Primarily looking to those in the education (schools) sector on this one but feel free to join in.

So we all understand work related training (the employer should meet necessary costs inc. travel).

We have debated many times demonstration of competence (which courses / certificates).

In accepting CPD is demonstrating competence for work (professional) purposes then would you consider travelling to a CPD course "work related" and if so should the attendee have business car insurance to attend?

In other words is there a hidden "grey fleet" sat within the education sector that is not properly managed due to cost and ignorance which is potentially leaving the board of governors & head teacher exposed (in light of the revised sentencing guidelines)?

Spookily, I have recently started a new job as an advisor to many schools and academies, transport has come up for discussion.

The policies that I have seen, and drafted, include the requirement for licence checks and business insurance for work travel - or for a hire car to be provided.

If you are travelling to work, not at your normal location you are by definition 'at work' already.

Still tracking down the insurance implications, the MoD don't prove personal injury cover for travel so other employers might not be providing this too.

Edited by user 19 November 2018 22:42:33(UTC)  | Reason: spillchocker

As the H & S Manager of a MAT, I consider any travel (except to and from home to the usual office or site of the individual) work related. Travel to training events, meetings etc, even if the journey starts from home, is work related, regardless of who paid for the event - we wouldn't normally make that journey if it wasn't for work - the MAT pays for the business use element of private vehicle insurance for the employee if necessary.

We obviously do the usual checks, Licence, insurance, MOT if applicable. Once all this is satisfied, the employee is covered for personal liability under our insurance.

AK - nail on the head

the school is attempting to brainwash staff that CPD is solely for their benefit, not work related and therefore unlike other training is wholly to the employees expense financially and time wise forgettting that they introduced the system to prove and improve staff competence

There are many employers who are happy to let an employee's ambition and desire to self-improve benefit the company without rewarding them for it. Surely if the CPD is going to be included in your personnel record, to demonstrate the company are progressing their staff, then it is work-related as they are demonstrating the benefit of it.

Learning improves your performance at work in some way, even if it is a collateral benefit, but unless they recognise the learning is something they want you to do, and you have booked and paid for the course of your own volition, then it is your affair, not theirs. The benefit to you only comes with a change of contract. You can't walk up to the factory gates on a Saturday morning and paint them and then demand payment for doing it if they didn't ask you to. Same principle I would think. I take it they will not be paying the employees time?

To provide a little more clarity given there are some interesting responses coming back.

This is part of a recently introduced appraisal sytem that requires CPD "of direct relevance to the school".

Unlike a broader personal development it is the school who makes the employee aware of suitable courses and pays for the booking.

The employee attends in their own unpaid time outside of contractual hours and travels at their own cost.

Failing to sign up for or attend courses is recorded negativley at appraisal.

Originally Posted by: achrn

 For example, the tax rules talk about payment for training expenses being treated as if you were at work.  If they are to be treated as if you are at work, that’s pretty clear implication that you’re not actually at work.

(h

Surely if the employer requires you to go somewhere for training, and you are on pay, then you are 'at work'. If the employer is not paying you, then you are clearly not at work and cannot claim to be. If that is the case and you want it to be considered an employment requirement, then you must take it up with them. I can't see the confusion here. Have I missed a point somewhere?

Hi Roundtuit, as soon as you see or hear the words "Grey Fleet", caution and warnings should flash up on screens and sirens sound.  As a quick thought for your insurance - when the company decides to driver 100yrds down the road to the accountants, then they need business insurance.  I'd suggest that the teacher going to CPD instead of a classroom, is still being paid and is not shown as being on holiday, then insurers would see it is still business and requires the appropriate cover. Assumeingthe school has clearly defined who can /can't drive for business, whoever checks the insurance needs to have some degree of understanding what the insurance cover means.   Expect wording such as "Covered for social, domestic or pleasure (SDP) and also use in connection with your business or profession, excluding commercial travelling". and /or  " to and from your normal place of work" If it's just SDP, then doing the postal run would be a business use and they would not be insured for that part of the journey.     Best advise would be - treat trips to cpd in lieu of work as business, if in any doubts then either get the added cover, ring the insurers to check or provide company vehicle apropriately insured.   At least with the latter, you reduce the chance of the staff using their or their friends 23 year old nissan with poor safety features, poor tyres and limited maintenance.  

Is this teaching staff we are talking about? When you say outside contractual hours, has this time been classed as within the 1265? If so then they are being paid for their time and are on business. I'm not sure how that works but it seems to be a fairly common caveat. "We expect you to do this and it forms part of your 1265 hrs." The fact that the school are paying for the course says to me it's business.

Perhaps the school could send out a simple question prompter for the staff, giving two or three examples of the sort of travel they may need to do and the staff could ask the specifics of their insurance company, to get a clearer picture. 

I'll be very interested to know the outcome of this thread. Please don't end it without telling us!

Many thanks to all

Becoming pretty clear that a lack of consideration beyond the class room by the school is (as suspected) placing Mrs R at risk of potentialluy having her car seized if a traffic officer checks for business insurance on such a journey.

Coming up for renewal so will look out for a policy which adds limited business mileage cover for free (had such policies in the past - one when business insurance was cheaper than SDP).

Originally Posted by: achrn

Originally Posted by: Dave5705

I thought under HSWA et al training must be in work time and paid, end of.

Not all training is training required for health safety and welfare reasons.  If it's not for health, safety or welfare reasons then I don't understand why HSWA is relevant.  In particulr, most CPD training (at least, most CPD that the people at my company do) is not about ensuring their health and safety.

