Posted By Ian Mycroft
Some companies operate policies of allowing employees to use their private vehicles on company business. My own organisation has a policy that recognises two tiers of car users these are “Essential Car User” (ECU) and “Casual Car User” (CCU). People who are deemed to need a car for their job because it would impossible or extremely difficult to do their jobs without one (there are set criteria for determining this) fall into the ECU band. Those who don’t meet all the criteria for ECU but meet most fall into the CCU band. People in the ECU band receive a monthly allowance in their salary plus an amount per mile, those in the CCU band just receive an amount per mile with no monthly payment.

Every year both groups of people have to produce their driving licences, insurance certificates (business use), test certificate (where appropriate) and proof of vehicle taxation in order to receive the payments. Recently the question has been asked about maintenance of the vehicles.

As an organisation do we have a duty to ensure that private vehicles that we allow and pay the owners to use on company business are adequately maintained to be roadworthy and if we do, what would we have to do to properly discharge that duty?

Posted By Mike Bartlett
It's an interesting question - Can I throw in the following thought. If an employer actually "requires" the employee to use their private vehicle, and reimburses them for an element over and above the cost of fuel, on the basis that the additional amount will offset a proportion of the running costs, is the employer then paying for the work related element of maintenance, and if so would the vehicle then fall under PUWER?

Posted By Ian Mycroft
Jonathon, ECUs are paid enough monthly that they should be able to maintain their vehicles plus and amount per mile to cover fuel on top. CCUs are paid an amount per mile which is over and above the cost of fuel to allow for running costs. What I am thinking is, should we be asking for proof that the vehicle is at least serviced to the manufacturer’s specification?

Posted By Jonathan Sandler CMIOSH
Ian,do they use the car for transporting the company's clients?

Posted By Patrick Burns CMIOSH - SpDipEM - MIQA
RoSPA has been running campaigns on driving at work policies for some time now and are continuously lobbying for work related road traffic accidents to fall within RIDDOR etc.

I would suggest that if the employee's car is used for work related purposes then it should be treated in a similar manner as work equipment under PUWER.

An MOT does not indicate that a vehicle has been suitably maintained, new cars do not require an MOT for the first 3 years of it's life.

The documents you currently request to see could be supplemented with a copy of receipt for payment for annual or six monthly servicing by the garage.

I have been pushing for a long time to get my employer to change the expense reporting form to include a statement signed by the driver confirming that the car used in relation to the expense claim was in date for servicing and met all requirements of the Road Traffic Act at the time of the trip.

I believe the HSE are currently monitoring work related RTA fatalities through the Police and I would suggest that when the statistics into work related deaths include this category more pressure will bear upon them to investigate company liability on the incident whilst the police will deal with the driver.

Posted By Mike Bartlett
On Mike's point regarding PUWER and the fact that it does not cover private vehicles, and Patrcks view on whether such vechicles should be considered as work equipment:
If a private vehicle is insured for "business use" so that an emplyee can use it on the business of his/her emplyer and there is a requirement by the employer that it is used for business, supported by the fact that employer contributes towards fuel and a notional amount of the maintenance costs, I think that it might be argued that whilst in business use, the vehicle is not a private vehicle and would be covered by PUWER. This might be stretching the intentions of the PUWER, but if the employee is oblidged to use their vehicle in this way and indeed is paid or reimbursed to do so, is the employer not effectiveley "leasing or hiring" the vehicle during the work journey? - If so, leased equipment would be covered by PUWER.

There are obviously taxable benefit issues if this is the case, but these are aside from the H&S priciples.

Posted By Ian Mycroft
Jonathan, sometimes they might carry clients, colleagues or equipment, but mostly it’s just themselves.

