Rank: Super forum user 
|
As far as I can tell there is no requirement for a company director (or other) to display a no smoking sign in their company owned car if it is only for his use, uses it for mainly private use, does not smoke or permit any passenger to smoke. He does use it for occasional lunch meetings etc.
Is this correct?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I think if it's a workplace (and if he uses it for work it is as far as smoking law is concerned) then it has to have a compliant no smoking sign. All our lease vehicles do, vans and company cars. On the other hand, who is going to check? Probably nobody,
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I have a company car and there is one in mine to meet compliance - all out fleet have them fitted too at source HGV's Van's CC's etc.
We are required to have them is as it’s a workplace.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
So long as the director, or whoever, is the sole occupant of the vehicle 100% whilst at work then no sign is required. However, if that same vehicle is used by another person, even if it is at different times, then a sign must be displayed. See http://www.legislation.g...si/2012/1536/made#f00002 for the latest. Graham
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
GT thanks. That backs up what I have found so far. I am waiting on a call from our local authority as I write. Many thanks chaps. I shall post the reply as soon as I get it
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Thanks for the clarification Graham, it's so long since I looked at all this in any detail. Do you think we will have to display No Smoking signs forever? I guess we will if nobody repeals the law, even when the last smoker has finally taken to using the patches,
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Just had a call from Swansea council. GT is correct. As long as the person is the sole driver etc.
Thanks again
Rob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user 
|
quote=zimmy]Just had a call from Swansea council. GT is correct. As long as the person is the sole driver etc.
Thanks again
Rob Taking on the "health" part of the role we should also be encouraging the chap to quit smoking as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
He don't smoke, said so in the post. But thanks for caring :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
zimmy wrote:He does use it for occasional lunch meetings etc. Is that the stretch-limo version then? ;-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I have a company car and I ripped out the no smoking sticker it came with straight away. I don't smoke and no one else uses the car. I hate stickers of any type. My car. Not just for work but for personal use so I'll not have it covered in stupid stickers.
Personally I think the whole requirement to display a no smoking sign is a nonsense. Everywhere enclosed is no smoking so we don't need signs to tell us that!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Clairel wrote:I have a company car and I ripped out the no smoking sticker it came with straight away. I don't smoke and no one else uses the car. I hate stickers of any type. My car. Not just for work but for personal use so I'll not have it covered in stupid stickers.
Personally I think the whole requirement to display a no smoking sign is a nonsense. Everywhere enclosed is no smoking so we don't need signs to tell us that! Claire, They won't be displayed in a couple of year. The requirement has already been reduced to one sign in buildings rather than the one at every entrance rubbish.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Our company vehicles have the no smoking sign on the back of the tax disc holder so no real problem. With regards to our HO there are no " No Smoking" signs but the information regarding this policy is on our intranet site and we have provided a more than adequate smoking area for those who like to indulge, plus we also ran a couple of stop smoking campaigns which were quite successful.
Regards
PaulR
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Clairel wrote:I have a company car and I ripped out the no smoking sticker it came with straight away. Could that potentially be in breach of Reg 8 HASWA?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Re #11
Sounds like the law is there to be broken then Claiel. Why bother with hard hats if you think they are pointless. We all know that a brick will hurt if it falls on our head, just stay away from bricks?
It's talk like that that makes people think that H&S is a waste of space. You have just fanned the flames. Thanks for the input.
Rob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Not one person on earth is going to enforce this.
One assumes that all your high and medium risks have been addressed to a point of ALARP or agreed risk retention?
Some things matter, some don't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
zimmy wrote:Re #11
Sounds like the law is there to be broken then Claiel. Why bother with hard hats if you think they are pointless. We all know that a brick will hurt if it falls on our head, just stay away from bricks?
It's talk like that that makes people think that H&S is a waste of space. You have just fanned the flames. Thanks for the input.
Rob Nonsense! Not a good analogy IMO. Although it is a company leased/owned vehicle I pay for the pleasure of driving it (through my excessive tax). I too immediately ripped out the stickers on any company car I have had-its not a taxi, its a vehcile for business and personal use driven solely by me. As such I can manage the issue quite easily without a blatant white and red sign having to remind every second. On the other hand - if the vehilce was, say, a works van or other commercial vehicle which is used by many people then the stickers do have an obvious benefit of reminding users of their own legal responsibilities. As others on this thread have said - its a largely unenforcable waste of time (IMHO) which own 'fans the flames' of the critics who label us the pen-pushing fun police (or other such derogatory comments). Lets not forget, its all about significant risk - a sticker in a car used by one person who is not a smoker is not a significant risk to the user, or others for that matter. I agree with Clairel -
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
IOSH - please give us an edit function.
The 'I agree with Clairel' was supposed to be at the top of the message.............and then there is the blatant spelling mistake - 'own' which should have been 'only'!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
zimmy wrote:Re #11
Sounds like the law is there to be broken then Claiel. Why bother with hard hats if you think they are pointless. We all know that a brick will hurt if it falls on our head, just stay away from bricks?
It's talk like that that makes people think that H&S is a waste of space. You have just fanned the flames. Thanks for the input.
Rob a) This is not H&S law. b) It is not law to display a no smoking sticker in a vehicle used by one person only c) Yes some laws are there to be broken being as they are so stupid d) The whole smoking stickers gives laws generally a bad name, as most people think havoing to display signs everwhere is pointless e) Don't try and claim that you have never broken a single law law e) You can't compare wearing of a hard hat with a sticker f) Go on someone report me as I'm the sure the LA wil just be rushing to my house to arrest me. People like a me are just a liability. Spend my working life trying to give people advice that might save their life and then brazenly refuse to display a no smoking sticker in my personal car. I should be struck off IOSH!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
As ever BB, it's just a point of view. :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Clairel
One unreserved apology. I did not read your post as well as I thought. Really sorry, I do agree with you 100% Huge red face here at the desk. If you want toast now is the time just hold it in front of me!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
One person in the car? so the customers do not count ? I always thought they did. Or are you saying just he goes to the lunch meetings in his car and carries no colleagues or customers etc related to work?
