a couple of years ago Wincanton made a big thing of putting every driver through an NVQ, not much has been said about it since, are they too embarrassed to mention it?
wincanton.co.uk/newsroom/pre … vq-status/
They will have to sit the DCPC now, talk about being over qualified to do a non skilled job!
Wheel Nut:
a couple of years ago Wincanton made a big thing of putting every driver through an NVQ, not much has been said about it since, are they too embarrassed to mention it?wincanton.co.uk/newsroom/pre … vq-status/
They will have to sit the DCPC now, talk about being over qualified to do a non skilled job!
I just quickly looked at how much that would have cost the tax payer if it was claimed via LSC (Just assuming it was)
Assuming every driver (To what this report relates) completed Level 2 NVQ before completing Level 3 NVQ (At a cost to the tax payer of £1800-00 per person per NVQ qualification)
4000 NVQ x £1800 = £7200000 Total Cost to the Tax Payer
Tony4562:
Yes I have read the document and it does state :-Some training providers are advertising courses that are funded. How can this be the case if Periodic Training does not qualify for funding?
Because they are CHEATING? They are breaking the rules and if caught will lose their magic funding
Tony4562:
Operators should be wary of Periodic Training courses that are advertised as being fully funded. Periodic Training is excluded from public funding.
Exactly - Periodic training is EXCLUDED from public funding. That sentance answers all of this. EXCLUDED means not INCLUDED
Tony4562:
Then it states :-Providers may be delivering Periodic Training within a broader NVQ programme. In this instance, the funding is attached to the achievement of the NVQ. Operators and drivers will need to commit to the larger NVQ programme in order to access the funding.
Exactly - the funding funds the NVQ. The training organisation is providing the DCPC off their own back and out of their profit from the extortionate sums they get for the NVQ. they are simply using the DCPC to sell an NVQ nobody particularly wants
Tony4562:
Then it states :-The NVQ is a broad qualification. There are many different ways in which Periodic Training courses could be combined with the NVQ training. This means that the content and length of approved Periodic Training courses that are being delivered under the NVQ umbrella can vary quite dramatically. Operators are advised to ask GoSkills/CPT July 2008 the provider to clarify how many hours of approved Periodic Training are being delivered via the NVQ programme and to seek written confirmation that the training has been approved by the JAUPT.
And again this doesn’t say DCPC is funded. It says the training provider is providing Perodic Training within and NVQ. it doesn’t say the Periodic Training is funded. If they didn’t include Periodic Training - they would still get their £1800 or whatever it is. That funding is for the NVQ only.
Tony4562:
Some training providers are still able to access further funding and are offering periodic training, even after a driver completes Level 2 of the NVQ qualification. Put the driver thru Level 3 NVQ qualification.
Yes. After NVQ2 comes NVQ 3. They get funding tu deliver NVQ 3 - but that doesn’t fund any Periodic Training. If they use any of the funding to pay for the periodic training - they have broken the rules and if found can lose (or have to pay back) that funding
Tony4562:
Anyway I think its time now for us to stop the squabbling,
[/quote]
I’m not squabbling - it just slightly irritates me how you twist written words to suit your means.
I know for fact what these training providers are doing is against the rules. Elsewhere on the internet in forums and discussion groups for trainers there are a lot of annoyed and bitter trainers losing business to these funded organisations that shouldn’t be allowed to happen. There are discussions taking place in high places and it seems the authorities that dish out this money are to spineless to stop these unscrupulous training companies stealing government money.
I can assure you I don’t get a single penny from public funding and after each course I merrily get my credit card out and pay the DSA for each training hour I have delivered.
> Tony4562:
> P.S. I will only accept your offer for FREE training if you can offer the same to every other driver in the UK, that would be impossible, but thank you for the offer, but I decline.
Yeah alright - anyone can tell me the secret password and they can have free training at my place.
As you are aware from my posts on this thread I withdrew my e-petiton (It is requested that the CPC Legislation be Abolished/Scrapped, before September 2014) and would not myself propose another. As pointed out to me by numerous people, a petition needs to be worded correctly and be achievable. Therefore I hope that the following (which has been allowed to be shared from another drivers forum) will appeal to everyone.
Following on from Tony4562 thread about the CPC of which he has been in contact with me and due to the wording stopped his petition.
We (The committee) have therefore started a new e-petition which is better worded (hopefully)
This e-petiton is to “Request a Review” of the current implementation.
Whether you are against it, or have already taken some training it is a chance to show you have concerns, issues or just consider a review is needed to make it better.
If you as a driver consider that the DCPC current implementation is not correctly thought out, and it will not benefit you or the Industry then you need to sign it and try to bring about changes to make it more acceptable.
The e-petiton epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/34438
Wording of the petition
Quote:
Request for DCPC Review
Responsible department: Department for Transport
We would like to request that the DfT, DVLA and JAUPT jointly carry out a full review of the current implementation of the Drivers CPC. It is requested that drivers from all backgrounds be consulted to obtain their opinion, concerns and issues on the implementation presently in place.
Training is beneficial and helps to promote better standards of driving and safety on the road. Many drivers consider that the implementation has many flaws which makes it unacceptable and will not benefit them or the public in general. This is demonstrated by the very slow take up on the training.
With a full review and consultation with drivers, changes can be implemented to make it more acceptable, thereby giving better results which will be more beneficial to all road users.
A full review is needed before the country loses many long term, highly qualified, experienced, older and part time drivers who help the new drivers entering our profession with help and advice.
