I hold D and D1 , both with 101 restriction. I got these way back when I was used for driving my Son’s youth football team around.
I am told that means that I can only drive buses provided that it is not for payment or reward.
The agency sent me to a job which turned out to be driving a 16-seater for the council carrying handicapped folk.
As I was being paid, I queried it with the agency.
They said that as long as i was not collecting fares, I was OK to drive. Were they right?
Its a hire and reward vehicle so taxi, coach, fare charging minibus etc. Its not if you’re getting paid for it, its if the passengers are paying to use the transportation service of the vehicle. With the job you were on the council do it as part of social services so the passengers aren’t paying.
Theres a huge thread about this from 2014 but it seems to get a little more logical from the point linked below. Seems tp depends in number of seats and whether the vehicle owner is being paid for the journey.
I was always told it was ok unless you were taking cash but it seems more complex than that. Not even sure that thread came to an ultimate conclusion.
To complicate it firther, the definition of 101 on the DVLA is that it is ok unless for profit…but whos profit.
Euro:
I hold D and D1 , both with 101 restriction. I got these way back when I was used for driving my Son’s youth football team around.
I am told that means that I can only drive buses provided that it is not for payment or reward.
The agency sent me to a job which turned out to be driving a 16-seater for the council carrying handicapped folk.
As I was being paid, I queried it with the agency.
They said that as long as i was not collecting fares, I was OK to drive. Were they right?
Is any payment received by the operator for the carriage of the passengers?
It’s not your hire or reward that is in question, but the purpose for which the vehicle is operated and whether that purpose is hire or reward (i.e. are you carrying paying or paid-for passengers or is the bus being hired out)?
If it is operated directly by the council as a social care facility, I think that falls outside the definition. The fact that a vehicle is operated or driven with council funding allocated to it in a lump sum, or that the driver is driving for a reward, does not make the vehicle operated for the purposes of hire or reward.
Ultimately, I would refer to the council and accept their written authority on the matter. It might come down to their accountancy and operating arrangements, and also dispensations exist for councils and charities where minibuses can be driven on car licences (so your D1 may be irrelevant anyway).
If your getting paid then it is for hire it reward regardless of whether or not passengers are physically handing you “fares”…you’ll also find your insurance will be invalid if you are involved in a accident.
xichrisxi:
If your getting paid then it is for hire it reward regardless of whether or not passengers are physically handing you “fares”…you’ll also find your insurance will be invalid if you are involved in a accident.
I’m sorry but this is not correct.
The driver can be paid and yet not be operating for hire or reward.
From what the OP has posted he is fine. The passengers are not paying a fare - it is a service provided by the council. Not for profit.
shep532:
xichrisxi:
If your getting paid then it is for hire it reward regardless of whether or not passengers are physically handing you “fares”…you’ll also find your insurance will be invalid if you are involved in a accident.I’m sorry but this is not correct.
The driver can be paid and yet not be operating for hire or reward.
From what the OP has posted he is fine. The passengers are not paying a fare - it is a service provided by the council. Not for profit.
If they agency have sent him to work,then the council will be paying the agency for him to drive the minibus…they have hired him to drive the minibus.
Having done a bit more research into this, there appears to be a bit of a minefield of information and essentially it’s a “up to the courts to decide” in some cases - really really helpful legislation.
This PDF gives quite a bit of advice: gov.uk/government/uploads/s … _Guide.pdf
I’ve picked out a few bits which might of use:
You will need a PSV operator’s licence if your vehicle is designed or adapted to carry nine or more passengers and payment is taken for carrying passengers (this is called ‘hire or reward’) … There is an exception for not-for-profit organisations who provide transport. These organisations may be eligible for a section 19 or section 22 permit.
Definition of hire & reward according to that document:
Hire or reward is any payment in cash or kind which gives a person the right to be carried, regardless of whether or not that right is exercised. It is also regardless of whether or not a profit is made. The payment may be made to the operator, the driver or any agent or representative acting on behalf of the operator.
It then refers to something called “PSV 385 Passenger transport provided under Section 19 or Section 22 permits” which apparently let the operator (not you!) get out of the driver needing a PSV / D1 licence and thus out of the whole PSV DCPC, operators licence etc. I also saw something in there about cash not actually needing to be paid for it to be hire & reward, but have lost that bit.
So maybe the best people for the agency to ask would be the people who are ultimately owning these minibuses since they need to have the permits to get you out of needing an unrestricted D1 licence. If it’s a council then they would effectively issue it to themselves it seems.
Another government dept [fb] up!
xichrisxi:
If your getting paid then it is for hire it reward regardless of whether or not passengers are physically handing you “fares”…you’ll also find your insurance will be invalid if you are involved in a accident.
The council may well self-insure and their insurance will therefore not be invalid under any circumstances.
xichrisxi:
If they agency have sent him to work,then the council will be paying the agency for him to drive the minibus…they have hired him to drive the minibus.
But that is not the relevant test. The test is whether the vehicle which the driver drives is being operated for hire or reward, not whether the driver drives for hire or reward.
Where the driver is not the same entity as the operator, then the driver’s motivation is completely irrelevant.