Posted By George Wedgwood
This is mainly a potential liability issue and good employers would not wish to have to justify their stance in court should an employee be killed going to a meeting etc. in their own car. One of my previous employers (around 5 years ago!) stopped asking employees to use their own cars because of this and because they had little information as to the standard of car, its maintenance etc. whilst being used as a piece of 'work equipment' - yes, while being used 'at work' it is just that - so when trying to justify the difference in treatment between privat and rented, the company simply made the decision that it was much easier and safer to manage all cars through an accredited agent. Any 'trips' made by employees were planned and a rental car was delivered for that day or for however long the hire was authorised. The cars were specified at a minimum standard level (usually a Vectra type saloon) and all drivers were instructed not to change punctures etc. but had to ensure the fluids and tyres were checked each time before use. That worked well and no one complained - especially the accounts dept as all personal car claims dropped to almost zero! George

Most companies don't have this arrangement and some are almost casual about it - RoSPA have continually made an effort to get this issue more solid and make employers more aware but it's slow! Start by introducing small checks and changes and gradually work towards the final question for a manager - 'do you think you would like to justify your approval for the office junior, just passed her test, to go an collect some spare parts in her 12 year old Escort, without commercial insurance cover and no control over the car's condition, when you are actually fully responsible for her whilst on that journey?'

Posted By ME
Rubbish. If PUWER applies then the HSE will have to prosecute themselves because HSE inspectors use their own vehicles and there are no safety checks made or requirements for safety checks etc.

Yes, I'm sure you can start debating "well actually, technically speaking...blah....blah...". But there is no precedence for this and the HSE would be reluctant to prosecute an individual for an unsafe car. The police on the other hand would prosecute for an unsafe car but that is the responsibility of the owner, not the employer.

Ever heard of personal accountability.

Posted By Ian Mitchell
One of the professional safety magazines carried an article relating to this thread earlier in the year, but I cannot recall which one it was. Perhaps somebocy still has the article to hand and could enlighten us?

Ian M

Posted By J Knight
ME,

have you read s40 of the RTA? Anybody who drives or causes or permits to be driven an unsafe car is guilty of an offence (I paraphrase); remember that bit 'causes or permits'; the safety of the car is not merely the responsibility of the driver,

John

Posted By ME
I reiterate that PUWER does not apply to personal vehicles used on public highways.

I also reiterate that the RTA would apply.

Will everyone stop confusing health and safety legislation with other legislation.

I stand by what I said. Personal accountability for a car owned by an individual.

Currently that is the state of play and until the authorities clarify the position on vehicles used on public roads for work purposes then you can argue all you like but it won't get you anywhere. If your car is not raodworthy you will be prosecuted not your employer. If your employer provides a car that is not roadworthy then he/she has the responsibility. Also, if you have an accident on a public road, regardless of whether you were working at the time, you are held accountable. Whether that is morally right or not is another issue. But that is the current legal status, so everyone can stop getting so high-handed with me for telling it as it is. No wonder this profession has such a bad reputation.

Posted By Ian Mycroft
Thank you everyone for your contributions, this certainly turned into a bigger debate than I expected.

Regards,
Ian

Posted By warderic
Ian, the answer to your question is "YES" your company does have a responsibility to ensure the vehicles are safe. However, this cant be done by inspection etc as they are private vehicles. The only thing they can do is to put into place some form of saf system of work (SSW). These would be documents requiring vehicles to be fit for the road and drivers to carry out safety checks weekly/daily etc. Some years ago the post office where taken to court because a postman had an accident at work when using his own cycle. It was the opinion of the court that it was the posts offices duty to ensure the postmans cycle was fit for use.

Posted By Jeffrey Watt
Ian

We probably all come at this from a different angle dependant on the size of our respective fleets. We have casual and essential users and a fleet. I would contend that PUWER does not apply to private vehicles, the RTA is the primary legislation.


I have self deleted the rest of this post as I was starting to get really unprofessional with my comments.

Jeff

Posted By Brett Day

John: "have you read s40 of the RTA? Anybody who drives or causes or permits to be driven an unsafe car is guilty of an offence (I paraphrase); remember that bit 'causes or permits'; the safety of the car is not merely the responsibility of the driver,

John"

Funny how many employers forget that as it is not conveniant...

Posted By J Knight
Hi David,

There are liability issues here, and the employee (and employer) should check that their insurance covers this activity for a start,

John

Posted By Christopher Kelly
As far as I can see PUWER does not cover cars when they are on the public road but what about on company premises (eg car-parks or other places of work such as edge of construction sites where there is a chance of collision with plant, especially when the vehicle has unsuitable tyres / suspension and skids)? What about when the user leaves the road and enters Tesco's car-park for their lunch? They are both still at work and not covered by RTA. PUWER is clearly intended to dovetail with RTA and pick up mobile equipment off the public road - a vehicle is a piece of mobile work equipment and definitely comes under PUWER when not on the public highway.

