Doesn’t surprise me to hear this sort of stuff has been going on. The rush from drivers to get their blue card was always going to be a tempting opportunity for the cowboys to make some easy cash.
It’ll be interesting to see how things develop after September… whether employers across the board will start taking it seriously as a means of ongoing driver training, or the drivers will just be left to attend dull Powerpoints in hotel conference rooms once a year forever.
Juddian:
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.
fingers crossed 
steering wheel attendants 
Own Account Driver:
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.
.
Very much this^^^^^^^. Excellent post that highlights a potential legal minefield. Juddian mentioned conspiracy to defraud, which begs the question “to defraud who/whom?”. Nah, that one has no legs, maybe a new law will need to be enshrined in the statute books but I won’t hold my breath on that.
obtaining a qualification by deception is an offence, there was a program a while ago about a women that became a teacher by claiming she had degree’s, they were all fake she paid for them on line, if I remember she got 18 months inside.
whether this would apply so the drivers cpc I don’t know but they might try to use that law 
The qualifications aren’t fake though. The buck really stops with the training provider doing the uploading.
Also just because the focus has been on private training companies it doesn’t mean that at JAUPT approved employers the guy doing the training might not say something like ‘let’s not bother with the afternoon lads, don’t worry I’II still upload the hours’ and there’s just as much commercial incentive for them to be doing it if they’re desperately short of drivers with a DQC, for example.
The only way it could have been avoided really was if they ensured those responsible for delivering the training were sensible, qualified people that took their personal reputation seriously. I would also have barred anyone with any connection to an employment agency being approved. If they’re happy to run dodgy tax schemes they sure as hell aren’t going to be bothered about handing out dodgy DCPCs.
rob22888:
Doesn’t surprise me to hear this sort of stuff has been going on. The rush from drivers to get their blue card was always going to be a tempting opportunity for the cowboys to make some easy cash.It’ll be interesting to see how things develop after September… whether employers across the board will start taking it seriously as a means of ongoing driver training, or the drivers will just be left to attend dull Powerpoints in hotel conference rooms once a year forever.
I suspect in its current format it will just go on the back-burner until the next 5 years is up. Although you could probably get either a dodgy non-attendance or a proper one on the cheap once the rush has died down and the training companies cut the market to pieces competing with each other to stay in business.
I have thought about it some more and if it is indeed the case any hours have been revoked issued by a training centre found to be corrupt, I don’t know if the authorities have taken legal advice beforehand, but I am pretty certain they are acting illegally in doing this.
I simply don’t think it is legal to intervene retrospectively in a transaction between a private individual, spending their own money, and a private business in this way. If it was, for example, a public body like a DSA test centre that was engaged in this then fine but, it isn’t and I think legally that will make a massive difference.
I’m no legal expert but I would say the individuals would have a claim against the trainer. Haven’t the DVSA just cancelled the training that the trainer uploaded against the terms and conditions between the approved training provider and the DVSA?
The government will treat it in the same way that they handle bogus college courses, language courses etc. - any qualifications will be void and it will be up to the individual to get their money back & take the ‘test’ again with a legitimate college/trainer.
I sat through the sheer mind-numbing boredom of a week in the classroom, the only saving grace is that I did it while I was still waiting for my Operator’s Licence to come through so at least I didn’t lose a week’s earnings for the truck. I personally wouldn’t condemn anyone for trying to find a way out of the complete and total waste of time that is the DCPC, including paying a backhander not to have to take it. It was the most boring and pointless week in my entire life.
I can honestly say that the only thing I learned in the entire week was what the minor categories on a driving licence are, F,G,J,K sort of thing, mopeds, invalid carriages, lawn mowers etc, and I think I’d forgotten those before I got halfway home because if I ever needed to drive one of those things, I’m sure I could Google to see what licence I needed in 30 seconds and without paying £350 to do it. We spent a whole afternoon on that where every minute felt like an hour.
Why the Hell are people posting things about “presumption of innocence” and “claim against the trainer”■■
Is ANYONE seriously saying that these poor, unsuspecting drivers didn’t have a scooby-doo that what they were doing was illegal?
The law is now (rightly or wrongly - I think wrongly) that drivers must complete 35 hours of CPC training to gain their DQC. NOT that they just have to bung money at some moody guy who says “don’t worry, I’ll get the card for you - no bother!”
The guys who had their hours deleted tried it on and got caught out - tough. They’ve lost their hours, lost their money and now have to shell out again to get 35 hours in over the next 10 weeks - good luck with that one!!
shep532:
I’m no legal expert but I would say the individuals would have a claim against the trainer. Haven’t the DVSA just cancelled the training that the trainer uploaded against the terms and conditions between the approved training provider and the DVSA?
