I had an interesting E-mail from the DfT/DSA who said “Consult a legal expert in transport law” when I presented them with the 3 senarios below as they could not give a definitve answer to number 3.
Question - Are any of these exempt from the PERIODIC DRIVER CPC?
Senario 1
A driver is employed just to take empty trailers directly to the nearest VOSA MOT testing station for the purpose of getting the annual MOT for the trailer
NOT EXEMPT
Senario 2
A mechanic (who holds the relevant licence for the vehicle) only drives LGVs when road testing them.
EXEMPT
Senario 3
A mechanic (who holds the relevant licence for the vehicle) not only drives LGVs when road testing them but drives them directly to the nearest VOSA MOT testing station for the purpose of getting the annual MOT for the truck.
UNKNOWN
Since receiving that e-mail reply, I have spoken to VOSA on the issue of senario 3.
VOSA said that it will probably take a court case to determine the definitive one way or the other as they could not make a definitve ruling on the interpretation of the regulations (see below)
2007 No. 605 ROAD TRAFFIC The Vehicle Drivers (Certificates of Professional Competence) Regulations 2007 (c) which is undergoing road tests for technical development, repair or maintenance purposes, or that is a new or rebuilt vehicle which has not yet been put into service; (g) which is carrying material or equipment to be used by that person in the course of his work, provided that driving that vehicle is not his principal activity.
My reading of (g) suggests that if the mechanic takes a vehicle to a GVTS for M.O.T testing, then all he needs to do is put a small box of tools and spare light-bulbs on board the vehicle for his own use.
Of course, these tools are for making small (still allowed by GVTS manager’s discretion?) adjustments whilst the vehicle undergoes the M.O.T. test.
It seems to fit, and as a bonus, driving isn’t the mechanic’s main activity.
garnerlives:
So technically it is going to be some poor sod who posible gets fined/points on license if they decide it is wrong, that really is [zb] disgusting
As the CPC has nothing to do with the licence then if there was a court case, a fine would be the only outcome - no points
It will probably end up with enforcement officers not wishing to go down this route and saying ‘on yer way’
dieseldave:
My reading of (g) suggests that if the mechanic takes a vehicle to a GVTS for M.O.T testing, then all he needs to do is put a small box of tools and spare light-bulbs on board the vehicle for his own use.
Of course, these tools are for making small (still allowed by GVTS manager’s discretion?) adjustments whilst the vehicle undergoes the M.O.T. test.
It seems to fit, and as a bonus, driving isn’t the mechanic’s main activity.
That person I spoke to said as much but it still does not exactly fit the regs, especially if the mechanic does this a few times during the day - their headache until a case is brought.
dieseldave:
My reading of (g) suggests that if the mechanic takes a vehicle to a GVTS for M.O.T testing, then all he needs to do is put a small box of tools and spare light-bulbs on board the vehicle for his own use.
Of course, these tools are for making small (still allowed by GVTS manager’s discretion?) adjustments whilst the vehicle undergoes the M.O.T. test.
It seems to fit, and as a bonus, driving isn’t the mechanic’s main activity.
That person I spoke to said as much but it still does not exactly fit the regs, especially if the mechanic does this a few times during the day - their headache until a case is brought.
Surely, if it’s OK to do as I suggested, then all the mechanic would need to do is to swop the tools and bulbs to the next truck to be tested??
It would also be a very easy matter for the boss to rotate the duties such that each mechanic goes to the GVTC once per day. (Although I can’t see mention of either frequency or periodicity in the Regs. )
I’m also not sure that this subject needs to be delved into in as much depth at this stage either, because it seems to me that this question isn’t likely to be raised until sometime in 2013 at the earliest… I’d imagine that, by then, there’ll be some clarity emerging from ‘custom and practice.’
Informed by SFL (didn’t really credit them)the DSA (who asked the DfT) and VOSA that Exemption (g) is for a driver who goes to the job at the start of the day, does an all day job on site, then drives it back at the end of the day - such as a builder - the example given by all three!!
gogzy:
this cpc milarky is a load of {zb} nonsense.
Of course it is but it’s something that all LGV drivers are going to have to live with for years to come if they want to keep driving and get paid for it.
