Anyone done one of these recently?
Yes, a TM refresher course.
I deliver them. What did you want to ask about them?
My TM is telling me that if a vehicle is loaded with a “Non revenue load” then it is OK to exceed the downplated revenue weight on a journey which only goes to an ATF and back to the yard. This specifically for the purpose of presenting at the ATF for a Roller Brake Test. I have no doubt that with having done a refresher course recently and a seminar he genuinely believes this is true. I cannot find any reference to this at all, which is why I am asking if this has been mentioned at a refresher course? It just seems odd to me but the TM is not one to BS or try to pull the wool over one’s eyes, so he must have picked this up somewhere. The situation is the revenue weight is not enough to load all the axles of an artic sufficiently to exceed or meet the requirements without locks potentially. 3 +2 or 2+2. There isn’t a problem with not locking up it is just I don’t want records showing that an RBT pass relied on locks with no further action being taken.
A TM refresher course is exactly that, a refresher course. It cannot cover every single topic related to a TM’s responsibilities. The TM refresher course is really not a lot different to the DCPC in that it is based on hours gained to tick boxes with no exam to prove even one element of the course has been understood.
First thing is that different TM Refresher courses will have different content, there is no standard syllabus. Personally I think he’s either been told something that is inaccurate, or he has interpreted what he’s been told inaccurately.
So is the revenue weight significantly below the expected weight based on number of axles? Not uncommon for a vehicle to be downplated to save money but once it is downplated then that max weight can’t be ignored, and if it is found on the road to be exceeding its downplated limit, I’d wager the authorities will assume the Operator has been caught out dodging VED and things are going to get very messy and very painful.
I have never heard of any ad hoc allowance to exceed whatever the plated GVW/GTW is as shown on the VTG 6 (ministry plate) when you’re on the road just because “it’s only going for an RBT”. DVSA will not pass up the chance to dish out a prohibition, unless there is some documentary evidence to the contrary (like STGO categorization). If your TM has documentary evidence I would have expected him to be able to show this to you. DVSA would likely argue “then load it at the ATF, not before” if you wanted it to exceed the plated weight.
There’s an oft-quoted exemption to loading tri-axle trailers for an RBT:
So, if it’s laden as much as possible, this will probably help with the legalities. Also, DVSA will exempt certain types of vehicle from the requirements to be laden (see table 2.1 in that link)
However, where the TC has mandated laden RBTs as standard (default status after a PI) this exemption in practice ceases to exist.
You’re right not to rely on “Pass (Locks)”, all that does is tick a box and is functionally meaningless. But I’d argue that if it is only ever going to be loaded to its plated weight, and that is significantly below the expected weight based on the number of axles, then the RBT result you will get with that reduced load is accurate in terms of your road safety.
If your TM can back up his stance with documentary evidence, I’d certainly like to read it, especially if it has come from the TM Refresher provider, and especially if he did his course with Beverly Bell as she may have a few aces up her sleeve that we ordinary mortals aren’t privvy to. And if he wants you to take the vehicle on the road when it is exceeding the plated weight/revenue weight, then I for one would want some documentary evidence to show DVSA if I was stopped that I had been misled into doing it (I vas onlee vollowin ze orderz…)
Case in point: a company I helped out, had told a driver to take a trailer to the maintenance provider for a pre-MOT inspection, on his way there he was stopped, the MOT had already expired so it wasn’t allowed to be on the road despite the reason for it being on the road. That simply opened up the floodgates for a DVSA visit and a subsequent Public Inquiry. That’s the kind of tolerances we can expect from them.
If asked to drive a vehicle over the plated weight, it does seem reasonable to expect the TM to point to where the authorities state it can be legally driven before taking it.
If it gets to the stage of the TM insisting the vehicle is taken, then at least a signed document confirming authorisation of the vehicle movement should be obtained IMHO.
All of this; ‘I assure you it is okay, I’m a TM, I’m the absolute DBs honestly’, only goes so far.
Thank you very much for the very detailed replies. I will come back with any news on this in the next couple of days. On a pertinent arising point I notice that DVSA in their ‘look at us aren’t we wonderful’ campaign are on a paperless mission. Now they are talking about wanting to remove ministry plates from vehicles and trailers. So HTF is a driver going to know if a particular vehicle has been downplated for revenue weight? They, writing as ‘Gordon’, seem not to have liked me pointing out that I didn’t want a reply that I should look up the vehicle using a smart phone and their website when doing a walk around check because the comment has not been approved.
I very much liked the comments about “which computer system are you using” 
Typical governmental system, assuming everything will work as expected by the tech guys, despite everything we’ve learned recently.
Anyone who has been on the receiving end of a DVSA visit knows how much they love to see “paper” in the office, especially the maintenance wallplanner. I suspect that part of their organization are less on board with this “digital first” idea.
Did one last October to get 2 days DCPC in at the same time.
Was with the RHA. Really wouldn’t recommend it.
RHA Yes, I’ve seen what they charge 
And, I would never recommend anyone choose a TM Refresher that has DCPC attached, it’s too restrictive in respect of both content and timings.
I’ve actually attended a TM refresher course not too long ago. It was pretty beneficial for me, especially in terms of brushing up on my techniques and staying consistent with my practice.
I’m interested in taking one of these courses, so I’m wondering what it was about the course that you found beneficial please?
Where did you do your course and how much did it cost?
The TM refresher course is just a tick box exercise, as is the DCPC course. No exam to pass, the TM refresher I did was not a great deal different to the DCPC course, ie a very similar syllabus.
Plenty of choice of courses, just type in “TM refresher course price and availability” in a Google search, it’s really that simple.
More to this. I believe that the operator who is a customer genuinely believes the substance of this is true. However there have now been developments which I consider relevant. The ATF I use has had a new RBT console and remote gauges installed and calibrated in accordance with the DVSA requirements for on-line reporting of MOT test results. I am now led to believe that once a vehicle or trailer’s technical details are entered, then the next time it appears for MOT or RBT, once the id or DPT number is entered all those technical details and previous test results will be retrieved from memory. Since the DVSA are no longer issuing paper test certificates from the end of the month, this means I assume that the DVSA will, in future, have remote access at any time to all the actual figures which appear on the Print out. This will then enable them to target how often an operator presents his equipment for routine RBT, whether it complies with his declared frequency and whether it meets a satisfactory standard. I presume this will not affect operators using their own RBT equipment or that of independent contractors who do not have an ATF test lane.
The frequency of RBTs that are legally required is due to change in April 2025, and it will be a RBT at every PMI. Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness, 2023 version