Licence for site?

Hi all,

Asking for someone else:

Imagine a workplace which has a couple of trucks - a bin lorry for example.

The vehicles are used around the site, but that site could most likely be described as a public place a lot of the time, i.e. there are often members of the public there in some numbers.

Numerous staff have up to 7500kg licences courtesy of grandfather rights, but these trucks are 12000kg.

Would the appropriate HGV licence be needed to drive these on site or, because they’re not venturing onto the roads, does it not matter?

I did shunting up to 50 rigids/artics/wag and drag a night, counter balance forklift and a telehandler when I was 20yrs old with just a car license. If the owners allow it crack on.

Each job was shown to me by someone who knew what they were doing and as for the lorries a class 1 driver ‘trained’ me over a couple of nights before being left alone, the full time drivers though were always pointing the finger at me for damage during the night loading so I had to check them before pulling out of a space the cheaky ■■■■■■■■■■

Edit missed the important part of your post. No public wondering about just the other workers.

This sounds like nonsense: commercial sites (regardless of whether the vehicles are 7.5T or 12T) cannot allow the public to be freely wandering around. Forget questions about the licencing, this would be a HSE fatality headline in the making.

Assuming your laws are remarkably similar to ours, as usual, a licence is required for a “road related area”.
i.e. An area to which the public have access. e.g. Car park, service station forecourt, a privately owned field being used for a public event etc…

Can`t immediately find the law but,
driving-laws.co.uk/can-i-dri … vate-land/
If the public have access you must have insurance.
Insurance will only be valid for those with the correct licence.

Tell your mate “Avoid”.

EDIT
Section 143 Road Traffic Act 1988

If the site is open to the public I would say the drivers need a valid licence for the class of vehicle that’s being driven.
Obviously this only applies at times that the site if open to the public.

Definitions of a “road”.
Article 129 - Road Traffic Act 1988

192 General interpretation of Act

“road”, in relation to England and Wales, means any highway and any other road to which the public has access, and includes bridges
over which a road passes,

Requirement to have an appropriate licence.
Article 87 - Road Traffic Act 1988

Drivers of motor vehicles to have driving licences
(1)It is an offence for a person to drive on a road a motor vehicle of any class if he is not the holder of a licence authorising him
to drive a motor vehicle of that class.

(2)It is an offence for a person to cause or permit another person to drive on a road a motor vehicle of any class if that other
person is not the holder of a licence authorising him to drive a motor vehicle of that class.

Requirement to have third party insurance.
Article 143 - Road Traffic Act 1988

Users of motor vehicles to be insured or secured against third-party risks

(1)Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act—
(a)a person must not use a motor vehicle on a road unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by
that person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements
of this Part of this Act, and
(b)a person must not cause or permit any other person to use a motor vehicle on a road unless there is in force in relation
to the use of the vehicle by that other person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as
complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act.

Surely it would depend on if it is private ground or not. If the grounds are privately owned then no licence would necessarily be needed as long as the insurance company is ok with it. Lots of yards people don’t require licences to be a shunter as it is private ground.

But as said by Zac A If the general public have access to the site in quite regular numbers then surely it can’t be private ground. And as said it’s more a health and safety issue full stop then necessarily licensing requirements.

Sent from my CPH2173 using Tapatalk

simcor:
Surely it would depend on if it is private ground or not. If the grounds are privately owned then no licence would necessarily be needed as long as the insurance company is ok with it. Lots of yard people don’t require licences to be a shunter as it is private ground.

But as said by Zac A If the general public have access to the site in quite regular numbers then surely it can’t be private ground. And as siad it’s more a health and safety issue full stop then necessarily licensing requirements.

It makes no difference whether it’s private land or not, if it’s publicly accessible it’s a public road.

The one qualification I would make to this is if the public only have limited access, for instance if the road is gated or there’s a barrier so the public only have access when permitted through the barrier or gate, I don’t know where you would stand in those circumstance.

tachograph:

simcor:
Surely it would depend on if it is private ground or not. If the grounds are privately owned then no licence would necessarily be needed as long as the insurance company is ok with it. Lots of yard people don’t require licences to be a shunter as it is private ground.

