Posted By MICHAEL T I apologise in advance for this, but I've looked back through past postings and can't see an answer so here goes: We have some people who get a car allowance and run their own cars for company business. Do we still have to issue them with 'No Smoking' stickers / tax disc holders, etc??? A simple yes or no would suffice. I bet I get 17 yes's and 13 no's! Regards Mike

Posted By Robert K Lewis But as they own the car then the answer must be NO :-) Bob

Posted By Rob T your car - NO

Posted By Richard_Sams I'm inclined to say the answer is no because the vehicle belongs to the individual not the company. If I am wrong however does this mean that where a business meeting is to take place at an empoyee's home, arrangements must be made between management and the employee to ensure no smoking signs are displayed at the main entrances of the employee's home?

Posted By MICHAEL T And the score so far is: 2 no's 1 yes 1 undecided. Any more offers please, when I was always told that I needed at least 30 data points for it to be statistically significant. Regards Mike

Posted By Crim Not sitting on the fence here but can't we have a no smoking sticker visible when the car is used for business/passengers etc. say behind the sun visor, and take it off when used privately?

Posted By Robert K Lewis Where did the incredibly stupid idea of signs come from anyway. I still think it is a government wheeze to make productivity gains for councils easier to achieve by countimng the fines as productivity gains. It is just like the waste fines and alternate weekly collections. As I have said elsewhere let us hope some company will make a stand under regulation 6(c) Bob

Posted By Mike Yes and No ! In the case of a non-smoking driver who does not allow smoking in their private car ever (that's me) and uses it on company business sometimes (that's me also) there seems to be a get out in the Health Act 2006 sec 6 (c) "It is an defense for a person charged under sec 5 (vehicles) to show......that on other grounds it was reasonable for him not to comply with the duty"

Posted By Amanda As with many colleagues I have been trying to get a definitive answer from the EHO about this very topic. Eventually today I got an answer.??? With regards to private cars being used on company business. Whilst the car is on company business (ie also claiming milage allowance) the car is considered a company car and workplace, outside of this when it is a private car it is just that a private car. The crux is the PRIMARILY USED part. We also have the dilemma of those operatives who have a company car for work but also pay the private use tax and can then use it for a PRIVATE car. As a company we have said all company owned vehicles are NO Smoking, all private cars used for company business will be no smoking when on company business. How is this going to be policed I ask?

Posted By Heather Collins Add me as a NO. As I posted in another thread a week or so ago, my legal department advises that such cars are exempt as they are available for private use for a greater proportion of time than they are for company use - i.e. the majority use is private. Having said that, we are asking our "cash for car" drivers not to smoke if they use them on business and carry a passenger. However this is company policy not a legal requirement.

Posted By Dave West can i just ask why go for a majority vote when there is a free phone help line? i think it is becaause they worry they me be told what they dont want to hear.

Posted By Pete48 Add me to the no column because that is the common sense response and the one that shows sensible support for the bigger picture of gaining a smokefree workplace. I still have this increasingly misplaced optimism that our law makers set laws with focused intentions. Surely the intention is to prevent smoking whilst others are in the vehicle that is being used on work activity. (If it isn't then someone will soon be asking how long a car has to be left after the owner arrives at work before it can be used to convey others on work activity and exactly when the work activity commences!) If it is a company owned/leased vehicle then they can define usage conditions which might include no smoking at any time. If it is privately owned they have no right to determine how it used privately and therefore posting a notice in the vehicle is not appropriate. Requiring employees to follow the company policy on smoking at work is acceptable and this is the control used to discharge responsibility, is it not? If you really want to be retentive about it you could insist that a movable notice is displayed whilst the vehicle is being used at work. The next thing will be a sort of taxi roof mounted sign that has to be lit up when the vehicle is a workplace so that enforcement officers can clearly check those. Yes great idea, then we can debate how you ensure that the sign is lit when it should be, what standard applies and whether we need a risk assessment for using the sign. n.b. It is already Friday is some parts of the world.

