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

2 Pages<12
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#41 Posted : 06 July 2007 11:21:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Peter Leese CRT I've documented this in the past. An East Anglian Council took two 70 year olds to court because a pack of sandwiches in their post office was two days past the sell by date. The village ended up by losing its post office. From that example I hope you can see why I have absolutely no faith in Council policing or indeed in their capability to even see what they are doing wrong.
Admin  
#42 Posted : 06 July 2007 11:46:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Alexander Falconer count me as a YES! The company is paying an allowance, therefore the vehicle is used for business After all, the company can decide to withdraw the allowance at any point.
Admin  
#43 Posted : 06 July 2007 11:59:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By The toecap I think the best solution is to place a tax sic holder in the car witha no smoking back on it. It can be covered up if people don't like it. But whatever happens its there all the time ads a disc holder. Now surely thats enough of the jibbering
Admin  
#44 Posted : 06 July 2007 12:35:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Rob T Just ignore it! The smoking patrols have no right to stop and search (certainly not on the open road and off premises) so tell them to go forth and multiply which they are doing in any case (multiplying that is). Anyway this has nothing to do with H&S legislation as said before - if there was any epidemiological evidence of second-hand smoke causing ill-health then it would be under H&S law. Enough said.
Admin  
#45 Posted : 06 July 2007 12:57:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ron Hunter No, No, No! There you go - 3 "no's" towards your count. My car -not the employer's car - so no sticker!!!
Admin  
#46 Posted : 06 July 2007 15:17:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By J Knight Private cars no, company cars yes. To me 'primarily' is not the same as 'mainly' or 'mostly'. Did you buy your car primarily for work? Most people buy them primarily because they want a car and would try and hang on to it even if they lost their jobs, John
Admin  
#47 Posted : 06 July 2007 15:25:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Gff "count me as a YES! The company is paying an allowance, therefore the vehicle is used for business" Some allowances are a perk! contractural condition of employment. "After all, the company can decide to withdraw the allowance at any point" How? It's your car when you get it you pay for it you register it you insure it you maintain it......... It's a No for and allowance...... no it's a yes... definatley no/yes. No Yes.... No.
Admin  
#48 Posted : 06 July 2007 15:31:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Robert K Lewis No, No, No, Yes, No Methinks
Admin  
#49 Posted : 06 July 2007 16:34:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Donk My car, keep your perks and your mileage allowance along with your stickers. Who's got the problem now? By the way i am a non smoker.
Admin  
#50 Posted : 06 July 2007 16:38:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Michael Hosking No they are exempt unless carrying non smoking employees on company business Mike
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages<12
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.