Broker "A" has to be diligent in making sure that they are dealing with the end carrier. In the case where broker b has presented themselves as a carrier and they are not, allow that broker A can bypass broker B in the payment. Make broker A liable for the payment but do not let broker B out of the liability train. Doing this would greatly discourage the behavior which will help all of trucking.
Should double brokering be made illegal?
Discussion in 'Freight Broker Forum' started by ttnae, Aug 14, 2020.
Page 2 of 3
-
-
Trucking Jobs in 30 seconds
Every month 400 people find a job with the help of TruckersReport.
-
Duplicate. Removed.
-
Trucking Jobs in 30 seconds
Every month 400 people find a job with the help of TruckersReport.
-
-
-
-
-
Edit to add:
Here's the link to the applicable CFR that Chris is talking about:
49 CFR § 371.7 - Misrepresentation.Last edited: Aug 17, 2020
-
I've been searching: This article explains a little better than I understood.
Double Brokering IS illegal, though done.
Since MAP-21 the term Co-Brokering has popped up BUT with co-brokering, Broker A is to cut 2 payments, one to the co broker and one to the carrier. When this is NOT done, then it is definitely double brokering. The FMCSA or whomever is the watchdog agency, needs to start auditing these folks for a change.
Double Brokeringalds Thanks this. -
Co brokering has been around long before MAP-21. No where in the CFR's does it state that "Broker A"has to make two payments like you state. No where in the CFR's does it state that a broker must give the load to a carrier. Double broker is when the original broker has no idea that the load is being brokered a second time. Co brokered is when there is an agreement between them. Far better to get your info from the CFR's than from a news article.
Rideandrepair and p608 Thank this.
Trucking Jobs in 30 seconds
Every month 400 people find a job with the help of TruckersReport.
Page 2 of 3