Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Tim Sagar
I've just discovered that we have 2 pool cars opearting on site which are handled through our reception. I want to put in a formal hand over and check procedure, but am getting resistance. Is anyone aware of any case law etc where company was found liable for providing car that was defective. Quoting PUWER is falling on deaf ears.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Paul Clarke-Scholes CMIOSH Tim, Can't think of any case law off hand, but the principal is well established for commercial vehicles and this kind of system could readily be applied to pool cars. Try the cost saving tack, by ensuring vehicles are oiled watered fuelled and checked you reduce wear, avoid possible accident causing failure (e.g. burst tyre from the damage done and not reported by yesterdays driver) etc. You could even argue that you are reducing your carbon footprint by ensuring tyres are correctly inflated if your 14001 procedures are at all advanced. Try http://www.direct.gov.uk...rt/Highwaycode/index.htm for lots of good advice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Brett Day
Another tack is the wear ands tear aspect, many pool cars get more wear and tear especially when there is no check made on handover, however, if whoever borrows it knows the car is checked before being signed back there is more incentive to keep it clean (inside and out) and take a bit more care over it given that there is now a comeback.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Richards
You'll continue to get resistance.
The value of pool cars is hard to calculate, apart from the user not paying tax on use of same.
There is also the fuel aspect. When the vehicle is "booked out" the mileage at bookout time will be written. This enables calculation of fuel use. Some people will use more fuel (lots more) than others. The reason for this is not "heavier right foot" sydrome, it's "jerrican in the boot" syndrome.
One company had a driver who regularly put 25 litres MORE in the tank then it could hold !
To my knowledge he retired without trouble (not who you are, but who you know about)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By D H
You could always remind them that if the car is not checked and road worthy, it is the driver not the company who gets the fine and the points on their licence if they are pulled over.
Dave
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By mark mackin
You could also put the procedure in place by recording who drives the car and when, in the event that a speeding fine lands on the doorstep of your company through a speed camera.
I had the same problem 2 years ago and pointed out to our company that should a fine and points be coming our way the MD would take responsibility if we had no system in place for identifying who was driving at the time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Richard Altoft
Totally endorse what Mark has just posted. I am a magistrate and we regularly fine company owners as the "keeper" when the actual driver of a speeding car cannot be identified. If we think the owner has not tried hard enough to find out who was driving then they get points as well. Total of 12 points and they get banned.
If the company car was allocated to a banned driver or a young driver then insurance would be invalidated and owner again prosecuted etc.
There must be a handover process, dated and timed. In addition good safety practice dictates that a driver checks over any vehicle they take out and then reports any problems on return.
SFARP come to mind - cant be that difficult and roads are the "workplaces" with the biggest number of fatalities by far.
R
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Rodger Alan Ker
Pool car supply often seen as an "easy and quick fix option" for management.
Some good points made by others, perhaps a final point to remember, without a "Safe System" in place, in the event of a road fatality, the company could be looking at a Corporate Manslaughter charge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Tim Sagar
Thanks for feed back so far, keep it coming. CMA08 was exactly where I was coming from. I did wonder wether Stark Vs Post Office might be relevent in showing an absolute duty of care.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Juan Carlos Arias
Barkway v South Wales transport 1950 would have some relevance to this
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By DALED
Tim, there is an issue here about validity of licenses and whether there are any checks into endorsements bans etc. The Occupational Road Risk Scenario/Guidance places the organisation as the responsible party should they let someone drive who has been banned or perhaps does not have a license or suitable experience.
Young drivers are also a significant risk here and may not be covered by insurance unless this has been declared. Worth having a chat with you insurer who can advise on good proactive risk management measures and of course if something does happen then premiums would undoubtedly go up.
Its the one area that I always think is an easy one to bring Corporate Manslaughter charges, as there are few companies that have a risk assessment and appropriate controls for drivers, after all anyone driving in the course of their work ties it into use of Work Equipment.
Traffic Police protocols for investigation of a fatality or serious RTA will be to establish whether the driver was in a work capacity whilst driving, also I understand they now automatically notify the HSE if the latter is established.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.