Anybody want to take a stab at this????

That's what we do. In truth no matter what you do, in these days of colour scanning/printing/copying, if someone deliberately wants to palm you off with a fake driving licence, they'll probably get away with it.

Just as an aside if you do photocopy driving licences; as with passports, this should be done in black and white, NOT colour.

Hi Kevin, I carry out checks every three months with a separate "producer" annually by our HR department. Basic eyesight test (done as per Highway Code) annually. Hope this helps?? Mark.

There are two expiry dates - one is for the photograph and one for the licence itself. From the ACoP's I've read, it's a bit cloudy whether or not a prosecution would ensue but personally, I do not release vehicle keys for licences with an expired photograph...

achrn, if you have a photo id licence card thingy, these are only valid for 10 years, but your licence itself is normally valid until you're 70 (scary!) Back to the original question though, and at risk of being pinickety/pedanticky, the question was about the duty of care' While I don't believe that there is generally any specific STATUTORY duty (arguable in the broader context of S2/3), the (common law) duty of care is very broad and wide ranging LEGAL DUTY, and as such I don't think that I personally would be quite so sure that a legal duty doesn't necessarily exist in relation to driver licence checks.

Also remember that old licence types [mine] cover a wider scope than newer licences -- So the task is to do more than a simple check; The task is to actually look at the cover each licence has and plan the work accordingly This restriction has caused some problems in the workplace as newer licence holders are not allowed to drive some vehicles that they used to be able to drive and many supervisers etc. do not know this fact

Ray, I am sorry that my response didn’t meet with your approval. Why should I keep my powder dry? I have the same ‘right’ to add my comments to this forum that you exercise time and again, and to challenge some of the more traditional thinking, as I have always done, and will continue to do so. That to my mind is the ‘life blood’ of this forum. As it happens, I didn’t ask a question! Nor did I personally ask for advice, although Kevin the original poster DID ask a question SPECIFICALLY about ‘duty of care’, which incidentally I do know what this ‘applies to’, and I personally don’t find it ‘vague’. However, while Kevin asked about the DUTY OF CARE, I believe that most replies were based on whether there was a STATUTORY duty. In fairness this might actually have been what Kevin thought he was asking about. If you read my reply again you will see that I generally agree that there isn’t a STATUTORY DUTY (although as I have already said that is arguable in the context of S2/3). I don’t think that anything I have written can be construed by anybody as being particularly inconsistent with the previous ‘good’ advice. Of course looking at the various replies, it does beg the question if there isn’t ANY sort of duty, why do the HSE and other organisations recommend that we do the checks many employers including my own, do the licence checks? If it doesn’t help to demonstrate the exercising of a duty (whether statutory or common law) then isn’t it wasted time and money? Of course, good and best practice are often used to help demonstrate the exercising of a duty; aren’t they? To use a rather extreme example – an employer runs a large fleet of articulated lorries. He takes on drivers but doesn’t make ANY checks as to whether the drivers have the appropriate licence, either at the commencement of the employment or thereafter. One of his drivers causes a serious accident in which both he and a number of other motorist(s) are killed. The subsequent investigation reveals that neither he nor a significant number of other drivers have the appropriate licence; some have subsequently ‘lost’ (perhaps been banned from driving or become medically unfit to drive) during the course of their employment, some don’t have any at all. Are any of us suggesting that the employer isn’t going to ‘cop’ for some form of prosecution as a result? The ‘smart’ money might suggest otherwise. However, I do find your assertion that the duty of care doesn’t amount to a legal duty is, to say the very least, an interesting position to adopt. The fact that it isn’t a statutory duty doesn’t mean that it isn’t a legal duty. To return to the essence of my post - I PERSONALLY wouldn’t be quite so sure that a legal duty doesn't NECESSARILY exist in relation to driver licence checks. I stand by that comment. If you are sure that there isn’t, that’s fine but please don’t try to suppress my own thinking, or passing on my own thoughts to other. I am sorry that my response is ‘robust’ but I am left wondering about the motivation of your post?

AK, I am left wondering how that CPS lawyer set about changing what is normal practice and how we will know if or when they succeeded.

Hi We check ours six monthly as annually can be too late. HR check them for Company Car drivers but we also check them as part of the Transport Management programme for all Drivers in line with CPC requirements. We also put a disclaimer (if that's what you call it) on the bottom of our expense form stating that they are signing that their vehicle is roadworthy, they have the right insurance cover, it has a valid MOT if applicable and that they are no significant changes to their licence that may affect the validity etc Julie

Whilst wishing to steer clear of the handbags I am going to contribute... We have an annual 'permit to drive' in which the driver declares that the vehicle(s) is safe, insured, MOTed, taxed and will notify the line manager of any change...