But as said by Zac A If the general public have access to the site in quite regular numbers then surely it can’t be private ground. And as siad it’s more a health and safety issue full stop then necessarily licensing requirements.

It makes no difference whether it’s private land or not, if it’s publicly accessible it’s a public road.

The one qualification I would make to this is if the public only have limited access, for instance if the road is gated or there’s a barrier so the public only have access when permitted through the barrier or gate, I don’t know where you would stand in those circumstance.

I didn’t exactly make it clear what I meant . If it was private ground then it is unlikely to have public access or the general public allowed on site is what I meant. It would of course help if the OP could clarify what he means by public site and has the general public in numbers on it.

Sent from my CPH2173 using Tapatalk

Vague question so quality vague answer - yes and no, depending on the details.

Privately owned land.
If the gates are open and the public are allowed in, (maybe during the day) you need a (correct) licence and insurance.
If the gates are shut and no public are allowed in, (maybe night or Sunday) you don`t.

Franglais:
Privately owned land.
If the gates are open and the public are allowed in, (maybe during the day) you need a (correct) licence and insurance.
If the gates are shut and no public are allowed in, (maybe night or Sunday) you don`t.

Well yes obviously but it’s not always that simple, for instance the refuse tip I used to use had a security hut half way down the drive where you was supposed to stop until waved on by the bloke in the hut.

That’s the sort of limited public access I was referring to in my previous post.

Sent from my mobile via Tapatalk.

Why not just play safe and require the correct licences?

Yes, you’ll get away with it right up to the point where someone is injured or God forbid killed and then the HSE will have an absolute field day right up to the point where someone goes to jail.

tachograph:
Definitions of a “road”.
Article 129 - Road Traffic Act 1988

192 General interpretation of Act

“road”, in relation to England and Wales, means any highway and any other road to which the public has access, and includes bridges
over which a road passes,

I know this is an old thread, which I was somewhat loath to revive. However, this is perhaps a matter of broader interest than just this thread. The meaning of “road” in s. 192 Road Traffic Act 1988 has been considered at length by Lord Clyde in the House of Lords (back in the days when it was the highest court in the land) in Clark and Ors v Kato [1998] UKHL 36):

I turn next to consider the statutory definition of the word “road” in section 192 of the Act of 1988. In applying the definition the first question to be asked is whether the place in issue is a highway. We are not concerned here with that possibility and it is sufficient to observe that it includes such things as public footpaths and public bridleways. Failing an affirmative answer one then has to proceed to the words which follow; Does the place qualify as being “any other road to which the public has access?” This provision has to be analysed into two parts; first, is it a road? and second, if so, is it a road to which the public has access? In the present case we are not concerned with the matter of public access, but two observations on that phrase may be made. The first is that the element of public access has to be tested by reference to facts as well as rights. The question in this context is whether the public actually and legally have access. As the Lord Justice-General (Clyde) observed in Harrison v. Hill 1932 J.C. 13, 16:

“There must be, as matter of fact, walking or driving by the public on the road, and such walking or driving must be lawfully performed–that is to say, must be permitted or allowed, either expressly or implicitly, by the person or persons to whom the road belongs.”

Lord Sands observed in the same case at p. 17:

“Any road may be regarded as a road to which the public have access upon which members of the public are to be found who have not obtained access either by overcoming a physical obstruction or in defiance of prohibition express or implied.”

Secondly, the public in this context means the general public. To quote again from the opinion of the Lord Justice-General in Harrison v. Hill at p. 16

“I think that, when the statute speaks of ‘the public’ in this connection, what is meant is the public generally, and not the special class of members of the public who have occasion for business or social purposes to go the farmhouse or to any part of the farm itself; were it otherwise, the definition might just as well have included all private roads as well as all public highways.”

