ROG:
If a C driver is using an empty company artic for the purpose of learning only (not going empty to a pick up etc) then they are exempt from the regs.
A CE driver using an empty company artic for doing a JAUPT/DSA Periodic Driver CPC approved SAFED course of training would also be EU regs exempt with the usual restrictions (not going empty to a pick up etc).
In both of the above, the company will usually like the tacho to be used so as not having to explain any ‘missing’ mileage but it is not a legal requirement.
VOSA will except an explanation of any missing mileage in the above circumstances and they can check it out if they wish to.
Hi Rog
where is this coming from cos i can’t find this in the regs i have found this bit
Article 4
For the purposes of this Regulation the following definitions
shall apply:
(a) ‘carriage by road’ means any journey made entirely or in
part on roads open to the public by a vehicle, whether
laden or not, used for the carriage of passengers or
goods;
and as it say laden or not and used for the carriage of goods
the other thing you are for getting is this
2.2 What is working time?
The Regulations define working time as the time from the beginning of work, during which
the mobile worker is at the workstation (typically this means the driver’s cab - but see glossary
for fuller definition of this and other terms) at the disposal of the employer and exercising his
functions or activities - that is to say:
a) the time devoted to all road transport activities including:-
- driving;
- loading/unloading;
- training that is part of normal work and is part of the commercial operation;
- assisting passengers boarding/disembarking from vehicle;
- cleaning, maintenance of vehicle;
- work intended to ensure safety of vehicle and its cargo and passengers (e.g. monitoring
loading and unloading - including daily defect check and report);
- administrative formalities or work linked to legal or regulatory obligations directly linked to
the specific transport operations under way.
and then you have this bit
- A driver shall record as other work any time spent as
described in Article 4(e) as well as any time spent driving a
vehicle used for commercial operations not falling within the
scope of this Regulation, and shall record any periods of
availability, as defined in Article 15(3)(c) of Regulation (EEC)
No 3821/85, since his last daily or weekly rest period. This
record shall be entered either manually on a record sheet, a
printout or by use of manual input facilities on recording
equipment.
and as there are company trucks and some companies would not have trucks just for the purpose of training
(g) vehicles used for driving instruction and examination
with a view to obtaining a driving licence or a certificate
of professional competence, provided that they are not
being used for the commercial carriage of goods or
passengers;
the bit in red would mean IMO if that truck as a opertors licence disc in the window or is on there operators licence
ROG:
instructorone:
Having read your post Roger, just to confirm the legislation written in relation to persons with a valid full lgv entitlement who is unemployed/not working and not involved with the carriage of goods and reward IS exempt under the above regulations…and is not required to use the tachograph at that time.
For a person with a valid full Lgv entitlement who IS employed is required to keep a record of his activities.
Speaking from experience, when a company asks for a refresher course for X amount of drivers, the company’s vehicles are used (Not the private training vehicle) and records must then be kept.
From the mouth of a “Senior Traffic Inspectorate”
Where in the regulations does it say anything about the driver being employed or unemployed 
It dosen’t…but it matters!! If he were employed, he would need to keep records. If he wasn’t, then a manual record would suffice.
If you have a source of information then invite that source to e-mail you with their definition and ask permission of that source to post it on here as I did. 
I think it was Smart Mart who questioned my ‘word of mouth’ source and rightly so as it could be seen as MMTM 
I am not prepared to disclose the name of my source on a public forum, again, if the admin wants it, they may, if they wish, pm me.
ROG:
If a C driver is using an empty company artic for the purpose of learning only (not going empty to a pick up etc) then they are exempt from the regs.
A CE driver using an empty company artic for doing a JAUPT/DSA Periodic Driver CPC approved SAFED course of training would also be EU regs exempt with the usual restrictions (not going empty to a pick up etc).
In both of the above, the company will usually like the tacho to be used so as not having to explain any ‘missing’ mileage but it is not a legal requirement.
VOSA will except an explanation of any missing mileage in the above circumstances and they can check it out if they wish to.
Again. We are not talking about assessments!! Yes,company vehicles used for assessment need to keep records. But a private training company, that is not used as carrying goods for reward is exempt. If that company training vehicle is taxed as a private training vehicle, the trainee will be exempt.
The exemption IS applicable to vehicles used for driving instruction…provided that they are not being used for the commercial carriage of goods or passengers.
The exemption does not cover refresher training for drivers not in relation to either of the above conditions.
But the refresher is in relation to the above condition…the private training vehicle which is what this subject was originally about is not used for the carriage of goods and reward. 
All the quotes you have listed do not have any bearing on the issue of a full LGV licence holder doing refresher training with a LGV training school.
The law is very clear - Any full LGV licence holder doing refresher training with a LGV training school does not have an exemption from the EU regs and whilst doing such refresher training, the tachograph must be compliant - SEE HERE - I believe the VOSA HQ is at Bristol
If you have any official information that can be verified to the contrary then feel free to post it or a link to it.
instructorone:
I am not prepared to disclose the name of my source on a public forum,
That’s ok - perhaps your ‘source’ can give you the relevant regulation to post on here that refutes the info from the VOSA source I quoted 
Roger.
