Posted By Ron Young
It's a really emotive subject and not one that is easy to gain concensus. My company went through the process of obtaining legal advice after a MORR policy was challenged and whislt I accept that this advice will always err on the "safe" side it was stated that you would have to introduce a system of spot checks to confirm that the information and procedures you were passing on to your people were being adhered to.

Posted By Adrian Watson
Dear All,

I am intrigued, where does it state in the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1992 that the regulations do not apply to road vehicles?

Regulation 2 —(1) states that “work equipment" means any machinery, appliance, apparatus or tool and any assembly of components which, in order to achieve a common end, are arranged and controlled so that they function as a whole.

Regulation 4.—(1) states “The requirements imposed by these Regulations on an employer shall apply in respect of work equipment provided for use or used by any of his employees who is at work …

Regulation 3. states “These Regulations shall not apply to or in relation to the master or crew of a sea-going ship or to the employer of such persons, in respect of the normal ship-board activities of a ship's crew under the direction of the master.”

As a car is clearly an assembly of components which, in order to achieve a common end, are arranged and controlled so that they function as a whole, it is clearly equipment. If it is used at work it is work equipment, regardless of whether it is provided or used by any of his employees who are at work. As such the regulations apply, especially as Regulation 4 does not disapply the regulations.

Furthermore, the regulations do not disapply uses on the public highway, so they apply even though the road traffic acts also apply.

Regards Adrian Watson

Posted By Bunny
Christopher,

You see to be very antagonistic towards 'ME'. You also seem to frequently accuse 'ME' of what you do yourself. Perhaps you should consider taking some of your own advice?

Everyone else,

Personally I think this is such a 'grey' area that there is no right or wrong. It's up to each company to decide what is reasonable in their circumstances.

I'm not sure you could force someone to service their own car though. Surely the company would have to pay them to do that, in which case most employees wouldn't object. If the company didn't offer to pay then the employee could refuse on the grounds of finances and then where would that leave the company?

As far as I am aware the only legal duty is to have an MOT and that MOT (supposedly) means that the car is roadworthy.

Anyway, all this sounds far too complicated for me. An interesting debate but perhaps one with no solution? I certainly can't offer one!

Cheerio!!

Posted By Christopher Kelly
As regards leaving personnel to manage their own car safety just a couple of points to consider:

1) How can you consider someone competent to manage their own vehicle safety when they don't even understand that a valve cap is the primary seal on a tyre, never mind the more complicated elements ? By the time you finish up weighing the costs of providing training to such people the costs will outweigh the savings in getting rid of company cars.

2) People using vehicles for business tend to do a lot more mileage than those using just for private purposes. Like any other machinery in continuous usage there is a smaller margin for error. Consequently increased controls are needed (ie maintenance). As a non-competent person (ie a non-mechanic) a normal employee may not realise the significance of not having their car serviced; may through the best of intentions (work commitments) or worst of intentions (saving money) put off their car service until dangerous.

3) My father-in law is an engineer and carries out his own servicing but I wouldn't trust a car serviced by him, he regularly allows the oil change to over-run by 50% for a diesel and thinks it unimportant.

In my experience it is always better (and more cost effective) to keep control of issues in-house. (eg when working in agricultural premises it is always best to hire access equipment yourselves rather than leaving to the customer / farmer as they will not understand the risks and will hire the cheapest or unsuitable equipment, even when given clear, unambiguous guidance).

Employers obviously do have the option to allow employees to use their own vehicles but, it is quite clear that this does not transfer the responsibility and, particularly accountability.

Driving on company business presents the main risk to many employees' health and safety (high-risk fatality or low-risk musculo-skeletal or stress problems). As the major risk faced by an employee this is not something the employer can just pass on.

There is no clear concensus on the 'right' way forward. Even the article in SHP earlier this year left both options open, it is down to individual company circumstances, risk assessment etc. However as far as I am concerned there is only one safe option - keep control, don't pass control onto someone who will probably forget, have other priorities (temporarily or permanently) or simply ignore due to a different attitude to risk than your company has.

Regards

Posted By Bunny
If there any moderators watching this forum I think your last post is very aggressive and should be removed.

I think you have just proved the point I was trying to make.

Posted By Mike
Has the original poster or anyone else considered asking HSE what their policy is towards their own staff who drive on business. After all they are not unfamiliar with best practice, PUWER, HSAWA etc.

Posted By Martin R. Bessant
Sorry folks, but when the comments get personal then the subject will be shut down to prevent any further breaches of the AUG's.

You have been allowed a lot of tolerance but the subject is now closed! This thread is now locked and cannot accept further postings.

Martin Bessant - Lead Moderator.