Posted By RBW100
"But we're not just talking about someone who pops down the road for a training course are we. I drive hundreds of miles a week to and from clients and some sales reps drive 1000's."

In my case I am only talking about infrequent journeys. Those who travel a lot have company cars at my place.

"Servicing is not the issue but it is the in-between checks on things like tyres, lights etc that should be being checked. We are all required to do it on our personal cars (remember when you learnt to drive) but none of us do, that is our choice. If we get pulled by the police for dodgy tyres that is our choice. However, when that car is being used for work purposes the controls need to be tighter."

This is the bit that I have a problem with. Why should controls need to be tighter? Surly people should be safe all the time? If the owner of the car chooses to run it until the canvas is showing on the tyres its their fault and they should take responsibility for that. Of course all of this is my personal view, and probably not what I will suggest happens at work. Its another case of trying to relieve people of their responsibilities, which in my view is wrong.

"Don't forget that employers are saving themselves a huge amount of money by not providing company vehicles to these employees. If they were company vehicles then we would expect the employer to put in arrangements for regular vehicle checks. In theory the same should happen for other cars used for business purposes too."

The cash saving for the company is not that great if there at all. Recently I looked at sending a chap to a course around 40 miles away. He would be traveling there and back each day for 5 days. Total mileage was 400 miles. The company pays for own car use at 45p per mile so cost to company is £180. To hire a car for the week would have been £115 (Focus sized diesel, from eurocar, I think). At 40 mpg the fuel cost to the company would have been £51. So the hire car offered a saving of £14. The guy going on the course would prefer to use his own car as he gets a financial benefit, not the company.

"I'm not saying this is an easy situation I'm just saying that the current situation is contradictory."

I agree entirely. What is needed is clear guidance from the HSE or another government organ, which avoids the usual smudge of risk assess and act on the findings, but says something like "Own car - responsibility for road worthiness is with the owner" or " Car used for work must meet the following basic standards, which the employer must confirm"

Looks to me that we will need to wait for a test case before we know what the 'rules' are.

Posted By Brett Day

The Road Traffic Act has a 'Cause or Permit' offence - It is an offence for a party to cause or permit another party / driver to commit an offence under the RTA.

For example, if a driver is involved in an accident because thier car is unroadworthy (company car or private) the driver can be prosecuted under thier duty as the driver of the vehicle (a duty most drivers are aware of), however, as the employer has caused them to drive on business they can aslo be prosecuted.

If they do not carry out checks, they could instead be prosecuted for 'permitting' the driver to drive an unroadworthy vehicle.

Whilst not on the subject of roadworthyness, the most recent example is a driver on company business drunk, already having been disqualified involved in an accident. His employer did not carry out checks on licences and was prosecuted under this clause.

A company I worked for had a declaration attched to the mileage sheet stating roughly that 'I had not been involved in any accidents or contraventions of the Road Traffic Act in the last seven days and that the vehicle(s) I have driven have had as a minimum been subject to weekly vehicle checks as outlined in the company's car policy.' Random checks can be used to verify the condition of cars, these should be logged.

If as you say it is cheaper for the company to hire, I would hire rather than allow a choice of hire / private car in your position as the contract between you and the hire company as it is easier for your company to discharge it's duty re: roadworthiness.

Sorry for the wordy reply.

Posted By alex mccreadie
Rob was just having a look at the British Safety Council site where Corporate Manslaughter is mentioned. It would appear this is for "Company Car users". Can anyone expand on this please.
Still a good post Bob soon equal War and Peace.

Ta Alex

Posted By David John Harris
An annual check and photocopy of the driving Licence, for records
A company policy that lists checks before journey,
Check of Insurance that allows vehicle to be driven for the purpose of work,
Policy to stipulate breaks must be taken every two hours of continous driving,
Driver training can be on disc with record of pass/fail rate with recommendations for refresher training due to attitude of driver Libility to road rage) harsh driving technique, selfish driving etc.
These were introduced into a company I worked for, with good savings on fuel costs and peace of mind for company directors and drivers.
ps MOT etc

Posted By Steve Cartwright
We just check that the person who is driving on company business has a valid driving licence, mot, taxed and that they are insured for company business.

In the event of an incident, it could be argued that once a car is being used for company business it becomes work equipment and so falls under PUWER, which states that work equipment has to be maintained.

I would speak to your insurance company and ask for their advice. After all they would probably be involved if anything were to happen.

If their cars are not insured for company business then they will not be covered, thus they will be carrying out an unlawful act, i.e. driving without insurance, for which they could recieve a fine and also penalty points on their licence.

In the event of a major road accident, police now treat RTA's as crime scenes. Investigate nature of journey so on and so on, whether they've just driven round the block and its the only time they've used their car for company business or they drive it every day and do thousands of miles. Does not matter to them. If they establish the nature of the journey was for company business they will then investigate company to see if they were negligent. If negligence is proven then company can be prosecuted.

Do the basics check driver licence, tax, mot and insurance. If employees can not provide any of the following don't let them drive either their own car or the company vehicle.