You believe what you want to believe, you post what you want to post. Your the unemployed instructor (as you call yourself)…we are the private training school that supply assessments, refreshers and courses. We wont lose any sleep over this. We’ve said all we’re going to say on this subject, i will not be posting any “Official source of information.” whether i have it in writing or not. (Which i dont) Before you ask!!!, but we know what we know, and thats what matters to us.
instructorone:
You believe what you want to believe,
It is not down to what I believe but what is actually the facts given by VOSA.
instructorone:
Your the unemployed instructor
What is the relevance of that to this subject 
instructorone:
We’ve said all we’re going to say on this subject,
Who is ‘we’ and so far not much has been said to refute what VOSA has stated 
instructorone:
i will not be posting any “Official source of information.” whether i have it in writing or not.
No problem - just post the reference to what your ‘source’ is referring to - no need to quote or name your ‘source’ if you do not want to
What you have posted so far might be deemed by many as MMTM because no reference has been given to a regulation that says other than what VOSA stated.
Please post the location to the relevant reference document so we can all compare the two ‘official’ views.
mrpj:
ROG:
What you have posted so far might be deemed by many as MMTM
Correct.
Double correct. If the relevant bit of legislation cannot be referenced, no disclosing of sources required, then it is no better than MMTM.
There are countless posts on here testifying as to how unreliable many training establishments are when it comes to dispensing information.
i alll but i am a bit thick what does MMTM mean 
delboytwo:
i alll but i am a bit thick what does MMTM mean
My Mate Told Me
There have been many rules quoted here that turn out to be nothing more than what someone has heard from a mate or acquaintance
mrpj:
delboytwo:
i alll but i am a bit thick what does MMTM mean
My Mate Told Me
cheers mate when you see it it comes to light
From the first post in this thread I:
When I was LGV instructing the companies I worked for told me that as the truck was private and not used for hire or reward, the normal EU rules did not apply in any circumstances.
Once I got into reading the EU regs a bit more, I realised that this might not be the case so I thought I would investigate…
The answers given may be useful to others
From the answer that was given by VOSA and with no more forthcoming official answers to refute that VOSA statement then I must now put my hands up to being illegal when doing refresher training with the two companies I previously worked for as no tachos were used and the tachographs did not have the 2 yearly and 6 yearly checks done to keep them compliant for the purpose of refresher training for full LGV licence holders.
Although both companies told me that tachos etc were not required then would I or the driver have had any defence if an incident occured
Lets say some numpty had run into the back of the training truck and hurt themselves badly.
The police would have been called to the scene as well as an ambulance.
- Would the truck insurance still be valid if not complying with the regulations
- If not, would the driver get points on their licence for driving without insurance
3)Would VOSA be bringing any seperate charges for the driver or the company
- Would the training company get a fine
- As the ‘instructor’ would not be deemed ‘in charge’ of the vehicle as a full licence holder was driving then would the ‘instructor’ be liable for anything
I’m glad that I got away without any such incident occurring but it looks like it may have been one hell of a legal minefield if it had…
Hi Rog
like i said in my early post i have always had to put a tachograph in on assessments.
and i don’t think you can blame your self for what you believe to be right if your employer told you that you don’t need to use tachograph’s,
i think Neil as said this "you can ring vosa to day ask the question and ring tomorrow and get a completely different answer"its how some interpret the regs, and as we all know no one is perfect
delboytwo:
i think Neil as said this "you can ring vosa to day ask the question and ring tomorrow and get a completely different answer"its how some interpret the regs, and as we all know no one is perfect
I did that mate - I have consulted about six different VOSA stations and got the same verbal answer from them all.
It was only when Smart Mart rightly said that it could be seen as MMTM that I asked the HQ at Bristol for a written response which is the one I put on here.
With all six singing from the same hymn-sheet I would say it is very unlikely that the info is incorrect.
I pm’d the Vosa guy on here to offer his input…but i dont think my pm’s get through to him, i also pm’d an admin with the offer of naming the source…but again, either didn’t get delivered, or was ignored…i wonder why?
oh, and Roger, there were a couple of personable things i said to you that weren’t relevent to this post and i shouln’t of said them. i take them back. 
instructorone:
I pm’d the Vosa guy on here to offer his input…but i dont think my pm’s get through to him,
He may not have been online since you sent the PM, he isn’t a frequent visitor. If it is still in your outbox he hasn’t been on the boards.
instructorone:
i also pm’d an admin with the offer of naming the source…but again, either didn’t get delivered, or was ignored…i wonder why?
Probably because the naming of the source adds nothing to the debate, in fact it is irrelevant. We have had supposedly very qualified people give incorrect information on here in the past, traffic police officers, VOSA people, tacho analysis people, training people with long lists of qualifications after their names, and it has been proved that the information which they swore blind was correct turned out to be wrong.
All you need is a link to the part of the regulations which your source is using to back up his argument, as ROG has already said, not the source just the link.
There have been plenty of quotes from the regulations already posted in this thread which support the opposing argument to yours, I mean the relevant ones from the tacho rules and not the irrelevant ones from the WTD regs - you know who you are 
- but nothing which goes along with your theory so far. I wonder why?