It is important to observe that the consideration of access by the public only arises if the place is a road. It may well be that the public has access to it but that is not enough. As was recognised in Griffin v. Squires [1958] 1 W.L.R. 1106 it has also to be a road. In Oxford v. Austin [1981] R.T.R. 416, 418 Kilner Brown J. referred to a road as “a definable way between two points over which vehicles could pass.” I would hesitate to formulate a comprehensive definition whereby a place may be identified as a road, but some guidance should be found by considering its physical character and the function which it exists to serve. One obvious feature of a road as commonly understood is that its physical limits are defined or at least definable. It should always be possible to ascertain the sides of a road or to have them ascertained. Its location should be identifiable as a route or way. It will often have a prepared surface and have been manufactured or constructed. But it may simply have developed by the repeated passage of traffic over the same area of land. It may be continuous, like a circular route, or it may come to a termination, as in the case of a cul-de-sac. A road may run on a single line without diversion or it may have branches. A branch which leads for example to a hotel or some other place of refreshment may qualify as a road, particularly, but by no means exclusively, where it leads into and continues out of the place in question, such as for example the forecourt in Bugge v. Taylor [1941] 1 K.B. 198. I do not find it helpful to use the language of a “through route” beyond recognising that a road should lead from one point to another.

But it is also necessary to consider the function of the place in order to see if it qualifies as a road. Essentially a road serves as a means of access. It leads from one place to another and constitutes a route whereby travellers may move conveniently between the places to which and from which it leads. It is thus a defined or at least a definable way intended to enable those who pass over it to reach a destination. Its precise extent will require to be a matter of detailed decision as matter of fact in the particular circumstances. Lines may require to be drawn to determine the point at which the road ends and the destination has been reached. Where there is a door or a gate the problem may be readily resolved. Where there is no physical point which can be readily identified, then by an exercise of reasonable judgment an imaginary line will have to be drawn to mark the point where it should be held that the road has ended. Whether or not a particular area is or is not a road eventually comes to be a matter of fact. It was in the context of the particular facts in Griffin v. Squires [1958] 1 W.L.R. 1106 that the Court considered that the magistrates had been entitled to hold that a car park was not a road.

In the present case the question is raised whether one or other or both of the car parks qualifies as a road. In the generality of the matter it seems to me that in the ordinary use of language a car park does not so qualify. In character and more especially in function they are distinct. It is of course possible to park on a road, but that does not mean that the road is a car park. Correspondingly one can drive from one point to another over a car park, but that does not mean that the route which has been taken is a road. It is here that the distinction in function between road and car park is of importance. The proper function of a road is to enable movement along it to a destination. Incidentally a vehicle on it may be stationary. One can use a road for parking. The proper function of a car park is to enable vehicles to stand and wait. A car may be driven across it; but that is only incidental to the principal function of parking. A hard shoulder may be seen to form part of a road. A more delicate question could arise with regard to a lay-by, but where it is designed to serve only as a temporary stopping place incidental to the function of the road it may well be correct to treat it as part of the road. While I would accept that circumstances can occur where an area of land which can be reasonably described as a car park could qualify as a road for the purposes of the legislation I consider that such circumstances would be somewhat exceptional.

As of today, this judgment is still regarded as a correct statement of the law.

tachograph:
It makes no difference whether it’s private land or not, if it’s publicly accessible it’s a public road.

This statement is incorrect. If you are not dealing with a highway then you must determine whether the land is a road, then determine whether the general public has access.

Thanks for the long quote. These things could send you mad on whether it is or isn’t.

Oh how I long for a return to the days when people weren’t so wet and just got on with stuff, exercising common sense instead of trying to pick holes and find fault in everything and reasons why it’s someone elses responsibility to cater for their stupidity.

Conor:
Oh how I long for a return to the days when people weren’t so wet and just got on with stuff, exercising common sense instead of trying to pick holes and find fault in everything and reasons why it’s someone elses responsibility to cater for their stupidity.

Where is the “common sense” here?

That being off the main public road, no truck licence is needed?
That obviously a truck needs a truck driver?