The driver may be well-paid, but if the operator’s purpose is say fire cover (or transporting firemen to a training site), then that vehicle is not operated for hire or reward. A personal chauffer is another example where clearly the driver is rewarded by his employer, but the vehicle operator’s purpose is private or social use.
Conversely, the driver could be a volunteer or hobbyist, and the whole operation may lose money, but if passengers pay the operator (even if only to defray costs) then it is for hire or reward - rides on vintage road vehicles could be a good example (I actually have steam trains in mind for inspiration - I’m damned if I can think of an actual example of a vintage minibus ride).
There are very good reasons why operators who (broadly speaking) have a commercial interest in relation to the carriage of passengers are held to much stricter standards (including in relation to the licencing of their drivers) than operators who do not have a commercial interest in passenger carriage.
This is not about operator licensing (which by the way is distinctly different for PSV and HGV) or tachograph or drivers hours rules or even DCPC - the original question is about the drivers licence.
From what the OP has described and from my experience of working with quite a few PSV operators carrying out community services he is not driving for hire and reward in terms of the D1 101 restricted licence because the work he is doing is under under section 19 granted by a TC.
It would be different if the driver only held a B category gained after 1997. These drivers can drive a 16 seater on a voluntary basis but cannot be paid.
OP - are you sure your D has 101? I have never seen this. Doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist but never seen it on a licence and I’ve checked thousands of licences over the last few years.
shep532:
This is not about operator licensing (which by the way is distinctly different for PSV and HGV) or tachograph or drivers hours rules or even DCPC - the original question is about the drivers licence.From what the OP has described and from my experience of working with quite a few PSV operators carrying out community services he is not driving for hire and reward in terms of the D1 101 restricted licence because the work he is doing is under under section 19 granted by a TC.
Indeed. I’ve finally found a definitive statement on this, that the restriction code 101 refers to the purpose for which the vehicle is operated (not the driver’s motivation):
gov.uk/government/publicati … -transport
GOV.UK:
8.1 Driving entitlement requirements.
Small buses (adapted to carry 9 to 16 passengers)i) Drivers granted a full licence to drive vehicles in category B (car, not automatic) before 1st January 1997.
These drivers were automatically granted additional entitlement D1, to drive a small bus not used for hire or reward. For as long as they hold D1 entitlement, these drivers may drive a small bus of any weight used under the permit. There is no restriction on them receiving payment.
So there we have it.
shep532:
It would be different if the driver only held a B category gained after 1997. These drivers can drive a 16 seater on a voluntary basis but cannot be paid.
They law says post-1997 car drivers with B can’t be paid as minibus drivers (note: this case differs from the pre-1997 car drivers who have D1 with restriction 101), but they can drive minibuses in the course of their employment in which driving is only an incidental aspect.
Teachers or group leaders, for example, count as “voluntary drivers” - or to quote from the gov.uk page again “they receive no payment or other consideration for driving other than out-of-pocket expenses”.
OP - are you sure your D has 101? I have never seen this. Doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist but never seen it on a licence and I’ve checked thousands of licences over the last few years.
It’s a recognised restriction.
Yes 101 is a recognised restriction but I can’t think how you get it with a D licence
Get a D1 free with a pre 1997 car licence and it is restricted by 101 - that makes sense. Take a test in a D1 and 101 is removed.
To get a D you must take a test in a D vehicle - that would be no 101 restriction. I can’t see there being a D test that is different and comes with a 101 restriction.
All I can think of is that years ago some were (I think) granted a D because they got ‘Class 1’ HGV. Perhaps that had a 101 restriction? I may be wrong.
I’ve checked about 6000 driving licences doing DCPC courses and never seen D with a 101. Always D1 with a 101. I’m just thinking if the OP has a D that may not have a 101 and so the question is null and void anyway 
shep532:
Yes 101 is a recognised restriction but I can’t think how you get it with a D licence
Ah I see what you mean. Looking into the issue it’s called a “restricted vocational licence”, possibly acquired pre-1991 with grandfather rights.
Get a D1 free with a pre 1997 car licence and it is restricted by 101 - that makes sense. Take a test in a D1 and 101 is removed.
To get a D you must take a test in a D vehicle - that would be no 101 restriction. I can’t see there being a D test that is different and comes with a 101 restriction.
All I can think of is that years ago some were (I think) granted a D because they got ‘Class 1’ HGV. Perhaps that had a 101 restriction? I may be wrong.
I’ve checked about 6000 driving licences doing DCPC courses and never seen D with a 101. Always D1 with a 101. I’m just thinking if the OP has a D that may not have a 101 and so the question is null and void anyway
Indeed, I missed the point where he said he had a restricted D. I can only imagine he was once in some sort of role where he received full training to drive buses or coaches, but hasn’t served paying passengers - perhaps an inspector, or a mechanic, or something. The traffic commissioner once had the power to grant PSV licences without requiring a test to be taken and under restrictions, but I’m not sure what those were. I don’t know what the transitional arrangements were when tests became compulsory. Be interesting to hear from the OP how it came about.
I did a DCPC module where most of the other candidates were “older” and working for a private school.They had beentoldthat they had to have the DCPC to continue driving the school mini buses.The vehicles are only used for carrying staff and the sports teams.The sports players used to pay a small amount when going to anaway game ,the school was advised to drop the charge to stay legal.