Posted By RBW100
Hello all,

Can I ask what controls and checks that other have in place with regards to the use of employees own vehicles for business purposes?

We have a company pool car, which is always used in preference to employee's own, however sometime two people need the pool car at the same time hence the use of their own vehicle is considered. The use of own cars is infrequent and irregular. Currently no checks on the employees own vehicle are undertaken by the company.

My logic tells me that if I request that the vehicle has a current MOT and basic things like tyres, lights, screen wash are checked by the employee, then I would consider that this is reasonable.

However ROSPA suggest an inspection by the company (This would entail training an employee in how to spot safety defects on vehicles) and sight of service records (which would not be available if the vehicle was self serviced).

Hence the cheapest and easiest route may be to hire a car.

So what do other do on this?

Rob

Posted By ClaireL
As Alan said the first 'must have' is a copy of their driving licence and proof that they are insured for business use.

However, this whole subject is interesting. Employers are expected to ensure that their vehicles are roadworthy. The Police have recently reinforced the fact that they are clamping down on unroadworthy vehicles that are used for work. I always advise clients to carry out documented regular vehicle checks (tyres, lights etc).

But we all seem to stop short of private cars. When I worked for the HSE I was not required to prove roadworthiness of my car, there were no vehicle checks. I have worked for several companies now where I am expected to use my own car and yet there are no requirements to prove my car is roadworthy or carry out weekly checks.

Yet the same principle we apply to company vehicles should really be applied to private vehicles used for company use.

So, the short answer is that (as far as I'm aware) most companies don't ask for vehicle checks but theoretically we really should.

Not sure that's any help though!!

Posted By RBW100
Some are looking at this from a corporate manslaughter point of view, although I'm not certain there is a massive issue with that, unless someone has any details on how that impacts on own vehicle use.

Common sense tells me that a valid MOT should be all that is required, also that the responsibility for the road-worthiness(sp?) is with the employee as per the Road Traffic Act. However common sense rarely applies in these cases!

Rob

Posted By RBW100
I would have agreed with you Mitch, BUT...

Surely it would be safer for an employee to drive a car that they are more familiar with (ie their own) rather than be expected to jump into a car they have never driven before? We should provide training in the use of work equipment. Whilst road vehicles are not work equipment as such, I can see possibility of a negligence claim from an employee who crashed a hire car and had whiplash injuries. They could claim that the company did not provide suitable training or familiarisation with the vehicle.

Or even use the lack of familiarity with the vehicle as a defence for causing a fatality. Something along the lines of 'I didn't feel comfortable driving this car as its quite different from my own, but this is what the company provided, so I felt compelled to use it.'

At this rate I'll be talking myself into hiring a fleet of mini cabs to take people on a training course!

Rob

Posted By RBW100
"The Road Traffic Act has a 'Cause or permit' offence within it, so if you allowed an employee to drive a car on company business that was unroadworthy (even if it is thier own car) you could be found guilty under the RTA of a 'Cause or permit' offence."

Indeed Brett, but if I'd got a copy for thier MOT, would that be sufficent to show that I done enought to not fall foul of the law? Does anyone have any case history on this 'Cause or permit' offence?

Rob

Posted By Mitch
RBW100,

I do not think the unfamiliarity thing is such an issue, thousands of vehicles are hired every day for both commercial and private use. You can always specify available options on common models, small medium and large. That said is everyone familiar with the pool car that you supply not provide?

Mitch

Posted By RBW100
" That said is everyone familiar with the pool car that you supply not provide?"

That is again an issue. A lot of what I have read of late is focusing on the road worthiness of employees own cars. Much of this is issued by insurance brokers. From a pure H & S point of view the road worthiness is one thing, but the training or the driver and thir familiarity of the vehicle need to be considered.

Rob

Posted By Bob Shillabeer
Alan Haynes is a little out of date, the employer he talks about requires more these days. The facts are the employer has a duty to ensure the driver is competent and vehicle fit to use. This is done by recording the current driving licence and ensuring adequate insurance is in place. The responsibility for driving the vehicle is the driver. Where there is a situation of driving as a major part of the job the employer needs to go further to demonstrate that a proper driving standard is maintained and monitored to ensure the standard is adequate for the situation it is used, e.g a taxi company needs to check on a regular basis that driving standards are maintained but a company where rare journeys are made a quaklified driving licence would be adequate. Remember the more a vehivle is used the higher the likelyhood of an accident. But, where good standards are maintained an accident wil be a rarety. Remember it is about ensuring a proper system of control is in place and applied, this will avoid the company being procecuted although the driver may not be as lucky.

Posted By Brett Day

Colin

Good question, when I run my own car I kept reciepts of all the bits I used on the car - oil, fluids, tyres, filters etc... That could be one way of proving. Also the traffic division have had problems with 'at work' drivers so are being more aware of this issue than others, this is what they would be considering.

As for the cars that don't require MoTs that starts to get into classic / semi classic car territory, not sure I'd want to use such a car for work. Though have to admit if someone wanted too, not sure how you'd deal with that, I'll ask and see what our local trafpol come up with...

Posted By Brett Day

Mitch

Thanks for that !!

Definately a Monday, disregard my last...

Apologies all.

Posted By RBW100
More of an issue would be how to prove competency in servicing. If you're a keen hobbyist then you would have no formal qualifications.

