If the condition of a privately owned car could have a safety critical impact on your organisation, then you have no business allowing private vehicles to be used. Provide proper tools for the job. If you (your company) really want to 'ensure' the condition of vehicles, then provide company vehicles, which you then have most responsibility for. You can then also insist on all sorts of other stuff - additional training, etc. etc. which might actually make a difference. There IS a mechanism to control private vehicle condition - it is called road traffic law. Imperfect it may be, but then so are all these paperwork-chasing measures which are just backside-covering activities and do not assure that a driver (or vehicle) is, or remains, 'safe'. The percentage of accidents attributed to mechanical fault is very low - less than 8% if 'contributing factors' are included. Road tax has no bearing on roadworthiness. Failure to have an MoT is about the lowest level traffic offence there is. From a risk management point of view you have effectively and legally 'transferred' a significant part of company driving risk to each individual. Now you want to transfer it back?

We use a process of self declaration that the employee completes and returns to us. We then conduct spot checks on a small percentage. Example: I confirm that: I hold a valid driving licence appropriate for the category of vehicle driven and I will keep the Company informed of any licence changes including endorsements or penalty points on my licence I will ensure that the vehicle is suitable for the purpose for which it is used, is taxed, and that the vehicle is maintained in a roadworthy condition. Where applicable, I have a certificate of roadworthiness such as an MOT certificate I hold the relevant vehicle motor insurance which includes cover for business use. I will co-operate with the Company and make available for inspection, when requested, documentation including my valid driving licence, MOT certificate and confirmation of business insurance. I will report to the Company ALL work related accidents including road traffic incidents when driving for work purposes and co-operate with any subsequent accident investigation.

Correction, just found this: http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg382.pdf Page 6 has a section on safe vehicles and mentions privately owned ones. Basically you have to ensure they are serviced in line with manufacturers’ recommendations, insured for business use and, where the vehicle is over three years old, have a valid MOT certificate. What you would expect from any good risk assessment really.

I think that's an unfair characterisation - you could make the same statement about anything short of employing a full-time mechanic to do a full mechanical check of every vehicle before every journey. However, I personally cosnider that would be grossly disproportionate - as has been highlighted, mechanical failure is a low contributor to traffic 'accidents'. I also disagree that INDG382 mandates the company ensure servicing, insurance etc. We have a employee declaration with supporting licence and insurance paperwork before they are first approved to drive for business (no declaration, no payment of their mileage expenses seems to be the only way to ensure this paperwork is provided). The timesheet system then occasionally reminds anyone that claims mileage that they have signed to say they meet the company requirements and will notify the company of any changes (whenever you claim for mileage, if you haven't been reminded within the last year, it reminds you and you have to click to say you've seen the reminder)

Er, no. Certainly not in the context of the original question anyway. If they are private vehicles, the Guidance to the regs makes perfectly clear that PUWER does NOT apply to such vehicles. It also makes clear that where they are not private vehicles and used on the public roads, the road traffic legislation takes precedence over PUWER.

We use the due diligence approach. If a person is infrequently using their own vehicle themselves i.e. to attend a training course, we do not check their MOT, etc. However, if another member of staff would be in the vehicle we ensure we check the MOT (where applicable), insurance, licence etc. Your company insures (for your vehicle insurance) often advice that these checks are carried out and sometimes have restrictions on the policy.

Whilst not 100% perfect, we have two different mechanisms to help manage this problem... Our company have a number of personnel visiting suppliers and different sister sites throughout the UK racking up 100,000s miles each year. We don't provide company cars to anyone (mainly because we want to outsource the PUWER issues/hassles as mentioned in previous posts). 1. The MD states and leads the philosophy of using either public transport or hire cars through a reputable hire agency. A train is always preferable over hire car, unless car sharing (as our sites are either London or N West England). 2. In the unlikely event that a personal car has to be used, then Accounts department are supplied with evidence of business insurance/MOT etc so that mileage expenses can be paid. We don't provide recompense for the business insurance part so (1) above occurs 99% of the time. As I said, it's not perfect but it works and does help to demonstrate due diligence.

Which 2018 proposed legislation are you referring to? The driving app sounds interesting. What's the name of it?

"Rus1969 wrote: We use an external source to check driving license, insurance and mot etc. but we have been experimenting with a DRIVING APP from GooglePlay, mighty impressive and easy to use, prompts all the way with the ability to take pics of defects,or damage on your car, also if you have an accident there is a facility that prompts you to get all the right details and again to take pics,insurance details of other driver-GPS log etc. We are asking guys to check monthly to begin with, will crank it up to weekly, then daily in time for the new legislation in 2018. I have been using it personally for the past 6 months, information goes back to a central dashboard, average check takes 2 minutes." Personal details. Data Protection Act. ? "Actually, my car insurance premium is the same with or without the business use. Every so often I ask what the premium would be without business use, and it has always (within the last several years, at least) been the same" That would be for you. Different people and insurance companies would give different results.

I too am curious about this 'new legislation' mentioned. More please?

note that when your employees enter a private car park or similar in their own car e.g. when visiting a client on their private premises then PUWER etc. does apply the last road vehicle accident [a 10 tonner went over and down an embankment with a full load rolling a number of times before it came to a halt] the police were not interested and did all they could to call the road the vehicle was on a private road and did not even turn up! A RIDDOR was not completed as the employer called it a public highway!!!! So take care to ensure that your employer and employees have their backs covered and document all U can

In general - If you have fully comp insurance to include business insurance does not normally attract any extra costs, but is dependant on the business mileage. If you choose to add business insurance onto you policy most companies include an admin charge normally £15. If you only have third party + insurance then business insurance can be costly dependant on individual circumstances.