5 months til it starts then 5 years to get the 35 hours in for all those that already have a C1 C or CE licence on Sept 10 this year.
bubsy06:
arnt they gonna run out of stuff to teach people every 5 years?
A driver can do the SAME 7 hour course 5 times and qualify
A lot will not be taught anything as they probably know most it already but they MUST ATTEND to get the hours in - CRAZY aint it
OK, in fairness, some newer drivers may learn a lot and some older ones may benefit from a refrsher in the regulations on drivers hours etc but generally, I think most will end up bored for the most part.
This industry needs proper hands on training done by those that have been there and done it for the most part - the exception might be the regulations.
Had this been left up to the UK then we MIGHT have got what we needed but this is the work of the EU - need I say more…
thing is once they have done the training for the first 5 years, they can just do the same training for the next 5 which defeats the whole purpose of the course
So if you do a 7 hour course about securing a load, in 5 years you will do exactly the same course again and then again in another 5 years and so on?
so you are learning nothing new after your first 35 hours training, just the same stuff repeated every 5 years?
What is the point in that?
bubsy06:
So if you do a 7 hour course about securing a load, in 5 years you will do exactly the same course again and then again in another 5 years and so on?
so you are learning nothing new after your first 35 hours training, just the same stuff repeated every 5 years?
What is the point in that?
exactly
whoever thought this up really needs thier head screwed on proper instead of seeing the big bonuss coming his way for making (the uk haulage industry safer) ok in the short run it might help newbies and such but thats it.
bubsy06:
So if you do a 7 hour course about securing a load, in 5 years you will do exactly the same course again and then again in another 5 years and so on?
so you are learning nothing new after your first 35 hours training, just the same stuff repeated every 5 years?
What is the point in that?
exactly
whoever thought this up really needs thier head screwed on proper instead of seeing the big bonuss coming his way for making (the uk haulage industry safer) ok in the short run it might help newbies and such but thats it.
once you have learnt it you are not gonna forget it, you will be using everything you learnt every day you work. First 35 hours are fine as you might learn something but the rest is pointless. Giving your money away for nothing, there has to be something illegal about this surely?
bubsy06:
So if you do a 7 hour course about securing a load, in 5 years you will do exactly the same course again and then again in another 5 years and so on?
so you are learning nothing new after your first 35 hours training, just the same stuff repeated every 5 years?
What is the point in that?
exactly
whoever thought this up really needs thier head screwed on proper instead of seeing the big bonuss coming his way for making (the uk haulage industry safer) ok in the short run it might help newbies and such but thats it.
once you have learnt it you are not gonna forget it, you will be using everything you learnt every day you work. First 35 hours are fine as you might learn something but the rest is pointless. Giving your money away for nothing, there has to be something illegal about this surely?
yea mayby have to get it then have to redo it every ten years would be better. but the fact theres no test is just pathetic. wasting our money to line our folks pockets for what? something to say that we can do the job we already are doing?
gogzy:
thing is once they have done the training for the first 5 years, they can just do the same training for the next 5 which defeats the whole purpose of the course
Not necessarily - there are now so many courses covering different areas that it would be quite easy to do a different 7 hour course for the next say, 15 courses which would cover 15 years.
but as I said before - you CAN do the same 7 hour course EVERY time if you want to…
gogzy:
i know rog but that defeats the whole purpose because you wont learn anything
and the point of this cpc is to teach you yea?
bit silly if you can do the same 5 courses every time
Badly thought out idea
Badly thought out rules
Restrictions on the type of courses that can be offered
Real on-the-job Assessments on their own are not allowed - IE, assessor watches you and ticks boxes to say that you CAN do this or that and have set hours accreditted for that.
could i be wrong here,but part of the maintenance an lgv vehicle recieves should include an annual roadworthiness test as per current guidelines,therefore,is taking that vehicle for its required annual check,not part of the maintenance procedure?.
buck73:
could i be wrong here,but part of the maintenance an lgv vehicle recieves should include an annual roadworthiness test as per current guidelines,therefore,is taking that vehicle for its required annual check,not part of the maintenance procedure?.
It would also be a very easy matter for the boss to rotate the duties such that each mechanic goes to the GVTC once per day. (Although I can’t see mention of either frequency or periodicity in the Regs. 
)
