…
Oh yes…if you mean the European commission…yes that’s where you’ll find them.
Own Account Driver:
GasGas:
You don’t have to take your own vehicle for test. It’s likely that many vehicles are taken for test by third-party workshops, who have prepared said vehicle for test. And I’m sure VOSA will be delighted to create an extra income stream for companies operating ATFs, who will no doubt jump at the chance to charge extra for collect and return as well as the pit fee!There are times when I seriously wonder about the economics of all this: a 44-tonne truck pays (in fuel duty, road tax driver’s income tax and NI) about £60,000 a year to the Government, and makes about £2 k profit when all costs are paid.
Even they wouldn’t suggest something as daft as a tree surgeon can drive his 7.5t, that he does his own maintenance on, but must pay someone specially trained to drive it to MOT once a year.
I would also consider the RHA a silly DCPC vested interest, you would need to see exactly how the question to the DFT was framed before you could draw any conclusions. I suspect some of this with mechanics maybe to quell dissent from drivers in firms that fitters drive the lorries but aren’t having to do it.
As it stands either mechanics/fitters don’t actually need it, unless they spend the majority of their time driving, and they’re talking ■■■■■■■■ or everyone will have to get someone with a DQC to undertake the dangerous task of driving to an ATF. I very much doubt it’s going to be the latter.
Hi
I have just come across this post and had a quick read through. A number of our customers have always felt that they do not need Driver CPC for fitters to take vehicles to test. Unfortunately, this week there has been some guidance published
gov.uk/government/uploads/s … idance.pdf
See page 3, the example for Driver C
“Driver C is employed as a mechanic by a road haulage operator or by a repair centre. As part of his responsibilities, he takes vehicles that he has prepared, which included a road test, to the local testing station. When driving the vehicles to the test station he is not road testing them, so he needs to hold a CPC.”
This guidance is meant to clear up all the grey areas.
Antony
TotalDriving:
this week there has been some guidance publishedgov.uk/government/uploads/s … idance.pdf See page 3, the example for Driver C
“Driver C is employed as a mechanic by a road haulage operator or by a repair centre. As part of his responsibilities, he takes vehicles that he has prepared, which included a road test, to the local testing station. When driving the vehicles to the test station he is not road testing them, so he needs to hold a CPC.”
This guidance is meant to clear up all the grey areas.
What a brilliant find … thanks 
Just as reported, way back when
GasGas:
Just as reported, way back when
Ahem, I draw your attention to paragraph 3:
To help drivers decide whether or not they come within scope of any of the specific exemptions, we have described below a number of scenarios and given our opinion as to whether (in each case) we believe the driver requires a CPC. Whether or not a particular driver’s activity falls within the scope of an exemption will be a matter of fact in each case. The examples below set out our views and carry no legal weight.
Ultimately, the interpretation of the exemptions will be a matter for the courts to determine.
TotalDriving:
Own Account Driver:
GasGas:
You don’t have to take your own vehicle for test. It’s likely that many vehicles are taken for test by third-party workshops, who have prepared said vehicle for test. And I’m sure VOSA will be delighted to create an extra income stream for companies operating ATFs, who will no doubt jump at the chance to charge extra for collect and return as well as the pit fee!There are times when I seriously wonder about the economics of all this: a 44-tonne truck pays (in fuel duty, road tax driver’s income tax and NI) about £60,000 a year to the Government, and makes about £2 k profit when all costs are paid.
Even they wouldn’t suggest something as daft as a tree surgeon can drive his 7.5t, that he does his own maintenance on, but must pay someone specially trained to drive it to MOT once a year.
I would also consider the RHA a silly DCPC vested interest, you would need to see exactly how the question to the DFT was framed before you could draw any conclusions. I suspect some of this with mechanics maybe to quell dissent from drivers in firms that fitters drive the lorries but aren’t having to do it.
As it stands either mechanics/fitters don’t actually need it, unless they spend the majority of their time driving, and they’re talking ■■■■■■■■ or everyone will have to get someone with a DQC to undertake the dangerous task of driving to an ATF. I very much doubt it’s going to be the latter.
Hi
I have just come across this post and had a quick read through. A number of our customers have always felt that they do not need Driver CPC for fitters to take vehicles to test. Unfortunately, this week there has been some guidance published
gov.uk/government/uploads/s … idance.pdf
See page 3, the example for Driver C
“Driver C is employed as a mechanic by a road haulage operator or by a repair centre. As part of his responsibilities, he takes vehicles that he has prepared, which included a road test, to the local testing station. When driving the vehicles to the test station he is not road testing them, so he needs to hold a CPC.”
This guidance is meant to clear up all the grey areas.