In the good ole days (1970`s) over 600 were dying in the workplace every year. Since 2010 it has been less than 200 pa.

Acorn:
Thanks for the long quote. These things could send you mad on whether it is or isn’t.

Here’s my attempt to distil the key points from Lord Clyde’s judgment.

A road for the purposes of the Road Traffic Act 1988 is a public highway (including public footpaths and public bridleways) or “any other road to which the public has access”.

The first step in establishing whether it is “any other road to which the public has access” is to establish whether it is a road:

1. A road is “a definable way between two points over which vehicles could pass”. The road must have defined or definable physical limits - i.e. you must be able to say where it is. These limits might be defined by construction works or might have developed by repeated vehicular passage in the same direction.

2. A road can be a through route, lead to a dead-end or be a circular route.

3. A road must be a means of access to somewhere; a defined way to a destination. If it leads to an obvious destination such as a door or gate then the destination is obvious, if not then a judgment must be reached on where the road ends.

If there is a road then you must consider whether the public has access:

1. The public must have lawful access to the road, i.e. the owners must permit, allow or tolerate (i.e. implied permission) access to the road.

2. The public does not have lawful access if they access the road by “overcoming a physical obstruction” or defying some sort of prohibition.

3. When applying this test, “the public” means “the general public”, not a subset of the public permitted to have access.

The OP asked about a site where members of the public are present:

Speedy Duck:
Imagine a workplace which has a couple of trucks - a bin lorry for example.

The vehicles are used around the site, but that site could most likely be described as a public place a lot of the time, i.e. there are often members of the public there in some numbers.

Numerous staff have up to 7500kg licences courtesy of grandfather rights, but these trucks are 12000kg.

Would the appropriate HGV licence be needed to drive these on site or, because they’re not venturing onto the roads, does it not matter?

It is doubtful that this site is a road, as it does not lead to a destination; it may well be that any road ends at the gateway to the site. It is also doubtful that the general public has access - it sounds as if, at most, only those members of the public with lawful business there are permitted to enter, and not the public at large.

It sounds as if the site in question is likely not a road for Road Traffic Act 1988 purposes. However, the only way to be certain whether the site is a road is for the matter to be tested in court.

Even if the site is not a road for Road Traffic Act 1988 purposes, there is the duty of care owed under s. 3(1) Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 that requires an employer to operate in a way that goes as far as is reasonable not to expose non-employees to health and safety risks. There is likely to be a duty of care under tort law (especially in relation to negligence) to take reasonable care of the health and safety of site visitors. There is an obligation towards lawful visitors imposed by s. 2(2) Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 to take care to ensure a lawful visitor is reasonably safe in using the premises for authorised purposes. There is an obligation towards those other than lawful visitors imposed by s. 1 Occupiers Liability Act 1984 to take reasonable care not to subject those entering the land to known or suspected dangers.

In addition, the employer’s insurers might require those driving vehicles off-road to have demonstrated some sort of competence, even if they do not go as far as requiring the licence needed to drive the vehicle on-road.

Note: these comments relate to the law of England and Wales, and are correct to the best of my ability. The law is different in Northern Ireland and in Scotland.

If there was an accident and the HSE were involved, or maybe they were just “inspecting” for some reason then they might ask has the operator of the vehicle been trained, and please provide proof of that training. As they would for a forklift operator, for which you normally renew the “licence” every 3 years. It’s not a legal requirement that you have a forklift “licence” but it is the accepted way to “prove” to the HSE etc. that the driver is competent The accepted way to prove competence of a truck driver is to pass a HGV test. Maybe a driving school would issue a certificate without actually taking the DVSA test ?

If there was an accident, to member of the public or not, that resulted in an insurance claim I suspect that having a driver with no proof that he has been trained to drive that class of vehicle would give the insurers a good opportunity to avoid paying out.

There are lots of non-DVSA competency courses for all types of vehicles, as long as they can do the tasks required at the site, that’s sufficient.
We assume the company has already notified insurers about the type of driving being done.
Doing competency rather than a full test can be good business sense.