Devils advocate - isn’t it up to the enforcing authorities to prove I DIDNT attend in the case of alleged fraudulent behaviour? Not for me to prove I did?
If they can’t prove I didn’t attend and they don’t have an admission or very very good evidence (which they might have I don’t know!) then tbh no offence has been found to have occurred.
Another case of guilty until proved innocent, totally against the principles of British law.
The problem is that whilst trying to get this resolved drivers could effectively be banned from driving a lorry and therefore unable to earn a living.
I am getting this 3rd hand (hence no names etc) from someone who may have handed over a few notes for a non existant course _ he has lost all his hours uploaded via this person and has been told as they are discredited all hours uploaded by his “trainer” are to be cancelled - all those that have had hours uploaded by him will have to show they have actually attended a course to get them reinstated- the onus is on the driver to show they did attend, if they cant they will lose every hour that this person uploaded
Rikki-UK:
I am getting this 3rd hand (hence no names etc) from someone who may have handed over a few notes for a non existant course _ he has lost all his hours uploaded via this person and has been told as they are discredited all hours uploaded by his “trainer” are to be cancelled - all those that have had hours uploaded by him will have to show they have actually attended a course to get them reinstated- the onus is on the driver to show they did attend, if they cant they will lose every hour that this person uploaded
I believe that would be illegal, not that I would be surprised to see JAUPT and Co acting illegally 
The presumption of innocence is enshrined in British law and has been for a very long time, although the principle of innocent until proven guilty has been somewhat diluted in recent years I think you’ll find that the very mention of doing away with the principle entirely is enough to have lawyers having palpitations.
Having said that, it sounds like the information has originated from a driver so perhaps not too much credence should be placed on it 
Oh the Drama!
Silver_Surfer:
Oh the Drama!
Meaning ?
tachograph:
Rikki-UK:
I am getting this 3rd hand (hence no names etc) from someone who may have handed over a few notes for a non existant course _ he has lost all his hours uploaded via this person and has been told as they are discredited all hours uploaded by his “trainer” are to be cancelled - all those that have had hours uploaded by him will have to show they have actually attended a course to get them reinstated- the onus is on the driver to show they did attend, if they cant they will lose every hour that this person uploadedI believe that would be illegal, not that I would be surprised to see JAUPT and Co acting illegally
The presumption of innocence is enshrined in British law and has been for a very long time, although the principle of innocent until proven guilty has been somewhat diluted in recent years I think you’ll find that the very mention of doing away with the principle entirely is enough to have lawyers having palpitations.
Having said that, it sounds like the information has originated from a driver so perhaps not too much credence should be placed on it
I think if you took legal action against them you would most likely win eventually if you had deep enough pockets but, most won’t have unless they can get a union behind them or something.
When I started back again and learned about the DCPC con, I looked at a couple of “brown envelope” trainers. I also found out (I think through a post on here) that if the moody trainer was found out I would have all my hours deleted - I decided it wasn’t worth the punt and I did my 35 hours pukka-like.
Is this the same provider that someone outed on here a few months ago for “allegedly” taking payments in brown envelopes in the car park If it is it isn’t surprising that this is happening 
I think its fairly widespread, i personally know at least 3 owner drivers that have paid for the hours and not attended any courses
The ‘presumption of innocence’ doesn’t apply to having your hours taken away because you are not being put on trial for a crime, yet.
The actions of this training provider would cast reasonable doubt over whether all or any of the training he uploaded had been delivered…if you had, for example, notes or handouts from his training sessions that you could produce, then that might go some way to persuade the authorities that you had attended. Likewise, if you could remember the names and any details of the other drivers who had attended the same sessions as you did.
It may be though that criminal charges could follow against folk who had paid for the training to be recorded on a non-attendence basis…just like if, for example, you decided that you didn’t want to do a driving test and paid someone to do it for you.
Do those who took part in this scam, those who paid, think they’ll get away with just having their fraudulent hours deleted, they willingly took part in a conspiracy to defraud, repercussions likely.
GasGas:
It may be though that criminal charges could follow against folk who had paid for the training to be recorded on a non-attendence basis…just like if, for example, you decided that you didn’t want to do a driving test and paid someone to do it for you.