Antony
I’m assuming you’re some sort of vested interest DCPC industry parasite. Unsurprisingly the DFT have produced something trying to intimate very few people are exempt from DCPC. However, DCPC training companies will need to be very careful when advising customers and clients that they need DCPC if it subsequently proves they did not. You could leave yourself open to mis-selling claims and in that event the DFT would retreat behind the ‘only guidance’ claim whilst the training co’s will be left to reimburse the training fees and compensate for loss of earnings and costs.
Personally, unless the answer to the question ‘what’s your occupation?’ is professional driver I would be very reluctant to be making unequivocal statements to people that they require DCPC.
ROG:
The dcpc and the licence are two entirely seperate issuesIf you have others telling you different then ask them what happens to a LGV driver who not only drives for a living but also drives a private horsebox where no dcpc is required … that will get them thinking
well thats my food for thought 
Own Account Driver:
I’m assuming you’re some sort of vested interest DCPC industry parasite. Unsurprisingly the DFT have produced something trying to intimate very few people are exempt from DCPC. However, DCPC training companies will need to be very careful when advising customers and clients that they need DCPC if it subsequently proves they did not. You could leave yourself open to mis-selling claims and in that event the DFT would retreat behind the ‘only guidance’ claim whilst the training co’s will be left to reimburse the training fees and compensate for loss of earnings and costs.Personally, unless the answer to the question ‘what’s your occupation?’ is professional driver I would be very reluctant to be making unequivocal statements to people that they require DCPC.
Hmmmm, I’m not too sure I appreciate the insinuation of being a parasite. I like to think more along the lines of being part of a reputable driver training company who deliver both Driver CPC Initial Qualification and Periodic Training and has passed on a newly released publication.
Driver CPC is the responsibility of each individual, so ultimately is their choice as to whether they are going to do it - regardless as to what information, guidelines or straight forward direction they are presented with.
Antony
Own Account Driver:
GasGas:
Just as reported, way back whenAhem, I draw your attention to paragraph 3:
To help drivers decide whether or not they come within scope of any of the specific exemptions, we have described below a number of scenarios and given our opinion as to whether (in each case) we believe the driver requires a CPC. Whether or not a particular driver’s activity falls within the scope of an exemption will be a matter of fact in each case. The examples below set out our views and carry no legal weight.
Ultimately, the interpretation of the exemptions will be a matter for the courts to determine.
The original truckingtopics story quotes VOSA’s opinion, but as VOSA is the enforcement agency, it’s an opinion that only an idiot would ignore. There is no case law yet…but unless you’ve got a couple of £k to put on the table, no lawyer would be interested in taking the case far enough to establish what the case law might be. VOSA will no doubt be asking drivers for their cards when they present trucks for testing. And for £2k you could get DCPC qualified and have a holiday with the change. So unless you could get a union (or maybe the RHA) to back you, challenging VOSA’s interpretation of this one doesn’t add up.
GasGas:
Own Account Driver:
GasGas:
Just as reported, way back whenAhem, I draw your attention to paragraph 3:
To help drivers decide whether or not they come within scope of any of the specific exemptions, we have described below a number of scenarios and given our opinion as to whether (in each case) we believe the driver requires a CPC. Whether or not a particular driver’s activity falls within the scope of an exemption will be a matter of fact in each case. The examples below set out our views and carry no legal weight.
Ultimately, the interpretation of the exemptions will be a matter for the courts to determine.The original truckingtopics story quotes VOSA’s opinion, but as VOSA is the enforcement agency, it’s an opinion that only an idiot would ignore. There is no case law yet…but unless you’ve got a couple of £k to put on the table, no lawyer would be interested in taking the case far enough to establish what the case law might be. VOSA will no doubt be asking drivers for their cards when they present trucks for testing. And for £2k you could get DCPC qualified and have a holiday with the change. So unless you could get a union (or maybe the RHA) to back you, challenging VOSA’s interpretation of this one doesn’t add up.
I repeat, as they themselves admit, their opinion carries no legal weight. The idiots are anyone listening to these DCPC industry puff pieces or these absurd examples. My favourite being the ‘farmer taking animals to market once a month’. Say the market is a 15 minute drive they’re effectively saying the farmer should spend more hours in classroom training per year than he is actually spending driving the lorry, that’s not going to fly in any court and the most cynical thing is they know it.
The onus would be for them to get a court to agree the DCPC exemption doesn’t apply to you not vice-versa it is not like challenging the authorities implementation of tax law. Realistically the most likely outcome would simply be that you have to get the staff trained and possibly a fine of up to £1000 as the operator (that in itself is interesting as commercial vehicle garages aren’t operators per se so in fact a fine may not be applicable at all, the operator of the vehicle, being driven to test, could in no way be held liable for a third party carry out maintenance not having a DQC so wouldn’t apply to them either). It would not be a legal case where you were deliberately pursuing an unreasonable intepretation which would be a strong mitigating factor in court. For any operation large enough to have their own workshop the cost involved are trivial in comparison to the commitment to needless training.