I find it hard to imagine he never does!
Agree with the stickers being a waste of time. I do however remember having some customers visit our place of work, including being collected by car, from airport, which were from Columbia. Trying to persuade them they could not smoke indoors, was a nightmare. Luckily the issue did not come up in the car.
We cannot assume everyone knows the laws in this country.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
zimmy wrote:Clairel
One unreserved apology. I did not read your post as well as I thought. Really sorry, I do agree with you 100% Huge red face here at the desk. If you want toast now is the time just hold it in front of me!!! Accepted Zimmy. But I'd preferred some toasted marshmallows if that's ok!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
zimmy wrote:Clairel
One unreserved apology. I did not read your post as well as I thought. Really sorry, I do agree with you 100% Huge red face here at the desk. If you want toast now is the time just hold it in front of me!!! Zimmy - I thought you had gone but are obviously back and offering up an opology. Not like you. Is it just me but I cannot find your orginnal post to inform everyone you would be going away. What's happened to it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Clairel wrote:
a) This is not H&S law.
Thank goodness - I was going to add this but didn't fancy the backlash this morning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Zimmy - More comebacks than Frank Sinatra?
Nice to see you back.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Old brown eyes here Tigs and thanks for the wb. Not everyoone would agree though :-)
Gunner, I got zapped for that post mate (and it has to be said the mods were correct. Jeez, what a day I'm having here at talkrubbishhq.com) I think I've rubbed everyone up the wrong way this week.
Re the bosses car and sticker, I can only go on what he has declared to be a true statement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
zimmy wrote:Old brown eyes here Tigs and thanks for the wb. Not everyoone would agree though :-)
Gunner, I got zapped for that post mate (and it has to be said the mods were correct. Jeez, what a day I'm having here at talkrubbishhq.com) I think I've rubbed everyone up the wrong way this week.
Re the bosses car and sticker, I can only go on what he has declared to be a true statement.
That explains it. Fact is, IMO Mods are not always correct. I was getting concerned because I have come back myself (under a new name) but some thought I was you! Can I just add, to you and all the more straight talking posters - Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Well said Clairel
I have a company car and yes I drive without a no smoking stick in it
I do have a cigar with a pint however I don't smoke in the day or when I have my car
Vans however who knows of one being pulled up for driver or passenger smoking - we cover this under our term of vehicle use
I think everyone is fully aware of the no smoking rules and a sticker aint going to change anything
At the office I have removed them from the door entrance as they are un sightly, never had anyone light up in the office
Alan
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
What a petty thread??
I agree that some of the technical requirements around signage in the Health Act 2006 and associated Regulations were a bit of a non-sense.
The regulators have taken a sensible and pragmatic approach to this legislation. There have been very few prosecutions (almost all for deliberate flouting the law) and certainly not for technical signage issues. In most cases breaches are dealt with by informal means or use of Fixed Penalty Notices for persistent offenders. Compliance levels have been very high.
However, whilst this is not "Health and Safety" law it is an Act of Parliament aimed at protecting public health AND employees.
I think is is a dangerous path to tread if we think we can pick and choose which legislation we comply with and which we ignore.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
What a waste of cyberspace on a petty topic. The "No Smoking" rule should be part of any employee's Terms and Conditions" and the relevant signage should only be used in those company vehicles that may be shared with other drivers (company vans/pool cars etc). And please gentlemen, check your spelling before posting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
But, is it not the law of the land? If so then we cannot pick and choose what we comply with. IMHO natch!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Totally agree with post 19 and 31.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Cotton35381 wrote:What a waste of cyberspace on a petty topic. The "No Smoking" rule should be part of any employee's Terms and Conditions" and the relevant signage should only be used in those company vehicles that may be shared with other drivers (company vans/pool cars etc). And please gentlemen, check your spelling before posting. Welcome to the forums. I'm sure the OP wasn't quite sure or would not have asked so not a total waste of cyberspace. I agree its so far down any prioritised list as to look up to a snakes belly but all sorts of H, S, E and non- H, S and E questions get asked around here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
KAJ safe wrote:Totally agree with post 19 and 31. You agree it should only be gentlemen who need to check their spelling?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I was only trying to ensure that my firm was in compliance with the law of the land. I had researched it myself but thought a belt and whatsits would be the best option. Sorry I bothered now. Simple as that.
A waste of cyber space and petty to some it may have been, but will I offer to help those concerned if they post a request for help with electrical problems that may be simple? (not forgetting some of the downright dangerous electrical posts seen in these parts). We'll see.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
...and we wonder why HSE gets a bad name!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
re #19 - I do wish this forum had an AGREE and DISAGREE button.
I did so LIKE #19.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Can we have a rest from this ?
It has been done to death for so long it qualifies as an ancient monument.
I disagree with a whole rake of laws, including having to pay 27 quid a year to fish.
Unfortunately things like visas and crb checks mean that I tend to buy rod licences, and try to keep below 30 in a 30 limit etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Sorry but I am changing my mind here and agree with Zimmy's last post.
If he is asked a question at work and is unsure, why not ask those on this forum for an opinion. Surely not everthing has to be a life and death scenario and I suppose it is like comon sense in that it may be obvious to one person but not necessarily someone else.
Potentially any negative posts on here make others reluctant to ask for an opinion in the future.
Deep thought over, have a good weekend.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.