This is a bit of a thorny one for me, I've read the ACOP and it's not a lot of help. Vehicle tail-lifts owned and operated by an employer are subject to LOLER - no problem. But we operate patient transport services which, in some cases, involve a volunteer in their own adapted vehicle providing the service, this can involve tail-lifts for lifting passengers into and out of the vehicle. Now we have no problem with the moral duty of care, but would LOLER, with all its detailed requirements, apply? The way I read the ACOP it all hinges on the word 'employee', and in some circumstances a volunteer can be treated as an employee for the purposes of H&S. Using volunteers in this way isn't something I've come across before, so any thoughts welcome. My own feeling is that HSE might well wish to apply LOLER if there was an incident, and that opens up a major can of worms. Anyway, what do others think, John

I think I would err on the side of caution. Although these people are volunteers, they are taking your patients and, therefore, working on your behalf. If these volunteers do not personally know the patients then I think they must be regarded as unpaid employees and their tail lifts should be subject to LOLER.

Thanks for that. Brian, the situation isn't quite the same as the one you describe, as it's not the person being transported who would be operating the lift; it would be a third party. Hilary you echo my own thinking on this. They are our unpaid employees... Oh well, can of worms time. If there are other opinions out there I'd be keen to hear them, John

OK, I've just thought; PUWER specifically excludes private vehicles; given the links between PUWER and LOLER would this have any bearing on the situation. I think I'm getting a headache... John

Apologies John I had missed the point about them being volunteers - what do we say about exam's always read the question! Your quit right not the same as my example. I would be inclined to think the same way as Hilary on this one. Its my understanding that you would not look at any vehicle on a public road under PUWER as various Road Traffic legislation is more appropriate, in terms of road worthiness. However the tail lifts would be different as I don't believe the road traffic stuff would apply - so LOLAR and PUWER more likely to be the way forward.

If you conclude that your volunteers are unpaid employees then the LOLER duties will apply to you as employer. If you conclude that they are not unpaid employees but are using the lifts as part of an undertaking (just happens to be your undertaking) whether for profit or not then they are caught by LOLER r3 (3)(b)&(4) and LOLER duties will fall on them as if they were an employer. Either way if they are using the lift as part of an undertaking LOLER will apply.

Thanks Edward, that is really helpful, looks like it does apply. Jay, it's definitely HASAWA I'm concerned with here; I know about the general applicability of H&S to volunteers (R v Princes Trust back in 90s set the seal on that one), it just does get genuinely confusing when we start to talk about equipment we don't ow, haven't supplied but which is used in our undertaking. HSE's guidance doesn't get into that kind of nitty-gritty problem, which is I guess why my employer employs people like me, John

Two questions; Do you inspect MOT certificates; driver's licences, road tax, road worthiness of volunteers' vehicles? Do the volunteers have to demonstrate competency to operate their vehicles? If you have answered yes to either....the kit needs testing.

Hi John, in my last job we had something similar and we checked their documents for the vehicles and included any tail lifts etc. Our decision was made on the answer to the question "do our service users use these vehicles because they trust us that they are safe?" As the answer was yes, we checked. Most brought their docs in. We didn't really care whether it came under LOLER or not we treated all our drivers/vehicles the same - including insurance for business use (as it's not social - they don't know the passengers). Need to watch the 'taxi' clause if monies change hands even mileage. We also checked taxi docs for our contract taxis to ensure that they checked as well (usually ramps etc and wheelchair fixings in the taxi) under our supplier policy. Lilian

Are you saying that you have volunteers who have a WAV in their personal ownership and are using these to carry other persons with ambulatory disabilities? I am finding the description of who owns and precisely what these vehicles are! If these are volunteer organisations who have purchased a vehicle then you do fall into LOLER when their volunteers use the lift to elevate persons. I personally would not want the disabled person operating such equipment.

Hi John, we only lost one volunteer whose vehicle looked a bit iffy anyway. The rest were really pleased as it made them feel more confident driving others and more safe themselves. Lilian

So we have individual volunteers providing services with their own personal vehicles for the transport of others assigned by yourselves to destinations and return. I am increasingly feeling that LOLER is going to apply. You do have a duty of care for the users and section 3 does mean that you cannot ignore such an obvious risk area. Could you not use your organisations negotiating power to get some form of test examination agreement set up with a competent engineer to reduce the overall cost. I do hope that you have checked that none of these WAVs are leased vehicles as the lease companies can be a bit sniffy about such volunteer use by individual owners. Bob