+1
The Sarge:
Why the Hell are people posting things about “presumption of innocence” and “claim against the trainer”■■Is ANYONE seriously saying that these poor, unsuspecting drivers didn’t have a scooby-doo that what they were doing was illegal?
The law is now (rightly or wrongly - I think wrongly) that drivers must complete 35 hours of CPC training to gain their DQC. NOT that they just have to bung money at some moody guy who says “don’t worry, I’ll get the card for you - no bother!”
The guys who had their hours deleted tried it on and got caught out - tough. They’ve lost their hours, lost their money and now have to shell out again to get 35 hours in over the next 10 weeks - good luck with that one!!
I actually think the biggest crime that’s gone down here is showing DCPC up for the badly thought out farce and shambles it is.
But what you are saying is the equivalent of: a load of drivers got caught nicking diesel we’ll just sack the lot because the others must have either been doing it or have known about it. This isn’t acceptable regardless of anyone’s views on the necessity of DCPC.
There are a lot of bigger issues that I’II set out if I can be arsed but the biggest problem is how do drivers have confidence in a training business if at some point in the future that company is caught turning a blind-eye to non-attendance they will potentially lose their hours and money. Also for small training companies in particular all it takes is a baseless rumour they’re doing this it could have a massive effect on business.
The problem is in reality I think a very large number of training companies have uploaded hours without attendance. Because of the ridiculous rule that even if you are a JAUPT approved DCPC trainer you still have to do the hours somewhere else the biggest upload for non-attendance is mutual back-scratching between actual trainers that also drive - in fairness you can’t blame them for not being too keen to give a competitor the potential to nick any ideas if they’ve put together a particularly good course that participants rate.
Own Account Driver:
I actually think the biggest crime that’s gone down here is showing DCPC up for the badly thought out farce and shambles it is.
Make it a pass or fail test then? Everyone knows all about the stuff, so they should fly it ?
shep532:
I’m no legal expert but I would say the individuals would have a claim against the trainer. Haven’t the DVSA just cancelled the training that the trainer uploaded against the terms and conditions between the approved training provider and the DVSA?
Certainly yes, to a degree, although any claims would likely be unsettled as I’d imagine the trainer would be insolvent although they should (but possibly unlikely as they’re cowboys) have professional indemnity insurance.
As an analogy say a cashier in a supermarket was caught selling mobile phone top-ups cheap to mates and relatives. Once this was uncovered it would not be lawful for either the supermarket, or the phone company, to cancel all the top-ups sold by that cashier during the course of their employment.
The supermarket/the phone company would also not be able to push responsibility on to the cashier personally as he would, from a legal point of view, be considered to be acting as their agent - the fact he was not performing his duties legitimately would be viewed as the supermarket’s negligence in failing to identify it.
What has often been overlooked with DCPC is because it is private individuals spending their private earnings with privately run businesses I’m pretty certain that it wouldn’t be possible to remove the same consumer rights entitlements as if they’ve booked a holiday or bought something online or in a shop.
Mike-C:
Own Account Driver:
I actually think the biggest crime that’s gone down here is showing DCPC up for the badly thought out farce and shambles it is.Make it a pass or fail test then? Everyone knows all about the stuff, so they should fly it ?
Yes, if you are going to introduce a mandatory qualification then it must be pass or fail otherwise, as is the case, the qualification is a joke no-one takes seriously.
They should have made grandfather rights indefinite and introduced pass or fail tests. A higher pass rate for the inital DCPC and a lower rate continuous training would have ensured failure rates were acceptably low.
Or there could be an option to take a tougher test and the if passed it would be accepted as an indication further classroom training isn’t necessary for that driver and would prevent those who have higher levels of knowledge and understanding undermining the sessions for everyone else.
tallyman:
The government will treat it in the same way that they handle bogus college courses, language courses etc. - any qualifications will be void and it will be up to the individual to get their money back & take the ‘test’ again with a legitimate college/trainer.
These aren’t bogus training companies though they are JAUPT vetted and approved.
Own Account Driver:
Make it a pass or fail test then? Everyone knows all about the stuff, so they should fly it ?
[/quote]
It’s not really a test, it’s a tax. It’s just there to provide jobs for people too useless to do anything else for a living. None of these trainers have ever actually driven a truck for any serious length of time.
So were many of the bogus colleges etc.
They got the accreditation legally, then operated in a criminal manner.
Whatever spin you put on it, paying over the odds to avoid a legal ‘hoop’ is going to be illegal.
GasGas:
So were many of the bogus colleges etc.They got the accreditation legally, then operated in a criminal manner.
Whatever spin you put on it, paying over the odds to avoid a legal ‘hoop’ is going to be illegal.
^^^^^this^^^^^