dieseldave:
Own Account Driver:
dieseldave:
Own Account Driver:
Very sorry To confuse things further but not sure the scaffolding example for o-licence is correct. It won’t matter who the Scaffolding poles belong to it would still be totally fine on a restricted licence. In your example it would fail the test for hire and reward.Hi OAD,
It’s generally seen as the ownership of the goods being carried that decides the type of ‘O’ licence required.In my scenario #2 above, the large company needs their scaffolding to be transported.
The transport company in scenario #2 is carrying goods that aren’t theirs, and therefore needs a ‘Standard National’ (= Hire and Reward) ‘O’ licence for that very reason.
I feel that there’s some confusion around terminology, because an Own Account ‘O’ licence is called by exactly that name, whereas there’s no such thing in law as a “Hire and Reward ‘O’ licence.”
There are two kinds of Hire and Reward ‘O’ licence, namely: Standard National and Standard International.
In scenario #2, the transport company would need a Standard National ‘O’ licence, because they don’t own the goods being carried and are therefore transporting them for Hire and Reward.I’d be interested to see “the test for hire and reward” so do you have a link please?
It’s more extensive than the ownership of the goods. If in your BUT example you’d just said deliver another company’s poles for cash then it wouldn’t be ok for a restricted licence but because you said erect and maintain then it is still covered as the transport is ancillary to the main business activity of erecting and maintaining the scaffolding so ownership becomes irrelevant and is not considered a hire and reward transaction.
Similarly a company that maintains and repairs production line machinery can deliver and collect machinery for repair, that at no point technically belongs to them, and also charge the customer collection and delivery and the transaction is not considered hire and reward and regardless of distance the transport is considered ancillary to repairing and maintaining production line machinery. It is the same sort of metric as DCPC where it’s all down to what the main activity for the transaction is considered to be.
The area that crops up time and again is furniture removal which is considered a hire and reward transaction despite the claims that the road transport is ancillary to the main activity of manhandling goods thus requiring a standard national licence. Pretty much in all cases it is much more the case if the operation is behaving like a road haulier taking jobs in a hire and reward basis they need a standard national licence rather than strictly ownership of the goods.
It is all in a DFT more extensive document on goods vehicle licensing than what they display on the website I will try and see if I can upload a screenshot.
Hi OAD,
The “erect and maintain” was in scenario #1, which I used to illustrate (for DCPC purposes) that driving wasn’t the driver’s main activity. (Regardless of ‘O’ licence considerations.)
Scenario #2 was meant to illustrate a driver whose main activity is driving. (Regardles of ‘O’ licence considerations.)
I attempted to extricate the term “hire and reward” from the present topic of DCPC, in which it has no place.
It might be that the term “hire and reward” when used in the context of DCPC might be better said as “a driver whose job involves being paid a wage for being a driver and associated duties.”
Your point about the ‘O’ licence needs of a company who collect/recondition/deliver machinery isn’t something I’ve ever looked into, so in the absence of the time needed to look it up, I won’t express an opinion on that point. The driver of that company may or may not need a DCPC depending on the duties expected of him.
I do agree that a removals firm needs a Standard National (or Standard International) ‘O’ licence though.
Sorry, didn’t see you replied I was referring to this bit
BUT…
Now lets say that the company in scenario 2 subcontracts the company in scenario 1 to move their scaffold and erect it, maintain it etc…
If you’d stopped at move (ie hire and reward) then this wouldn’t be compliant with a restricted licence but because of the added the erect and maintain it would make it fine under restricted and the actual ownership of the scaffolding wouldn’t matter.
I understand the thread had got confusing but hire and reward is relevant to DCPC because any hire and reward would always requires it.