Posted By Colin S Aaargh! Although it is good to talk I just wish I had as many phone calls, questions and discussions about higher risk activities that we carry out in construction as I have had in the past month about the smoking regulations. Why can't we have a television advertising campaign about work at height or slips trips & falls. Rant over thanks. Colin

Posted By CRT From the "horses mouth", In a word - NO the company could write it into their policies/procedures that, whilst in works time, cannot smoke if carrying passengers, but no requirement to put sign up. In my humble opinion, people are interpreting the regs too loosely - read what it says guys (and gals) - section 3 11(5) "A vehicle is not used in the course of paid or voluntary work for the purposes of paragraph 1(b) where it is used primarily for the private purposes of a person who: (a) owns it; or (b) has a right to use it which is not restricted to a particular journey. As i have said, on a previous posting, LA`s are not going to be dashing out to issue FPN`s or to prosecute someone - why not ask them - after all, its the LA thats going to be enforcing it. CRT

Posted By CFT I'm on the yes fence because that what was said last night at a smoking meeting with 'expert' on hand to answer our questions. Crim Asked, "if the sticker or magnetic sign could be displayed when carrying passengers". Wait for it...........answer was "you may get a fixed penalty notice if an inspector does not see a sticker"......response was, "how would an inspector know if the vehicle was a company car or not"? Silence. Comes to something when these regs attract more chatter than say CDM 2007, and that had its fair share. Arrgg, I'm just as bad for responding. CFT

Posted By MICHAEL T All Yes I agree that that's enough. On a rough count the No's have it. However there are enough yes's out there to prove that yet again we have been sold a donkey of a piece of legislation. And yet again it's left to us to try and define what is required. It's up to us to try and argue the case when some wally says "I don't think my car needs a sticker". Now back to some real work. Thanks to all contributors. Regards Mike

Posted By Crim BBC RADIO 2 @ 1PM. All you need to know about the smoking ban including the loopholes?

Posted By Robert K Lewis CRT Fines income for such as H&S offences are fixed in the courts and go to the treasury. Fixed penalty income goes to the LA - Which would you enforce more closely if you were a cash strapped LA? And yes I have heard this statement being made verbally to a church by a LA oficer who shall be nameless! Why is signage necessary when no other legislative requirement of this nature exists elsewhere in UK H&S legislation, and where fixed penalties also occur - The nearest is in the waste enforcement arena where it turns out this government allows LAs to claim fixed penalty revenue as productivity gains. QED? This is one reason why I believe H&S professionals really need to give this one a wide berth and allow others to take the bonkers conkers charges. Why ride a storm if there is an alternative rider such as the CIEH members or the HR professionals. Bob

Posted By Robert K Lewis CRT It is not my fellow H&S professionals who are of concern. My concerns are around the whole senseless potage that is the signage requirements. Enforcement will not ultimately be undertaken by professional staff but persons specifically trained for the purpose ie smoke free enforcement officers. We have, I think, to face the fact that Councillors et al under budget pressure will encourage more proactive enforcement of the sign regulations. I am totally in favour of enforcement against those both smoking and allowing smoking, it is a big leap forward. BUT the making of these sign regulations seems to have no logic established in long held principles of UK law. Bob

Posted By B J Mann As some have pointed out and others ignored, this is NOT Health & Safety: The advice in Health and Safety Executive Operational Circular OC 255/15 07/08/2006, Second Hand Smoking [SHS] Guidance For Inspectors says... "The evidential link between individual circumstances of exposure to risk in exempted premises will be hard to establish. In essence, HSE cannot produce epidemiological evidence to link levels of exposure to SHS to the raised risk of contracting specific diseases and it is therefore difficult to prove health-related breaches of the Health and Safety at Work Act..." Oops! And the big question really is, why signs? It is illegal to have 30mph signs where it is assumed everybody should know it is a 30 (even though an official document say that the DfT cannot give a definitive answer on what is street lighting and that it is a matter for the courts in each individual case!). So why, when the papers and TVs have been full of the fact enclosed public and work places are smoke free do we need to plaser them with millions (billions?) of signs at vast expense to the NHS? And hos is the cost of advertising, literature and signage going to be recouped?