Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By James Midlake
Folks
If a private car is used on business and the person then claims a milage allowance where does the responsibility rest for:
ensuring the person has business insurance?
the vehicle is roadworthy?
Should we be checking these things or is it more common to blind-eye the issue and just hand over the pence per mile??
Midlake
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jan Rowney
James,
The onus is on us in our Local Authority to ensure we have business insurance and that our vehicle is roadworthy.
I think these days, at the interview stage, full licences are requested to see if there are any endorsements of any kind, but this has been learnt in the years since I started. Not that I have any ... there's tempting fate!
Jan
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ashley Williams
James,
I think best practice now a days is to request yearly documentation checks.
1 for licence, how many points have they built up over last 12 months. Have they received a ban etc.
2 copy of insurance certificate, after all if their policy doesnt pay up, the third part will come knocking on your door.
3 if applicable take a copy of the MOT cert as prrof vehicle is road worthy.
Ash
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By J Knight
Hi James,
For the first question, legally the duty remains with the driver. However, and its a big however, there is increasing emphasis from HSE on employers controlling road risk in the same way as risk from other work activity. So many employers, such as mine, consider it prudent to check these things and try and encourage drivers very strongly to ensure they have appropriate insurance. To give a practical example of the kind of difficulty a blind-eye could cause, we were involved in a situation which involved an uninsured driver driving for us (without our knowledge) and considered the potential for serious embarrassment to be so great that we made an ex-gratia payment.
The second question, about roadworthiness, is actually slightly different. You need to refer to s40 of the Road Traffic act which makes it an offence to 'cause or permit' an unroadworthy vehicle to be driven. So if one of your employers is instructed to drive (even if that instruction is implicit rather than explicit) and there is a collision due to a fault in the vehicle then the employer could be held to have 'caused' an unroadworthy vehicle to be driven. We don't check every vehicle every day, of course, but we do ask for MOTs as a reasonable means of discharging our duty (we hope).
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By gham
As a driver I would take the responsiblity to make sure that my car and insurance is up to scratch, the police will charge me if there is a roadworthyness issue with my car and my insurance company will dispute any claim if im not properly covered.
However, my employer checks that my licence is legal and advises me about my insurance cover (for all the extra it costs)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Richard Brown James Under duty of care it will be the companies responsibility to ensure that you have protected the driver against all events which include evidence of business insurance and that the vehicle is fit for purpose. I would suggest that you hold a copy of every drivers insurance certificate, verify the driving licence details with the DVLA, MOT and service records service to mileage. These can be collected each month if due with their mileage claim. Regards Richard Brown LicenceCheck www.licencecheck.co.uk
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Fitzy
What we have done is stated in the company policy that the mileage rate includes expenses incurred for business cover on motor policies.
We also carried out a licence check although, I could be wrong here but I think under the Data Protection Act we arent at liberty to ask how many points, just if they have a valid driving licence.
Hope this helps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ken Taylor
Surely we need to see the driving licence in order to be sure that they are permitted to drive the vehicle on our behalf with our employees and property on board?
This becomes particularly important for those driving the employer's vehicles with hazardous materials on board, driving school-children, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ian P
We have copies of driving licenses sent every year after being checked by the line manager. I have heard advice from some road safety organisations to have them checked every 3 months but that seems OTT to me and more than the meaagre admin back up I have could handle anyway. We also get copies of MOTs if the car needs one and certificates of insurance. Without the cert of insurance you can't check that the driver has business use.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jason911
We are just setting up a annual license check. We have also written in the employee handbook, which all employees sign for to say that they must have valid insurance and M.O.T etc. I think the most important thing to remember here is that no legislation under H&S exists that is up to the job of sufficiently covering this issue, I mean its one thing to ask HR to check a license, but who are they to correctly interpret the information on it regarding any points or disqualifications? You can find this information if you look hard enough but it has not exactly been forthcoming from the relevant authorities has it? Secondly the law that does implicate employers, being the Road traffic act S40 talks about 'to cause or permit the use of an unfit vehicle' not person so I think a successful prosecution against any employer would take a very extreme case. I think anyone whose employees use their own vehicles should conduct an initial risk assessment followed by the above and this should be sufficient.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jason911
Another area in which this whole concept is severely lacking in my view is where do you draw the line at an employee using a vehicle for business use? I mean do we insist on seeing the license of an employee asked to pop over to B&Q say once or twice every other week?
Would this practice not be termed as regular use as far as your risk assessment goes?
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ken Taylor
Consider what happens if you have an employee building up points or even disqualified for drink driving, etc and they go on to kill people whilst driving for you and committing the same offence again - and your defence as an employer is that you got them to sign a form. The meaning of the endorsements on driving licences is available on the web. Asking someone to go to B&Q for some items and they choose to drive their own car rather than walk or take the bus is one thing. Employees who are required to drive as part of their conditions of service is another.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Murgatroyd
Might I inject a note of reality here, since I noted that old comment about checking the MOT to ensure roadworthiness.
It says on the front of the [new] mot that the mot doesn't mean the vehicle is roadworthy.
And it doesn't.
It is perfectly possible, and has happened many times, for a car to leave the mot testing station and the brakes to fail...wheel fall off (true)...and many other faults. The mot test is a simple check of the vehicle and not a comprehensive check....
