Question, If I dont have a valid licence to drive, can I drive a work vehicle on work property? 

The point was raised today that because its 'privatley owned' land we dont need licences to drive work vehicles as long as we are on work property. Vans and FLTs for example. 

My argument is that I am not suitably and sufficently trained to drive and therefore this point is mute from a H&S Law perspective? 

Having a UK Driving Licence is only a requirement to drive on the public highway

There are many skilled FLT / shunter operators who do not hold a UK driving licence

Whilst driving lessons impart certain road skills - hill-start, three point turn etc. - they do not give specfific operational instruction with reagrds to the vehicle being driven

By current example that is why "Private" electric scooter sales are premitted so long as they are operated on "Private" land with anyone wishing to use one of the city trial schemes must hold a licence to drive on the public highway. With both there is no real "instruction" provided nor competence to operate determined.

captcha wP45

Hi Rebbekah

The concept of "private land" is the subject of extensive case law relating to the Road Traffic Act.

Lots of roads that are private fall within the scope of that legislation - e.g. a supermarket car park.

That might be relevant to the operation of a "van" (assuming that it is a typical van) in your scenario. So, perhaps it is covered by Road Traffic legislation and you would need a licence, perhaps not. [Ditto issues such as MOT]

As to fork trucks, not identical skill sets, which is why someone with or without a driving licence is expected to be given specific training in whatever generic type or types of fork trucks.

But no real reason why someone who doesn't hold a driving licence could not be entirely competent to drive fork lift trucks or something comparable such as tugs on airfields or trains on railways.

In relation to driving a van, if the roads are genuinely "private", it would be up to the employer to demonstrate that they had provided such training etc as would be "reasonably practicable" - with the onus on the employer to prove on the balance of probabilities if prosecuted that they had done what was reasonably practicable. 

This arises due to the "reverse burden of proof" written into Section 40 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

Proving what is or is not "reasonably practicable" is the only element of a prosecution that the prosecutor would not have to prove "beyond reasonable doubt".

If I was the employer I would be very nervous about letting someone without a driving licence drive a van on "private land" unless I was very confident that I could show that as an employer I had done all that was reasonably practicable to ensure that the driver was competent for their tasks.

May be not the simple NO you might have been looking for.

P