Surely though, it is reasonable that if an employer insists that you do something then you are acting as an employee and therefore 'at work'. There has to be some employment law that protects the employee here?

Sorry achrn - the CPD takes place away from the normal place of work so specifically excluded under a commuting policy

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit

Sorry achrn - the CPD takes place away from the normal place of work so specifically excluded under a commuting policy

My comment was with respect to the claim that "if an employer insists that you do something then you are acting as an employee and therefore 'at work'".  I was saying this is demonstrably false since an employer can insist you get to your place of work, but while you are travelling there you are not at work.

Originally Posted by: achrn

Originally Posted by: Dave5705

Surely though, it is reasonable that if an employer insists that you do something then you are acting as an employee and therefore 'at work'.

I don't think that's so.  My company insists that I am below a specified blood alcohol level when I start work at 0800.  That doesn't mean I'm 'at work' at 0600 even though my behaviour at that time is in some respects governed by the demands of my employer.

Specifically with respect to the question being raised, it's well established that driving to a normal place of work is not 'at work' time (and not driving for business purposes), even though the employer requires that you do that (assuming you have to be there at the time you are to be at work).

By do something I meant instructing you to do some work-related activity, not do turn up sober! That's not the same thing at all, it's a requirement not a task.

Ive almost forgotten the original question now....

And therein lies the rub and cause of posting - the Social, Domestic & Pleasure policy states (on Mrs R's documents) ....travel to and from a place of employment EXCLUDING use in connection with any occupation

So going to what is effectivley a mandatory (or even by the wildest stretch of the school's imagination a voluntary) "CPD" not held at the school (place of employment) travel by personal motor vehicle would not be covered which the employer has failed to a) identify b) control and c) highlight such issues to its employees.

Of course, that would rely on Mrs R taking the stance that she had chosen to do the course, not been required to do it!

If we decide to go to do some training ourselves, through choice, but for professional reasons, that is still CPD. The point I am making is, maybe the company have interpreted this wrong, or are trying to play semantics themselves hoping most employees will not question it and just do it.

With such a grey area, I wouldn't want to risk it, even if I had bothered to read my policy. To the average man, the wording of insurance policies might as well be hieroglyphs.  

Originally Posted by: AcornsConsult

Originally Posted by: Dave5705

That raises another question.

The cover you need to drive to work must include 'commuting'. Many of the insurance companies say SD&P with commuting covers you to drive to one place of work or study per day. Is CPD not study? It might be worth checking. As long as you leave from home not work, maybe you are covered.

But you are right, the company has completely failed to identify and control this, let alone highlight it. 

I knew you'd get there in the end.

Not seen that added bit of “and study” before, just commenting to work. It’s a 2 step process -is it covered generally (commenting) and then if it’s to normal place of work or a variation. The policy holde should know and the law assumes they do know, hence the no insurance offence is absolute. The follow on is whether the employer also commits the offence.

Which is part of my point way up the thread - the employer cannot reasonably know the fine details of the small print in every employee's insurance T&Cs, and probably cannot find out (except by asking the employee).  T&Cs vary widly from one insurer to another.  How can the employer be at fault for not knowing something they cannot know?

It's the driver's responsibility to be insured.  The employer cannot control an insurance contract between their employee and an insurance company.

Originally Posted by: A Kurdziel

Asking questions is what a lot of H&S is about so that the employer fully understands their duty of care-are you pregnant do you have black outs, do you need to wear glasses etc.

So, how often do you question all your female staff to determine whether they are pregnant?  Do you require a declaration from a medical professional that they are not, or do you trust the word of the individual?

Originally Posted by: A Kurdziel

If they are working with certain substances,  radioisotopes or  microorgansisms ( eg Listeria​​​​​​​) we have to ask that question. 

I don't think that's an answer to the question I asked.

We ask for drivers to confirm their insurance terms cover their driving, but we don't demand sight of their insurance details again each week (for example).  We don't obtain their small print and submit it for a review by a legal professional.  It seems to me unreasonable to require the employer to make the decision being advocated - I remain of the opinion that it's the responsibility of the employee to ensure that their insurance covers what they need it to.  I remain of teh opinion that insurance companies will not discuss onsurance contracts with their insureds employer (though I've never tried).  Where they don't have that insurance we have appropriate alternative arrangements (variously pool cars and arrangements with local car hire firms, though the precise details vary across our sites).

We don't demand a medical certificate from our female employees each week to certify they are not pregnant - we expect that they will advise us as appropriate.  I have never questioned any member of staff about their pregnancy status.  I also remain of the opinion that this is appropriate for what the company does.

"I remain of the opinion that it's the responsibility of the employee to ensure that their insurance covers what they need it to"

Fully agree - so long as this is the royal "they" employer and employee agreeing business cover is required for business use - unfortunately whilst you may be asking this particular employer is not. Being in denial how can they discuss potential issues attending "CPD"?

Based on feedback so far business travel & grey fleet appears to be severely overlooked or ignored by schools

Unfortunately, this is a question that only and insurer can answer as to what they class as necessary for business use, and what is commuting to a place of work.

If your employer has two sites for example and you work in one two days a week and the other three days then I would class this as normal commuting. However, if your job requires you to travel during the working day from one site to the other, etc. on business, than IMO this is business use.

To commute to a different location for a day, to me would just be commuting. However, as stated I would confirm this with my insurer.