The best legal advice, paid for that is and not dribble from the DFT or VOSA specially designed for the credulous and to keep the DCPC trainer cretins in business, is wait and see.
As the employer, the workshop would be done for ‘causing or permitting the offence’. If you knew as much about the law as you think you do,then you would know that. I think we can take the rest of your opinion with a healthy pinch of sodium chloride, but thanks for your contribution!
GasGas:
As the employer, the workshop would be done for ‘causing or permitting the offence’. If you knew as much about the law as you think you do,then you would know that. I think we can take the rest of your opinion with a healthy pinch of sodium chloride, but thanks for your contribution!
What law are you saying the workshop would be breaking and of what significance would the ramifications be to them?
Own Account Driver:
GasGas:
As the employer, the workshop would be done for ‘causing or permitting the offence’. If you knew as much about the law as you think you do,then you would know that. I think we can take the rest of your opinion with a healthy pinch of sodium chloride, but thanks for your contribution!What law are you saying the workshop would be breaking and of what significance would the ramifications be to them?
Any employer who allows a driver to drive when they do not have the correct legal dcpc requirements is open to a fine of up to £1000
That is written in law
Own Account Driver:
GasGas:
As the employer, the workshop would be done for ‘causing or permitting the offence’. If you knew as much about the law as you think you do,then you would know that. I think we can take the rest of your opinion with a healthy pinch of sodium chloride, but thanks for your contribution!What law are you saying the workshop would be breaking and of what significance would the ramifications be to them?
It’s the same as when an employer allows any other illegal driving…like no licence, defective tyres etc. The driver is prosecuted, and so is his employer, which can be either a person or a company, for ‘causing or permitting’ the offence. The employer is liable to exactly the same penalties as the driver. Many employers don’t realise this until the summons drops through the letter box.It’s pretty much the same as ‘aiding and abetting’ in criminal law.
I once had dealings with a sole trader operator of tipper trucks, who was horrified that he got penalty points on his licence when an employee was caught driving a truck with defective tyres…rather a lot of defective tyres.
“they can’t do this to me,” he said.
“they just have,” I replied.
I think some folk still haven’t realised, unless you have a driver CPC you will be breaking the law when you drive a truck or bus…unless you specifically fall into one of the exemptions.
That you have a poor opinion of the training on offer won’t be much of a defence in court.
I have no ulterior motive for saying this, because I’m not involved in DCPC training. There’s just a tide of misinformation originating from people who don’t think that it applies to them, or that the law won’t be applied at all, and this risks misleading other people. The DCPC thing has been going on for the best part of five years, and it is going to happen. I’d strongly advise anyone who hasn’t started training to do so now, or actively seek another career.
ROG:
Own Account Driver:
GasGas:
As the employer, the workshop would be done for ‘causing or permitting the offence’. If you knew as much about the law as you think you do,then you would know that. I think we can take the rest of your opinion with a healthy pinch of sodium chloride, but thanks for your contribution!What law are you saying the workshop would be breaking and of what significance would the ramifications be to them?
Any employer who allows a driver to drive when they do not have the correct legal dcpc requirements is open to a fine of up to £1000
That is written in law
Eariler in the thread you said this:
£30 FPN for not carrying a DQC but up to £1000 for driver and operator if not done the required training
GasGas:
Own Account Driver:
GasGas:
As the employer, the workshop would be done for ‘causing or permitting the offence’. If you knew as much about the law as you think you do,then you would know that. I think we can take the rest of your opinion with a healthy pinch of sodium chloride, but thanks for your contribution!What law are you saying the workshop would be breaking and of what significance would the ramifications be to them?
It’s the same as when an employer allows any other illegal driving…like no licence, defective tyres etc. The driver is prosecuted, and so is his employer, which can be either a person or a company, for ‘causing or permitting’ the offence. The employer is liable to exactly the same penalties as the driver. Many employers don’t realise this until the summons drops through the letter box.It’s pretty much the same as ‘aiding and abetting’ in criminal law.
I once had dealings with a sole trader operator of tipper trucks, who was horrified that he got penalty points on his licence when an employee was caught driving a truck with defective tyres…rather a lot of defective tyres.
“they can’t do this to me,” he said.
“they just have,” I replied.
I think some folk still haven’t realised, unless you have a driver CPC you will be breaking the law when you drive a truck or bus…unless you specifically fall into one of the exemptions.
