover event, carrier will be paid $200 per day if the load is not delivered on the date agreed Detention requests will be denied if not submitted within 24 hours of delivery.
Well that certainly doesn't make it OKStill better than what most shippers pay.. which zilch.. nothing...zero.. zippo..
No.. but a little bit of money is better than no money at all. I would rather get $50.00 for a six hour wait than nothing even though $50.00 is obviously way too low as well.Well that certainly doesn't make it OK