HSE might possibly take some action against the company / manager in addition to the prosecution of the driver, but I doubt the driver would get away with it because of that. The driver was the driver knowingly driving a non-roadworthy vehicle. I suspect the police and prosecutors would have taken the same line as parents throughout history - if he had told you to jump off a cliff, would you do it?

The line manager should have a disciplinary action against them, however - instructing an employee to carry out an activity taht is both illegal and against company policy should have some consequences.

Ricardox, the manager is unlikely to be the "controlling mind" of the organisation but that doesn't mean they don't have duties.

Just because the vehicle should be back before it gets dark doesn't mean there might be all sorts of reasons for using headlights for safety reasons. As example, it might rain quite heavily.

Your starting point is I suppose Sections 7 and 36 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (assuming that you are in Great Britain).

Driver knows that the vehicle's headlights should be operable. So does their manager!

And none of the engineers journeys involve tunnel travel or the potential for low cloud/mist/fog?

I would not rely on that individual for considered input.

Thanks everyone for your input.

While driving for work the employee is at work and as such Health and Safety at Work Act does in theory apply. The main difference between Health and Safety at Work Act and the RTA is that the RTA places most duties in the driver while H&S legislation puts it on the employer. As Brian has said the HSE tend to keep out of road traffic related issues but if as in this case the failures in the duty of care, fall on the employer then they might get involved.  if it turns out this approach to issues is custom and practice in the company then that might cross over the “gross breach” threshold of the relevant duty of care and the company as a whole might be liable for prosecution, for corporate manslaughter.  The issue of the controlling mind is something from the old common law offence of manslaughter by a corporate body but it no longer applies in Corporate manslaughter cases under the 2007 Act.

achrn is about right, there is no 'daytime mot',as such however, if at MOT the headlights are not fitted (As in painted / taped over or everything is removed and the typical example would be a trials bike - just a glimmer of light though would mean it was defective though!) therefore they can't be tested, that does not amount to a failure but an advisory to say they were not fitted at the time of test.   MOT Manuals 4.1.1 details it.   It also means they can only be used within the daylight hrs (30mins before/after sunrise/set) and not during periods of reduced visibility.   The RV Lighting Regs'89 as far as the OP is concerned would cover the offence for the OP vehicle being fitted with lights which were defective.  Getting nitty gritty r23 deals with a light going defective during the journey - assuming the lights were checked before setting out etc. For the OP scenario, should an RTC occur, the way the defect was managed could have a significant influence on a high value insurance claim which in turn would have a high impact on the company both long and short term.   

Edited by user 15 December 2020 18:28:22(UTC)  | Reason: tweak wording

With regard to Corporate Manslaughter and RTAs...I did look after a commercial fleet years ago and looked into this in great detail....

• The vehicle would have failed a roadside check (Bear in mind that the roadside check standard is higher than the MOT standard) - therefore he or the company would have been prohibited for continuing/ fined etc for that defect...
• Had the vehicle been involved in a fatal collision (driver or third party) (by the way the HSE/Police have a liaison protocol)…the investigation would have highlighted the Managers decision…which would be defined as ‘Reckless endangerment’ under corporate manslaughter, this section in the legislation was intended to be used for situations such as this…

 Unfortunately it isn't as uncommon as you think...my second fatal investigation was RTA, which resulted in me training as a Collision investigator years ago..makes me seem old.... :)

Is it an MOT fail?

Yes.

So the vehicle is *not* roadworthy.

Things that could happen: An officer may issue a vehicle defect rectification notice (14 days to fix)

An officer or DVSA officer may immediately prohibit the vehicle from being used or kept on a public highway (usually that action is only taken if it is being driven with a defective lamp during darkness or seriously reduced visibility). If prohibited the vehicle will then need the defect remedied and then the notice will have to be rescinded. It takes time. In these days of reduced person-power, it may take weeks.

Originally Posted by: craigroberts76

a fleet dept  ...  a van ..2 tyres were on the legal limit .. the driver says he's been reporting them but nothing was done, so i reported them....all 4 now need replacing, ...  Where are the manslaughter regulations found? ...speeding (72 in a 50 this morning was 1 van) , out of hours usage, early hours usage, weekend etc, all these are additional risks to the company and driver, and yet often overlooked for profit. Any guides on the regulations would be useful

Sounds like two options, if there is such a thing as a fleet, transport or vehicles manager then they are not doing too well at their job or there is little or no management buy in for safety overall.  Quick break down - if (big if these days) the tyres were identified at the roadside or after a serious collision , they could get the driver a number of points and unless driver tells how the company have acted, then it pretty much will stay with the driver.  The suggestion is that the vehicles usage such as out of hrs etc is against policy , then it could well mean the drivers are using the vehiucles outside of the Company insurance - that's more likely to fall to the company but take the driver with them.... usually its the company secretary who would pick up the hassle.   ​​​​​​​Of course the Corporate Manslaughter doesn't appear until a death!

Edited by user 16 December 2020 22:18:26(UTC)  | Reason: typo

Originally Posted by: AcornsConsult

if (big if these days) the tyres were identified at the roadside or after a serious collision , they could get the driver a number of points

No one forces anyone to drive at gun point (they need to be in the vehicle with you to do so) and any employer using the threat of discipline or unemployment to compell a licenced driver to break the law of the land (and the conditions of their driving licence) is not worth working for.

In fact the OP should be seriously raising this managers attitude to the safety of the companies employees and its potential negative publicity upon the company in the "event of" directly to the person who signed the H&S Policy - they have turned this person in to a liar.