As to whether an employer could be prosecuted for an accident on the highway under PUWER in employee's own or company car. I think the police would go for the driver and the HSE would find some way of prosecuting the employer (possibly just under the MHSWR without an additional charge under specific Regs)

Under Management Regs the employer is required to carry out a risk assessment and a court may also look for best practice under other legislation, just for guidance.

General section of PUWER d) "covers all work sectors, apart from ship's equipment"

Regulation 3 of PUWER places duties on employers in relation to all work equipment provided for use or used. Therefore, it covers the situation where employers allow employees to provide their own tools." A car used for work is a 'tool of trade' - insurance companies will view it as such and so will the HSE and the courts.

Also what if the car isn't moving but the driver experiences back problems /musculo-skeletal problems due to having a collapsed seat and driving for long periods without a sufficient break ?

There was a big article on this in SHP at the beginning of this year / poss last December. I think you can still look at it on the SHP website. This basically concluded as above - by the time an employer has finished putting in systems to ensure that an employee maintains their own car properly (and they clearly have a duty to do this) it would be cheaper to purchase and maintain the car themselves.

Whilst writing I note that 'ME' (whoever that is ?) is up to their tricks again - being generally disrespectful and derogatory about other people's opinions. People should respect other's opinions, especially as a member of a professional organisation - tone it down !

Also someone asked about tax on fuel above the IR recommended rate - it is definitely taxable above 0.40p.

Interesting debate
Regards

Posted By Cathy Ricketts
Some of this seems very OTT - we have somewhere in the region of approx 400 private vehicle users who claim for mileage. They travel over three geographically challenged counties. Last year our employees clocked up near to one million miles. There is absolutely no way that we would be able to insist that they had their cars serviced by a reputable dealer nor is there any way covering the number of small garages in our area. We have now way of knowing who was reputable (and its not always the main dealers) and who wasnt and nor would we be prepared to stipulate where our employees spend their hard earned cash.

We do what is reasonable - all employees who drive for business purposes, including carrying clients and colleagues must have business insurance. If there is a difference between this and normal premium we pay the difference on evidence that this exists.

Employees sign a declaration form to say that they have the relevant insurance, MOT and will ensure that at all times their car will be in a roadworthy condition. As has been said in this thread it is the employees responsibility to keep their car in a roadworthy condition. Failure to do so could result in employee disciplinary procedures as well a police prosecution if caught.

Our accident/incident reporting requires that all RTAs whether at work or commuting are reported and that if a driver receives an endorseable offence they must inform us. Use of hand held or hands free mobiles whilst driving for work are banned.

We dont have the luxury of having a large number of admin staff who would go through and check that everyone had MOTs, Insurance, and heavens above competent servicing. I thought we were dealing with adults here - the word responsibility comes to mind. Our requirements are made very clear in our procedures, employees are reminded of their duties on a regular basis. We are considering the possibility of checking insurance details but I am still not sure that this is necessary as I still feel we are doing what is reasonable. New employees provide a copy of their driving licence on commencement of employment.

New drivers those with a full licence regardless of age are not allowed to carry colleagues or passengers until they have held their full licence for at least 12 months. Although we do allow them to travel for work purposes.

The car owner is responsible for their car to be on the road in a safe condition. It is an offence to drive a vehicle which is not adequately insured or in a roadworthy condition. In the event of a potential claim I feel that robust procedures, with evidence of information, instruction and where necessary training would overcome the issue of a breachof duty. As said earlier it more often and not the idiot behind the wheel and not the condition of the car which causes the problem - with some sad consequences when your employee is a victim

Posted By Cathy Ricketts
Our written procedures are very clear about where responsibility for these issues lie. If an employee is operating outside these procedures then they are failing to co-operate with the health and safety procedures. I do put out a lot of driving information during the year and employees receive reminders, it might be that extra mile to paper chase everything but resources dont allow it. I feel we are doing what is reasonable but with employees based over 3 counties there is only so much had holding you can do and in this instance the H & S Legislation works alongside RTA etc We are doing what is reasonably practicable. Interestingly the largest number of accidents we have are rear end shunts caused by other drivers.