We need 100,000 signatures to get a review, so please pass this around as much as possible. This petition is for “ALL” drivers.
I hope to follow this up with a simple form where you can submit your concerns and isuues. These can then be collated to show what issues and concerns drivers have over the current implementation.
Excuse me bumping this thread. There are about two months left to run on this petition, and only about 450 signatures. I think that is roughly 10% of the reported membership of this forum which seems a bit low. Come on guys - do 90% of you actually like sitting in a classroom?!
look at it like this
only 10% of you expect it to go away
it wont
hitch:
look at it like this
only 10% of you expect it to go away
it wont
To be fair the petition isn’t calling for it to go away, it’s calling for a review. Personally I think the idea is fine but the implementation is astonishingly awful.
I’m a fairly new driver and I certainly accept that the practical and theory tests teach you nothing about driving loaded or how driving hours and WTD work practically in the real world. But (in my case) listening to someone who has never worked as a truck driver recount a load of theory in a totally unimaginative way does not (to my mind) increase professional competency. And the idea that 35 hours later you are suddenly deemed “competent” is an interesting perspective. Until you have to start again that is, when you revert to “incompetent” due to the extra experience you have gained. Genius!
I’m sure many just accept it as a necessary evil and I’m certainly not banking on it going away. But if anyone looked at it again they surely wouldn’t design it like this.
Ok, made my point! Getting my coat!
cant sign, as it says removed from petitioner.
yuppie:
cant sign, as it says removed from petitioner.
That was the original one. I’m on about this one:
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/34438
This is how ridiculous the DCPC is…
I have a friend who lives in Slovakia because he’s married to a Slovakian lady. He has a very basic command of the Slovakian language, not enough to understand anything on a technical level. He took all five parts of the DCPC in Slovakia because it’s far less expensive than taking it in this country and ‘passed’. He understood very little of what was taught…
I don’t have a problem with the DCPC and I think it’s necessary, providing there is a structured syllabus with an exam to qualify. Someone on the forum asked how can some drivers be expected to qualify if they can’t read and understand questions. If a driver is unable to comprehend aspects concerning their profession, should they have the responsibility of driving LGVs?
I have four parts of the DCPC; I took two modules in 2011 and two modules in 2012. I have taken the transport and traffic regulations module twice, once in 2011 and again in 2012, through different training providers. However, certain information taught by one instructor was completely different to that taught by another. When attempting to clarify information with the second instructor, the second instructor was adamant the first instructor was incorrect. Therefore, some of the information provided by one training provider can be completely different to that provided by another!
Have you noticed that these guys are always ex-drivers? Those that can, can… Those that can’t, teach!
I have made no secret of the fact that I am against this BS but will admit that there is a need for some “steerers” today to become drivers, so a training scheme for new and inexperienced drivers, after they have passed their test to get them up to pace, I wouldn’t have a problem with (admittedly a minority of guys with a few years under their belts would never be drivers as long as they had a hole in their arses but you can’t legislate for idiots) As for me, speaking as one who has done a bit, I admit it would do me personally no harm to have a refresher session periodically, on the intricate, bordering on pedantic, tacho regs, what I don’t need is 30 odd hours lessons sitting next to a new driver in a classroom learning things like how to get out of my motor for example. The fact that there is no grandfather right clause in this proves the fact that it is just another stealth tax/revenue raising scam. As for the trainers on here… fair play to you, you have seen an opportunity grasped it and are making a living out of it, but the less gullible of us on here are unlikely to be turned around by opinions on the DCPC that are based on a vested interest, although judging by a few comments on here by some 
a few have swallowed the official propaganda hook,line, sinker… and the bloody fishing rod. 
The response by the trainers to my point made 24hrs ago about not believing any thing they say to praise the DCPC, due to their vested interest is conspicuous by it’s absence 
, I was expecting them trying to convince us that they done it purely to make the transport industry more professional, and the fact they could make a relatively easy and comfortable living out of it was purely a secondary benefit rather than the sole reason for backing it, but being the weekend they will be boring the arses off some poor sods who are subsidising them for the privelege
Yeh, ok, I’m on a wind up 
, fair enough I’m trolling 
, but I’m bored waiting for the football to start 
Scrap The EU Competence Certificate Law NOW ! facebook.com/scrapdrivercpc?ref=hl
nov:
Scrap The EU Competence Certificate Law NOW ! facebook.com/scrapdrivercpc?ref=hl
Oh ffs. Are we still on with this crap, you are about 4 years 6 months too late chap.
Good luck with only 11 “likes”
The Dcpc is not about what you KNOW
but what you have FORGOTTON
hitch:
The Dcpc is not about what you KNOW
but what you have FORGOTTON
You are correct. But unfortunately after sitting in front of someone reminding me for 7 hours an every single twist and turn to WTD and driving hours, a lot of it is straight out of head again as much of it does not and will never apply to me.
I think they should have had a single day module with many parts, that everyone takes once a year. Bit of driving hours, bit of load restraint, bit of first aid, bit of checking over vehicle / trailer and defects; in other words something for everyone. The variation throughout the day would keep it more interesting and IMHO it would better address the original concept of periodic training. I would not object to that at all as I know I would learn something each time.
Heard a driver say yesterday that his dcpc is being taught by a polish bloke. True or not I dont know
Why should it not be taught by a Pole or any other nationality?As it stands the DCPC is seriously flawed.I know of a bus driver who has done a module on tachos 3 times ,as he works on a service route he does not need to use the tacho.Now if he does 2 on load restraint he will be sorted for 5 years.