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 : 07 September 2009 15:37:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Decimomal Just got this from the P.A to the Regional MD: "As you may be aware the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act, which came into effect on the 6 April 2008 and a part of the provision of this act, the provision for Health and Safety for employees who are driving on business use, regardless of whether they are using a company car or their own have been accentuated. To this end, can you please review the attached information that we hold with regard to your vehicle, which you use for business travel" etc etc........ I would like to reply in a measured manner and without my size 10 boots! What would you say?
Admin  
#2 Posted : 07 September 2009 16:05:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Coshh Assessor I would say translate that into English!
Admin  
#3 Posted : 07 September 2009 16:52:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ron Hunter Why this perceived need to justify a perfectly reasonable request with reference to gobbledygook? It can be simply stated as: "Please review the attached information that we hold with regard to your vehicle, which we understand you use for business travel. Thankyou for your assistance"
Admin  
#4 Posted : 07 September 2009 16:52:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Phill Firmin I think you will find that employers responsibility for all drivers is becoming a greater concern due to the possibility of corporate prosecution for those who do not check the legality of their employees vehicle being used (e.g. registered vehicle, MOT, taxed and Driving Licence) for business purposes. Of course this will usually arise after an accident/injury, so be warned!
Admin  
#5 Posted : 07 September 2009 17:09:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By martinw And if a regime of checking is a good way of ensuring that you are indeed complying with the relevant gubbins, if you have company vehicles which more than one person uses, have a checklist: check before and after use for damage etc. Otherwise, have those who have sole use of a company vehicle to check their vehicles and sign as such. This is nothing that does not happen anyway - we all check out cars, do we not?
Admin  
#6 Posted : 07 September 2009 17:16:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Decimomal Thanks for the responses. I appreciate the requirement to provide the details but my own thoughts were that the tone was a bit alarmist and somewhat over the top. A simple request for information would suffice. Ciao.
Admin  
#7 Posted : 07 September 2009 17:30:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Phill Firmin Let me put it another way - we carry out document checks on all company drivers, whether they have a company vehicle, user allowance or simply claim mileage. If the authorities are implying (by example) that they will prosecute the organisation, if found to be 'not checking' the legality of their employees who drive, then so be it. If you do not then you are simply taking an unnecessary risk.
Admin  
#8 Posted : 07 September 2009 19:28:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Glyn Atkinson Is the intention also to ensure that some form of remedial ongoing car / vehicle maintenance has been done and recorded - oil check, water levels, tyre checks for correct inflation and tyre tread? If that is the case, is the next intention to move all responsibility for said maintenance over to the car user and away from management overview and control?
Admin  
#9 Posted : 08 September 2009 08:07:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Coshh Assessor The motivation for the request may well be the wish to avoid prosecution. However what is the point of telling employees that? It's just bad communication in so many ways - it doesn't consider the needs of the audience. As Ron said above, just tell them in straightforward terms what is expected of them.
Admin  
#10 Posted : 08 September 2009 08:26:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By martinw I might be stating the obvious here, but as above, if prosecution is to be avoided, have drivers using their own or company vehicles on company business been made aware of all of the issues, including vicarious liability? I don't mean to be in any way simplistic about this - I am sure that they do know - but the motive for review of the information is interesting. Is it for the benefit of the drivers or the organisation?
Admin  
#11 Posted : 08 September 2009 10:23:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Phill Firmin Such checks are quite understandable - they benefit the driver by ensuring they remain legal on the road and the organisation by confirming that drivers are complying with policy and standards. The only alternative to this is to assume and trust everyone across the board, but if anyone reckons on this being a sensible way forward then best wishes! We also have a drivers handbook and ensure all issues are spelt out clearly. Phill.
Users browsing this topic
Guest (2)
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.