"Many, many, many employees do not drive their own vehicle for business purposes. For these many many many people, there is no obligation that their car be insured for business purposes" Pretty obvious. But. IF they use it for business, the insurance has to cover that use. Or the vehicle/driver is driving with invalid insurance. You may also need to modify your cover if you carry equipment. Insurance websites are quite informative: "Let’s start with the good news. If you only use your vehicle to commute to and from work your personal insurance policy will normally keep you covered. However, if you step behind the wheel for anything work related other than your daily commute you need business car insurance. Here are a few examples to help you figure out if you need business cover. Do you: Run business errands during the day such as dropping parcels to the post office? Drive colleagues or business contacts around? Make deliveries or collections? Allow other employees to drive your vehicle? Travel between different business sites? Travel to client or business meetings? If you answered yes to any of the above, or do anything similar, you are not properly covered without a business car insurance policy!" Of course, you can't trust them...a health and safety person knows far more....

I think your taking this too far. Here we have 350 staff, all coming to OUR private car park, would each an every car fall under PUWER? Private Vehicles are private vehicles, look at it this way, if an an employee has an accident (of any severity) in a private vehicle during work time, on company business, would the employer be prosecuted under PUWER, i'd think not.

Well put, aud.

"a private car involved in a crash will be investigated and dealt with (by police) as just that - a private car crash" Unless there is an injury related to the accident, the police will rarely be involved. if there is an injury, the police will check validity of insurance (personal experience tells me that the police tend to check at a stop anyway...its easy, because it is on the MID) There is a rather quaint HSE publication: http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg382.pdf "More than a quarter of all road traffic incidents may involve somebody who is driving as part of their work at the time" And: "An employee driving his own vehicle struck and killed a pedestrian on a pelican crossing after falling asleep at the wheel. Although driving on company business, the employee had failed to take out business insurance cover, and the employer had no procedures to check this. VERDICT The employee was jailed for three years and banned from driving for 10 years. The Sales Manager, Fleet Manager, and Managing Director, were also prosecuted for failures in policies and procedure" (no info on whether the prosecution was successful...) http://www.manorr.co.uk/ThePenalties.html http://www.manorr.co.uk/index.html But you just carry-on....After all, it's not that important is it: http://www.manorr.co.uk/YourBusiness.html Dead people don't haunt you: The legal responsibilty and penalties of getting it wrong may haunt you for the years you are locked up.

Manorr.co.uk still reads to me like a sales pitch... there are no references at all on that website. Where is the legal case, where was it heard, which court etc.? What was the outcome on the prosecution of the company?

Well I did mention keeping within legal requirements, an online license check, reviewing insurance documents and an MOT certificate will do the basic legal stuff, but has been alluded to, an MOT is a snapshot in time and means nothing. You could put an age limit on cars but that would be almost pointless. You could treat it as a piece of work equipment, check it at work, and arrange random checks to verify BUT this is (almost) pointless unless there is a foreseeable risk, better spending the effort on training, pre-employment screening tests, personality profiling and other things to improve competency. I say almost pointless because most people driving their own cars for work will keep them in reasonable condition, they drive their families around in them, and generally try to keep within the law. Consequently there isn't a massive link between roadworthiness of vehicles and accident rates in the UK. And remember, as far as the police are concerned (who investigate the vast majority of road accidents) the driver is responsible for the roadworthiness of the vehicle on the road, not the employer, that's why professional drivers tend to do walk around checks of vehicles prior to taking them out. An exception (for me) would be where driving is the main work activity, so at Christmas a whole load of people are hired to drop off parcels in our neighbourhoods using their own cars and vans (great for landscape gardeners in their quiet period) take-away delivery people and the such like where low reward combined with heavy vehicle use increase the risks. I'd be tempted to have some scheme to check private vehicles if I was Amazon or Dominoes' Pizza. Better starting off with a risk based approach, yes, do the basic legal stuff but in reality most road accidents are caused by a whole load of competency issues. These can be addressed in a number of different ways depending on the situation. Look at vehicle risks if there is a genuine risk based need.

The Road Traffic Act will take precedence of health and safety legislation. In the case of death by dangerous driving the act places the responsibility on the driver. However in the case of using a vehicle in a dangerous condition The Road Traffic Act states “ A person is guilty of an offence if he uses, or causes or permits another to use, a motor vehicle or trailer on a road”. If an employer owns the vehicle they have permitted another to use it but with grey fleets this is vague, hence some employers doing some basic checks. One quirk of the Road Traffic Act to remember is that a public road is a road open to the public and not just a road in public ownership. These are roads with no barriers or warning signs and typical existing on new housing estates prior to adoption. Even though they are driving their own vehicle and the Road Traffic Act takes precedence they are still at work and health and safety legislation still applies. Therefore employers should have a driving policy and risk assess if necessary, but not the actual driving. However civil liabilities can also come into play. I am aware of a case where someone crashed their own car after being force to drive home late and fatigued after being refused an overnight stay by their line manager. The employers admitted liability and the argument was about the level of compensation. PUWER does not apply to standard road vehicles but does apply to vehicle that can also be is classed as a machines.

as far as I am aware The Road Traffic Act will not take precedence over health and safety legislation where the RTA does not apply e.g. on private land as I have had personal experence of so ensure that whatever management system U employ covers the companies [and if possible the employees] back That said the HSE may not want to get involved either e.g. the truck rolling down a private embankment off a private road was 1 of 3 similar events where I could not get any enforcer out [nobody was killed but it was close]!