Ray, I wasn’t aware that my post at #12 was likely to be construed by anyone as “..harping on..”! I am calm but I felt that your response at #13 needed to be challenged as I was, and still am unsure about the motivation of such a response that suggested that I not post my own thoughts. I note that you have focussed on requiring me to provide evidence that the DOC is a legal duty (at least I think that was what you were sugegsting). I am unsure what evidence you are likely to accept. But in the absence of Counsels opinion, surely it goes without saying that the very existence of the DUTY OC carries with it a legal …… DUTY? If not a LEGAL duty what other sort of duty? 1. The DOC exists (that hopefully goes without saying) 2. It is a duty by name 3. If someone fails in that duty then legal liability may arise 4. If liability is established there is a ‘remedy at law’ 5. The remedy is a legal process 6. The remedy is generally ‘enforceable’ by the Court 7. Ergo ………….I am desperately trying to see how the DOC can be construed as anything other than a legal duty. I don’t know if it is sufficient ‘evidence’ but http://e-lawresources.co.uk/Duty-of-care.php suggests the same. But handbags aside (thank you “M”) it seems to me that any argument about whether the DOC is a legal duty is both futile and distraction from the wider points that I am trying to tease out, and create genuine debate about. While I accept that no SPECIFIC statutory duty exists, I AM challenging the position that NO legal duty exists at either statutory or common law and I AM suggesting that a duty or duties MIGHT well exist (S2/3 seem a good place to start). I am as always MORE than happy to be wrong. It may well be that there isn’t ANY duty WHATSOEVER, but I for one aren’t entirely convinced or comfortable with that and I have already provided some reasoning for in my previous post.

Ron, I am not sure if that is what Ray is trying to tell me. If it is then I suggest that the TON is inextricably linked to the legal duty (and I think it is a legal duty) under common law. A breach of statutory duty (unless specifically excluded) is a tort in its own right. However, in my first post at #12 I quite deliberately tried to separate statutory and common law duties. Ray seemed to suggest that the DOC was not a legal duty. I challenge that view. IF I have got it totally wrong at #24, then I apologise unreservedly but would ask Ray might do me the courtesy of letting me know what I have to provide evidence for? Again, we’re still nit picking at the tort of negligence/DOC/statutory duty but avoiding the main body of my post at #16. I can see 2 posts that say that there is no legal duty. I am challenging that position and I make no excuses for doing so. I have specifically mentioned S2/3 and the DOC at common law, THAT is what we should be debating, not engaging in smoke and mirrors, or respectfully suggesting that I don’t post and contribute to this debate, especially as it appears that this is on the basis that I have dared to challenge the view of others. It would be the saddest of days when the ability to challenge long established views was stifled or discouraged by ANYONE.

Thanks Ron... that is the gist of it. canopener, let's try this again as we appear to have got off on the wrong foot. A DoC is a CIVIL LAW term (except in certain subscribed cases ie gross negligent and corporate manslaughter) which has been determined in common law, for instance, one road user to another road user, employer to employee, etc. In the absence of common law precedent it will be for the court to decide whether the accused owes a DoC based on the 3 part test as laid down in Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] UKHL 2. A criminal duty is either common law or statute law. Offences of the type we are discussing are regulatory law ie statute law and punishable by the state. Unless there is a specific Act or Regulation which imposes a criminal duty or is superceded by a more serious offence ie manslaughter or murder - no duty exists. At least that is the extent of my knowledge on the subject, but I will be happy to be corrected if I'm wrong. Ray

canopener Disappointing response and unnecessary comments IMO, as I was trying to be helpful and advise you on the errors in your thinking - clearly you have your own opinions on the matter and will not be swayed. Incidentally, my last post was not copied and posted from any NEBOSH course or any other document, but recalled from memory when I studied for an MA in Health, Safety and Environmental Law. Good day.

Please try this link, department for transport (fleet support tool procedure for checking employees driving licences and entitlement to drive.

The comments are for the first question and not for your comments, but the link dose cover the legal aspects. sorry for jumping in...

another knackered posting- another hostage to one upman ship - ah dinnit nar!!!!!

If you look at my original succinct post on the subject at #5 you will see that I suggested that the employer should show due diligence. I have not commented on a DoC or a criminal legal duty. It does not rule anything in or out. If we are going down the road of a legal duty as per 2/3 of HSWA, then it is possible that a duty on the employer could apply – the law can be nebulous and is in a constant state of flux. That said, we are now going down the fanciful road of - but what if? As the law stands there is no explicit duty to check employees’ driving licences. However, showing due diligence by making reasonable checks the employer will insulate themselves from any liability, now or in the future - back to my comments at #5. An employer with a few employees driving might be able to effectively monitor employees’ driving licences, but where there are hundreds or even thousands of employees who drive, or may drive company vehicles or their own for company purposes, it would be an almost impossible task. That is my final word on matter, except to comment that people should not use these forums to deliberately agitate or insult others who are trying to be helpful.

Classic. Onions' one is the only one to feel the wrath. Btw, I'm still interested in the whole 'Black & White/Colour Photocopying' thing.