Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#1 Posted : 05 April 2005 09:51:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jim-F Has anyone got a good checking system for workforce drivers licences whether it be software or otherwise, we have over 100 workers who drive our vehicles and 50 staff who likewise, and keeping tabs on all licence holders is difficult to say the least, advice is welome
Admin  
#2 Posted : 05 April 2005 11:36:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Linda Crossland-Clarke Hi We have statement they have to sign to say they have a licence, their car is legal, insured etc on the bottom of their milage expense claim form. Its a start until you get something more comprehsive in place. Linda sHE Knows.
Admin  
#3 Posted : 06 April 2005 11:33:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By J Knight On this subject, we have just tendered for an Occupational Road Risk Assessment, and one of the companies we spoke to told us that just checking the licence may not be enough. Apparently they refer all licences to the DVLA, and they get a 4% or so rejection rate; some of this is inadvertent, e.g. not notifying change of address, but some of it is fraud and deception. Accepting a fraudulent licence without proper checks could be aiding & abetting, John
Admin  
#4 Posted : 07 April 2005 11:43:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jonathan Breeze Jim, What we did was link payment of travel expenses to annual submission of a valid drivers licence, insurance document and MOT certificate. As this could be worth up to £100 a month for staff, failure to provide the information has been infrequent. Where staff have not submitted the documents, they cannot use their vehicle for work purposes. That might not work in your case though if it is a pool car system you use. As John has pointed out the system would not highlight fraud, but it's a start.
Admin  
#5 Posted : 07 April 2005 17:42:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Mike It might seem a strange question, but I am curious about the added value of this regular checking business. What is it exactly that the employer thinks they are protecting themselves against ? My employer's conditions for private car expenses are similar to others, but the licence/insurance/MOT etc declaration is made only once. Is my employer liable to some claim if a declaration turns out to be false at some future date? Well apparently not on basis of 25 years history and 500+ employees. I never heard of a problem. A few caveats though- we have formal driver training by an advanced instructor (but it's not compulsory), if we drive pool cars we must declare all private accidents and the list of permissable insurance companies is specified. There is perhaps one more important caveat - the employee's private insurer cannot recover any costs from my employer for driving accidents on business. Is this the difference ?
Admin  
#6 Posted : 08 April 2005 09:31:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jonathan Breeze Mike, In our case the aim of the regular checking is to ensure that the driver is qualified and has not been banned in the intervening period (drivers licence), has current insurance cover (the insurance documents) and has a roadworthy vehicle (MOT). As a previous respondent has stated, this could be covered by a signed disclaimer, but we feel there is added benefit in having someone else check the documents (On the grounds that it is harder to forge all 3 documents to deceive an accountant than falsely sign a disclaimer). As to what the employer is protecting themselves from, there are a whole host of legal and financial issues. Take your pick from the following: Failure to ensure an employee has been suitably trained to undertake work; Failure to ensure suitable insurance cover is in place for employees & 3rd parties; and Failure to ensure that work equipment (the vehicle) is fit for purpose. Discuss.
Admin  
#7 Posted : 08 April 2005 10:41:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Claire Coen Information sent via email. Regards Claire
Users browsing this topic
Guest
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.