Rank: New forum user
|
We have a number of pool cars which are used by authorised drivers and are deemed to be work equipment and therefore covered by PUWER.
When there are no pool cars available employees are allowed to use their own cars and are paid a mileage allowance.
When a private car is used on company business does it become work equipment?
When looking at L22 the guidance to reg 2 specifically excludes private cars.
However the guidance to reg 3 states that PUWER covers situations where employers allow their employees to provide their own work equipment.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Whilst not answering your query directly you may find the ROSPA publication 'Driving for work - Own vehicles' of interest. Hope this helps.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Hi Sam,
I have certainly never heard of pool cars being classified as work equipment for the purposes of PUWER before. I would start by reviewing the regulations and guidance to see if perhaps this hasn't been miss-applied.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Where I work private cars are only allowed to be used after production of MOT, driving licence, insurance docs (showing business usage cover) and a letter from the insurance company confirming that they will indemnify my employer against possible claims.
I think this would show that the employer had taken reasonable steps but to the best of my knowledge it has never been tested.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Hi there
Using private cars for company business can be problematic but they are not covered under PUWER. In the ACOP they are specifically mentioned as not being "work equipment" along with livestock, substances etc.
Hope this helps
liz
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
When we claim for mileage we sign a declaration that our car is roadworthy, fir for purpose, taxed etc.
Not sure how we stand legally?!
I do have a driving at work policy though.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Johnny wrote:When we claim for mileage we sign a declaration that our car is roadworthy, fir for purpose, taxed etc.
Not sure how we stand legally?!
I do have a driving at work policy though.
Does not cover you at all. Employers should only rely on evidence and already said here, even if it is employee's car, if driving for the company, there should be records of MOT, driving licence and insurance. A driving for work policy would not hurt either
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Hi Sam,
A private car is still the property of its owner and whilst it is not work equipment, you should satisfy yourself that you are not sending employees out in vehicles that are not suitable.
RoSPA and HSE have a fair bit on this, but as a minimum you should be checking (and preferably taking copies) of driving licences, insurance documents that show they have the appropriate business class insurance and an MOT. I would suggest this on an annual basis, if not more often.
I have experience of a person being identified who was being asked to drive their own car by their employer, but they had been disqualified....
Whilst not your fault, you must do everything you reasonably can to ensure people are not affected by you work activity. It is reasonable to check somebodies documents, but not reasonable to maintain their car.
hope this help
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I don't agree that a declaration as has been muted "..doesn't cover you at all..", I would think that it would be persuasive and seems an entirely reasonable and indeed responsible thing for an employer to do, amongst other things. Please lets not forget the personal responsibility of the car owner/driver under the RTA etc.
On the question of cars/private cars for use on public roads and PUWER, PLEASE refer to para 62 of the PUWER ACoP which is free to view/download at http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/priced/l22.pdf
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Sam
Employees own cars need to be insured for 'Business use' which jacks the insurance up and if enforced reduces the unecessary jaunts in personal cars.
Badger
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Sam - sorry, I should add that I don't think that the guidance to reg 3 (para 77) really contradicts the guidance to reg 2 (para 62) which as far as motor cars goes I would say would take precedence and makes absolute sense as well.
Most insurers offer 2 levels of business class driving - 1 & 2 the latter being for commercial travelling, the first for generally travellinfg bettwen different sites etc. Level 2 obviously costs a lot more than level 1
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Phil Rose wrote:I don't agree that a declaration as has been muted "..doesn't cover you at all..", I would think that it would be persuasive and seems an entirely reasonable and indeed responsible thing for an employer to do, amongst other things.
Surely a court would also say that it was reasonable to expect an employer to view copies of relevant documents, licence, MOT etc.
Like amorris above, I have had an instance some years ago where a driver was found to be disqualified, and yes it was the police who told us!
JohnW
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Morning Folks,
Yes, I think an employer can rely on a declaration by the driver to a limited extent, but where evidence is easy to garner (such as copies of MOTs) then they should be obtained.
PUWER is a red herring here; the relevant law is Reg 3 of the management regs, and ss2 & 3 HASAWA. SFARP does apply, but asking people to drive is part of an undertaking, and as such is subject to risk assessment. PUWER or not, the employer must obtain reasonable assurance that a private car in use as part of their undertaking meets legal standards; and it's not PUWER because it's RTA and regulations,
John
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Some interesting quotes pulled together for info with sources below:
Managing the duty of care to employees driving for work is a legal requirement, and this includes employees driving their own vehicles for work
Both management and employees can be prosecuted for road traffic crashes involving work-related journeys, even when the driver is using their own vehicle
In the case of a work-related road incident, organisations will need to provide evidence that they have taken ‘reasonably practicable’ steps to manage their duty of care.
The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 created a new offence where death is caused by a gross breach of duty of care by senior management.
Where it can be proved that senior management are responsible for a gross breach of duty of care relating to an employee driving for work and that death has resulted from this breach, penalties can be applied
Over 34% of organisations admitted in a recent survey that they do not have basic procedures for checking the driving licences and insurance of grey fleet drivers.
Confounding factors effecting your companies ‘reasonably practicable’ steps:
Effective journey planning may not be being undertaken – grey fleet is easy
In some cases, the mileage rates offered by departments may act as an incentive for people to drive their own vehicles
Journey management is not implemented,
Alternative methods of travel not investigated
Minimising journeys via tele conferencing or other means not invested in
Provision of adequate number of pools car not sufficient
Training, guidance and information to grey fleet drivers not sufficient
Checks on MOT, licence, insurance, vehicle and individual suitability not checked, recorded or enforced
Risk assessment of journeys including management of breaks working hours, times of driving etc..
The employer:
Requires minimum vehicle standards to be met by employee owned cars used for business, which cover NCAP ratings, emissions etc.
Is responsible for taking steps to assure itself that the vehicle and driver are fit for purpose for each business journey undertaken levels, required safety features and essential breakdown cover.
It is suggested that:
As a very minimum every employer should keep an up to date register of all drivers and cars used at work.
From this register employers should carry out a risk assessment and have procedures to ensure that each employee has proper business insurance and that their driving licence is current
There should also be guidelines governing the condition, suitability and apparent roadworthiness of private cars used on their business.
Further details and source:
http://www.ogc.gov.uk/do..._Fleet_Best_Practice.pdf
INDG382 DRIVING AT WORK MANAGING WORK-RELATED ROAD SAFETY
www.ROSPA.co.uk - Driving for Work: Own Vehicles.pdf
http://www.greyfleet.com/Care.html
http://www.fleetnews.co.uk/RiskManagement
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
JohnW wrote:Phil Rose wrote:I don't agree that a declaration as has been muted "..doesn't cover you at all..", I would think that it would be persuasive and seems an entirely reasonable and indeed responsible thing for an employer to do, amongst other things.
Surely a court would also say that it was reasonable to expect an employer to view copies of relevant documents, licence, MOT etc.
Like amorris above, I have had an instance some years ago where a driver was found to be disqualified, and yes it was the police who told us!
JohnW
I don't think that we disagree on this John. The point I was making was regarding the AT ALL part of the "..doesn't cover you at all .." statement. As I have said, I think theat the statement is entirely reasonable and responsible, and I think that such a declaration is ONE way that an employer can HELP to demonstrate that they have exercised their duty, ALONG with regular and 'spot' checks on licence, insurance, MOT etc etc etc. I also think that the courts would expect the driver to exercise their personal responsibility that they have under RTA etc etc just as they would for any other journey. Again I think that this is also entirely reasonable. If we're not careful we join the 'health and safety is the responsibility of the employer ONLY brigade'.
|
|
|
|
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.