That you have a poor opinion of the training on offer won’t be much of a defence in court.I have no ulterior motive for saying this, because I’m not involved in DCPC training. There’s just a tide of misinformation originating from people who don’t think that it applies to them, or that the law won’t be applied at all, and this risks misleading other people. The DCPC thing has been going on for the best part of five years, and it is going to happen. I’d strongly advise anyone who hasn’t started training to do so now, or actively seek another career.
I’m not sure why you’re going off at this tangent instead of answering the question. Not having a licence and bald tyres are a different thing altogether to DCPC and I’m not sure who’s said the poor quality of the training could be used as a legal argument.
No-one’s said professional drivers won’t be required to have DCPC and it isn’t sensible to get it clearly none of the exemptions apply to them. Those that are intending to continue without doing DCPC because they’re gambling it will eventually be abandoned or the odds of being caught and fined are low is their own personal choice.
And your point is…?
Just for clarity
Do the training, but don’t produce the card = £30 fixed penalty
Don’t do the training and drive a truck (unless within one of the stated exemptions) = visit to magistrates court and fine of up to £1000 for the driver
Visit to magistrates court and fine of up to £1000 for the driver’s employer.
Both the driver and employer (if the employer has an o licence) are than obliged to inform the traffic commissioner.
The TCs have said that they will suspend the driver’s vocational licence (ie PCV and LGV) until the training is done and the DCPC is obtained.
The operator will have his O licence suspended until he can provide evidence that all his drivers hold DCPC cards.
The reality is that this will force many offenders out of business.
Those employers who don’t hold O licences will just face the fine, so the consequences for them are less serious.
GasGas:
And your point is…?Just for clarity
Do the training, but don’t produce the card = £30 fixed penalty
Don’t do the training and drive a truck (unless within one of the stated exemptions) = visit to magistrates court and fine of up to £1000 for the driver
Visit to magistrates court and fine of up to £1000 for the driver’s employer.
Both the driver and employer (if the employer has an o licence) are than obliged to inform the traffic commissioner.
The TCs have said that they will suspend the driver’s vocational licence (ie PCV and LGV) until the training is done and the DCPC is obtained.
The operator will have his O licence suspended until he can provide evidence that all his drivers hold DCPC cards.
The reality is that this will force many offenders out of business.
Those employers who don’t hold O licences will just face the fine, so the consequences for them are less serious.
So you’re admitting little or no consequences for anyone there’s a strong argument the exemptions apply to.
Own Account Driver:
GasGas:
Own Account Driver:
GasGas:
As the employer, the workshop would be done for ‘causing or permitting the offence’. If you knew as much about the law as you think you do,then you would know that. I think we can take the rest of your opinion with a healthy pinch of sodium chloride, but thanks for your contribution!What law are you saying the workshop would be breaking and of what significance would the ramifications be to them?
It’s the same as when an employer allows any other illegal driving…like no licence, defective tyres etc. The driver is prosecuted, and so is his employer, which can be either a person or a company, for ‘causing or permitting’ the offence. The employer is liable to exactly the same penalties as the driver. Many employers don’t realise this until the summons drops through the letter box.It’s pretty much the same as ‘aiding and abetting’ in criminal law.
I once had dealings with a sole trader operator of tipper trucks, who was horrified that he got penalty points on his licence when an employee was caught driving a truck with defective tyres…rather a lot of defective tyres.
“they can’t do this to me,” he said.
“they just have,” I replied.
I think some folk still haven’t realised, unless you have a driver CPC you will be breaking the law when you drive a truck or bus…unless you specifically fall into one of the exemptions.
That you have a poor opinion of the training on offer won’t be much of a defence in court.I have no ulterior motive for saying this, because I’m not involved in DCPC training. There’s just a tide of misinformation originating from people who don’t think that it applies to them, or that the law won’t be applied at all, and this risks misleading other people. The DCPC thing has been going on for the best part of five years, and it is going to happen. I’d strongly advise anyone who hasn’t started training to do so now, or actively seek another career.
I’m not sure why you’re going off at this tangent instead of answering the question. Not having a licence and bald tyres are a different thing altogether to DCPC and I’m not sure who’s said the poor quality of the training could be used as a legal argument.
No-one’s said professional drivers won’t be required to have DCPC and it isn’t sensible to get it clearly none of the exemptions apply to them. Those that are intending to continue without doing DCPC because they’re gambling it will eventually be abandoned or the odds of being caught and fined are low is their own personal choice.
Not a tangent, just an example of how ‘causing and permitting’ works in law. In fact the DCPC can be seen as an annex to a driving licence, being issued and governed by the DVLA and DSA.
Let an employee drive without doing DCPC training and you can get fined up to £1000 if you can’t prove that an exemption applies. this is explicitly outlined in the legislation. I suggest you research and read this carefully.
Other, and more potentially disastrous, consequences for hauliers in particular are outlined above.
I hope this helps.