By the way how could the police ask to see a service history as its not a legal document? Neither the individual or a company is required by law to have a service file for a vehicle. Surely not having a service history could not be used as an influence to prosecute.

Rob

Posted By Mitch
Spiders Colin, you want to get out more, I would ask what is the proportion of vehicles this covers in the UK but in might provoke response that would make me lose my will to live. (Sark, Sill Billy Isles?)

Posted By RBW100
Alex,

If you do a google on 'grey fleet' and 'corporate manslaughter', you will see that many of the fleet operators press and insurance brokers are claiming that should a road accident occur in which a death occurs and the driver was at work at the time, then the company could be prosecuted under the corporate manslaughter act. For a prosecution to succeed it would need, for example, prove that the car being in an unfit state was the cause of the accident or the driver for not suitably trained.

My personal view is that own cars should be fine provided that they have a valid MOT and insurance, but it would appear that those 'in the trade' of fleet management disagree.


Rob


PS See for more:

http://www.packagingnews...rned-grey-fleet-drivers/

http://www.fleetdirector...orate-homicide-act-2007/

http://www.jameshallam.c...ages/news/news_index.htm

http://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/story/?nID=46433

THE LAST ONE IS TYPICAL CASHING IN ON NEW 'H & S' LAW!

Posted By alex mccreadie
RBW

Only trying to help you like Bob Shill and Brett.

I do not pay much heed to Fleet Management they are in business trying to get money end off.

Keep it simple and easy and again you have done everything "Reasonably Practical"

Alex

Posted By MP
...diving ?

Sorry - driving

Posted By MP
Rob

Nice thread - good discussion


We do seem to go a bit too far sometimes don't we.

Let's try to keep it real eh!

Cheers

Posted By MP
I don't think anyone said an MOT proved roadworthiness. Like any inspection, it proves that on the day it passed set of criteria.

I seem to recall the biggest cause of RTAs is driver error. Be that due care and attention, inappropriate speed, carelessness, poor observation & anticiation, etc. All these situations are out of the employers control once the tail-lights disappear down the drive..

Let's not forget driver fatigue too. Should we be insisting on drivers hours regs as per LGV drivers? Perhaps, maybe yes we should.

Also, factor in alcohol and drugs. Big causes of RTAs. Should employers consider breathalysing every employee before driving? Should they also run a full spectrum blood test for illegal substances?

They'd need to do this twice of course - there will be the return journey.

As to PAT testing employees own kit, it's probably because it is being plugged into the electrical supply on company / customer premises where there is a very established requirement for safe equipment, etc.

Let's concentrate our efforts on safe plant, equipment, employees and workplaces. Places where we can have 100% control (hopefully) of the issues.

When we have run out of things to do on those then let's start having a pre-use inspection checklists on the (confirmed road legal) family Mondeo.

Posted By ClaireL
MP,

I should have been more specific in saying that the biggest cause of accidents due to vehicle failure is defective tyres. You cannot deny that the police have said that they are clamping down on vehicles used for work purposes that are poorly maintained because they believe it to be a huge cause of accidents.

When it comes to drivers hours yes I do think it is scandalous that employers can legally get car drivers to work long hours without breaks.

I cannot believe that you are saying that we should concentrate our efforts on situations that we have 100% control of. By that philosophy the H&S of all care workers, social workers and care assistants that go to people's own homes should just be ignored - post men too & what about home workers! If you choose to just concentrate on the things that can be easily fixed then that's your look out but that's not how I work.

The HSE itself has been debating whether they should have control of issues relating to driving whilst at work. I believe the situation will change at some point in the future. It only takes one test case. I know we don't currently take action on people who use their own vehicles for company business but I think that this will change in the future and so is something we should be thinking about know.

And let's not forget that the real heavyweights in influencing H&S in this country at the moment is the insurance companies and they don't care what the law requires, they always want more.

Posted By ClaireL
But we're not just talking about someone who pops down the raod for a training course are we. I drive hundreds of miles a week to and from clients and some sales reps drive 1000's.

Servicing is not the issue but it is the in-between checks on things like tyres, lights etc that should be being checked. We are all required to do it on our personal cars (remember when you learnt to drive) but none of us do, that is our choice. If we get pulled by the police for dodgy tyres that is our choice. However, when that car is being used for work purposes the controls need to be tighter.

Don't forget that employers are saving themselves a hge amount of money by not providing company vehicles to these employees. If they were company vehicles then we would expect the employer to put in arrangements for regular vehicle checks. In theory the same should happen for other cars used for business purposes too.

I'm not saying this is an easy situation I'm just syaing that the current situation is contradictory.

Posted By Brett Day

RBW100

"Its their car, its their responsibility."

The Road Traffic Act would disagree on that point !

As for frequency of checks the police carry out POWER checks at the start of every shift, or on the change of driver (assumiing a different crew), I drive approx 500 miles a week and carry out checks at least once a week or before a long journey.


POWER Checks:

Petrol: (or fuel)
Oils: (/Fluids) - brake, power steering, engine
Water: battery, coolant, bottle wash
Electrics: bulbs, hazard lights, reversing lamp
Rubber: tyres (pressure, tread depth, damage), wiper blades.

Takes about 15 minutes...