I consider that if you intend to ensure that the insurance is valid, then you should insist that the vehicle is regularly serviced by a reputable establishment, not rely on a once-a-year visual check.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Christopher
It is made very clear to car owners, using their own vehicles for business use, that their car insurance must cover them for business use of the vehicle. Any mileage charged for work use without this cover would be deemed as fraud.
Would it not be possible to have claimants sign on their claim form for mileage, that they are aware that they are responsible for maintaining their vehicle in a roadworthy condition. That their licence is valid in line with current legislation and that they continue to hold car insurance which covers their use of their vehicle for business use.
Spot checks could/will be made of claimants.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Christopher
Apologies forgot to identify 'It is the practice within the NHS...'
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Makka
At my previous employer they stopped all business related personal car use. Due to a string of accidents involving uninsured drivers driving on business, and unroadworthy vehicles.
Hire cars were to be used for all buiness driving (whereas previously it had been optional), no matter how short a journey. All drivers reaching the 2000 mile mark had to undergo an on-line driver training programme.
One incident that I am aware of, an unmarried colleague decided to drive to a meeting rather use a hire car as he was going on leave and travelling beyond the location of the meeting to see family.
Unfortunately he had a high speed accident on the motorway whilst heading for the meeting.
As he was travelling on business without the appropriate cover his insurance company stated his insurance was invalid, he lost his car, the person he hit sued him for whiplash and spinal injuries, distress, loss of earnings, and the repair / replacement of her vehicle.
The police prosecuted him for driving without insurance for which he received a ban and a fine.
The employer disciplined him for driving on business without insurance, and then threatened him with dismissal as he could not carry out his work without a valid licence.
He was off work for six months with injuries, has now been declared bankrupt and lost his house.
All because he wanted to use his own car rather than use a hire car, which he could have continued the rental on after the meeting at corporate rates!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Mike
In my part of the public sector the policy is the same as the NHS example from Christopher, but to return to the original question – where does the responsibility lie ?
-With the driver, who must comply with private car use policy on regular vehicle checks, insurance requirements and keeping line managers informed about changing circumstances.
-With the line manager, who implements policy, authorises expenses and knows the driver personally (this last one is important).
-With senior management, who make policy, delegate responsibilities, ensure line managers/drivers have the information they need to comply with policy, ensure that driver training is resourced, ensure that near misses and accidents are recorded, ensure the system is subject to occasional review, feedback and documented.
I am not enthusiastic about box ticking exercises by central HR or other functions, except perhaps insurance certificate checks. They are easy to monitor. Adding Class I business cover costs virtually nothing extra. Class II is a bit more (multiple named drivers other than spouse) and commercial travelling Class III a lot more, but I think this thread mostly applies to Class I.
MOT certificates are not appplicable to newer cars, perhaps not applicable the day after test ! and may soon be required only after 4 years and every two years thereafter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Merv Newman
MOT certificates are legally valid for 24 hours. ie day of issue.
Any, even occasional use of a car for business purposes should be covered by appropriate insurance?
I once did some work for an American company who's vehicle policy demanded notification of any infraction which might affect driving qualifications (including drug or alcohol use or smuggling illegal aliens)
We sort of quietly dropped that from the European rules.
You have an Albanian plumber in the boot ? What do I care ? Unless she won't share the slivovitz (sorry, don't know the Albanian for plum brandy)
Merv
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bob Shillabeer
Hi All,
This has done the rounds a bit recently. Quite a push on this considering the number of accidents relate to people driving in relation to work. The issue must be managed in the same way as other work related risk. Adequate systems need to be in place - remember corpoare homocide is around the corner and HSe will be out looking along with PC Plod. ROSPA hase a good bit of info on its wbsite, SHP has had a number of very good articles lately on the subject of taffic management, fleet management and work related driving.
I ahve just introduced a work related driving policy and arrangements in our company - it caused some gnashing of teeth (a Brit and his castle thing I suppose). Remember the MHSAW Regs and the HSAWA apply.
Bob.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ken Taylor
The question of responsibilities (or duties) seems to remain with this 'thread'. I believe that these apply to both the driver and the employer. The driver is responsible for seeing that his/her own vehicle is in a roadworthy condition and that they are legally entitled to drive it. The employer is responsible for the operation of his/her business and for seeking to ensure that employees are competent to carry out their duties safely SFARP - and this will include driving. I think it would be difficult to defend using a driver with no valid driving licence without taking reasonable steps to check this in the first instance and at reasonable intervals thereafter and also hard to justify using a private vehicle which clearly presented a hazard to others - particularly passenger employees, persons in care and children. RoSPA and the CTA recommend licence checks for minibus drivers and insurers have been known to require employers to institute licence checks for other drivers. I have also worked for a local authority that required annual licence checks for employees with car allowances. So, as an employer, why risk the repercussions of a related incident in order to save someones time in looking at some licences each year or so?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Murgatroyd
The MOT is valid for 12 months from the date of issue.
It in not valid as a guarantee of roadworthiness.
The new cerificate is now a receipt, the "genuine certificate" is held on the VOSA database.
If you mot your car after 11 months (with one month remaining) and it passes, then the new mot will be valid for 12 months plus any time remeining on the "old" mot. If it fails with one month remaining, then IT HAS FAILED AND CANNOT BE USED ON A PUBLIC HIGHWAY UNTIL IT HAS PASSED ANOTHER MOT.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Brett Day
There has been a case where a disqualified driver on company business has had an accident and the employer prosecuted. So the 'Cause or permit' clause of the Road Traffic Act as pointed out by J Knight has been tested in court.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.