That analogy would only be accurate if the test examiner was corrupt though.
what a shame my two posts on this thread where removed
shame as I was expecting my account to be banned or pre mod as it where
As it looks like i have cooked my goooose on this one and no one will ever help me out with a name like B&G
the maoster:
Winseer:
These same people who kick-away fifty notes at the drop of a hat - are probably the same ones who would begrudge a bet of a fraction of that - because “they don’t bet”.Placing a bet is not compulsory though, however, to continue to work you are forced to pay for this crap, so if a guy can hand over his fifty knicker whilst still working and earning for the day I say fair play to him.
The law will always be the law, but a bad law will always be a bad law!
The point I’m making here is that no one is trying to “get out of paying the £50” which would make a lot more sense for those of us scraping a crust right now. Send them into a classroom with 30 hairy arsed blokes though? - Are there really so many that would break the law by AVOIDING that clearly unpleasant aspect to the DCPC course? - Actually sitting out of driving for 5 days?
With so many getting put through it by their firms (ie the full timers) there’s no excuse for then “not attending” and hoping you’ll somehow get away with it.
For those who have to pay for it ourselves - It’s all about how bona fide it is, and how much that kosher deal is going to cost one.
Asking some trainer “Do I have to actually attend to get the JAUPT credit” or whatever is like asking “Are you bent?” 
Presumably, if any CPC holders are involved, they will also lose their repute, which could have even more serious repercussions to their livelihood, especially if they’re an owner-driver?
BTW, I thought the presumption in the UK these days was ‘guilty until proven rich’?
Gary
Perhaps what has brought all this to light is the “trainers” not paying their share of “fees” into the pot out of monies taken from drivers who could pay, but not be arsed to actually attend a course… 
tachograph:
Silver_Surfer:
Oh the Drama!Meaning ?
I’m just saying the whole shooting match is like an episode of dynasty.
I don’t know any of the circumstances with this particular case nor how this apparent fraud came to light but if … and it is an ‘if’, the authorities have proof the trainer did not deliver training on specific dates, or perhaps the trainer owned up then surely all drivers with training recorded against their driver number for those specific dates are now liable to legal proceedings?
If the above is the case they don’t need to prove anything against the individual drivers. If there is evidence the trainer didn’t do it, and there’s no other trainer etc then I think it’s clear it was a cheat. I suppose it all depends on the evidence against the trainer.
As an approved centre they would need to have a certain amount of paperwork to support the course, booking in forms with signatures etc. These have to be retained for 6 years so should still be available. If there are signed forms but proof the trainer didn’t deliver - that’s those drivers dropped in it.
I have been offered a brown envelope quite a few times. Best I was offered was £600 for non-attendance. I have had some turn up, offer money to be able to go away and come back at finish time. All of these activities are fine but the problem is they can’t be kept secret unless you know and trust all parties involved and the more involved the more chance it’ll be leaked.
There is always a driver on a course tells a tale about his mate who went to ‘so and so’ and didn’t have to stay all day or didn’t attend etc and some have given me names of trainers etc. The last one was that busy bragging to his mates in the rest area I overheard the town name, the trainers first name and the date they went in and signed the forms for all five courses. it wouldn’t take much to work it from there as to who/where it was.
Any trainer gets themselves involved in this is clearly not thinking it through. Obviously it may result in legal action against the drivers as well.
Legally very messy. I would suspect sweeping under the carpet and a lot of cases will have a blind-eye turned to.
Not sure what the crime would be for drivers as trainers aren’t public officials so a bribe prosecution would be much harder. Don’t really understand why if any allegations/reports were investigated why either drivers and trainers involved would not just say no comment, unless they’re thick, as they would just incriminate themselves but, it remains very unclear exactly what the crime is.
Given th very poor implementation, I suspect, the crime is nothing at all, beyond acting in bad faith, they may scratch around a try to find a law to fit but it would become messy if they were legally challenged.
They do not, in most cases, even have the old favourite to fall back on of repute if none of the parties involved are real CPC holders.
If they had thought it through to start with, which is obvious to anyone that they didn’t, they should have demanded a £5000 bond from training companies held on deposit that would be forfeited if any misdemeanours came to light which would probably have been a sufficient deterrent. It would have also required would be trainers to be better financed which would have kept a lot more of the spivs and chancers out.