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.
Yes but it begs the question why are they negligently accrediting criminal training businesses but this isn’t really the issue the issue is the revocation of all the hours and the assumption that all training a business, later found to be corrupt, provided was of that nature. There would need to be unequivocal proof they did provide no valid training and all those that paid were aware of this.
The bogus colleges analogy isn’t a lot of use as the students were mostly/entirely not UK nationals. Also in that case the scheme was abandoned entirely once widespread abuse was uncovered.
Edit - to clarify there are two things being talked about bogus qualifications issued by bogus institutions which are obviously not valid and the bogus college scandal where various colleges - which were government approved in the similar half-arsed way DCPC training companies were JAUPT approved - it later transpired the colleges were falsely claiming their foreign students were attending when they were not really students at all and just illegal immigrants working in jobs. This scandal resulted in the famous ‘not fit for purpose’ heads rolling at the Home Office when someone senior in government eventually noticed what a dog’s breakfast had been made.
The Sarge:
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^^^^^
Would you be happy if you’d done your DCPC and it all seemed fine and above board but six months later the bloke that ran the training company ran into money troubles, with an expensive divorce, and started dishing out DCPCs for brown envelopes of cash and got caught then, as a result despite being blameless, you have to pay and sit through 35 hours of DCPC again?
Do you think every DCPC trainer engaged in this is going to have a sign on his forehead saying he’s dodgy?
Anyone that pays a backhander and doesn’t attend shouldn’t be surprised if their hours are revoked if caught - whether this is a crime or any law has been broken or not, I’m uncertain, if it has I would think they ought to be making examples - but that does not provide the authorities with the right to assume everyone that did their training there is corrupt unless there is very strong evidence (ie strong enough to stand up in court).
Harry Monk:
None of these trainers have ever actually driven a truck for any serious length of time.
Sorry, not going to let that one go! None of our trainers have had less than 20 years on the road. And they are fully trained and qualified instructors using good material. That’s why we get the positive feedback we do.
As for getting the hours for a bung - I would never get involved. I understand why some do, but don’t moan if it goes wrong.
I agree it should be a pass/fail and those that pass should be on their way without delay. But IME there wouldn’t be that many.
Pete 
Harry Monk:
None of these trainers have ever actually driven a truck for any serious length of time.
Harry,
Just to point out that I did nearly 30 years as a driver altogether, but if that’s not a serious length of time then, fair enough.
green456:
Peter Smythe:
Harry Monk:
None of these trainers have ever actually driven a truck for any serious length of time.
Sorry, not going to let that one go! None of our trainers have had less than 20 years on the road. And they are fully trained and qualified instructors using good material. That’s why we get the positive feedback we do.
As for getting the hours for a bung - I would never get involved. I understand why some do, but don’t moan if it goes wrong.
I agree it should be a pass/fail and those that pass should be on their way without delay. But IME there wouldn’t be that many.
Pete
so you make your money from drivers but you think were all illiterate dumb asses 
PMSL you walked straight into that one Peter
so you make your money from drivers but you think were all illiterate dumb asses
PMSL you walked straight into that one Peter
Don’t recall saying that. I may have implied, correctly, that many drivers are totally out of date. And you, tachograph, spend a lot of time on this very forum putting folks straight on stuff they really ought to know already.
I cite the case from early on in the cpc when I had 15 experienced drivers in the room - some PSV some HGV - and got almost as many versions of the drivers’ hours. Clearly updating information is what is needed and this is proved day after day.
I never think of drivers as “illiterate dumb asses”. Quite the reverse. As a former driver myself I have the greatest respect for professional drivers - especially those prepared to keep themselves up to date.
So I don’t think I walked into anything, thankyou!
Pete
dieseldave:
Harry Monk:
None of these trainers have ever actually driven a truck for any serious length of time.
Harry,
Just to point out that I did nearly 30 years as a driver altogether, but if that’s not a serious length of time then, fair enough.
You are right Dave, it was a very sloppy generalisation, apologies. 
Own Account Driver:
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.
Or better still just left things as they were we all seem to have managed without it for years so why introduce a tax under the guise of “training”
As for the dodgy course scam getting out, that is down to one thing only, gob ■■■■■ drivers that can’t keep it shut 
,…of which there are many 
robroy:
Or better still just left things as they were we all seem to have managed without it for years so why introduce a tax under the guise of “training”
This, this, a thousand times this.