There was an interesting conservation today between one our fitters and TM, Just aquired an 04 daf cf that has been sprayed in firms colours ready for work, I walked into the office at a very good time
Fitter: can’t get it tested until 14 july
TM: need it for monday short of motors, is this a dont tell the driver moment?
Fitter: upto you
Now I am due to be given said motor, which obviously I will be refusing to drive until proof of test is seen.
What are the sanctions for all involved if said motor is used, one of our drivers is bound to be stupid enough to take it out.
Your views appreciated
obvously the fine for no mot or tax is a biggy, for company and driver if caught but does,nt no insurance come into aswell.
you could say nothing, tell everyone or just tell your mates not to drive it. or you could tell the union if you have one. there are loads of things you could do, but what would be the comeback on you if you did do any of the above.
You’re right there is the insurance issue.
No union at our place, as far as I am concerned every driver should check every aspect of the vehicle they are given to drive, I always ha
I have no quarms in refusing to take any vehicle out if not happy with it.
I’m just amazed that they would risk the wrath of vosa and police.
The fine for failing to have a valid road fund licence(road tax) or display one is down to the registered keeper of the vehicle. Of course this doesn’t negate the driver checking it and pointing it out to his employer that its not taxed, its saves the "well you shouldn’t of taken it out " grief, they can make their mind up what to do.
If you operate a truck you have a legal duty to make sure that its tested before allowing it to be used by any drivers, so i’m pretty sure again the employer would cop it. And as for the insurance issue, well it is true that if the vehicle is being used not in accordance with the law and regulations that any insurance would be invalidated in the event of a claim, but as far as a pull goes the vehicle has a valid policy and the driver would not get done for no insurance.
Re insurance of company vehicles
I spoke to traffic about what would happen to the driver if there was no insurance on a company vehicle and their reply was that the driver would initially be charged with driving a vehicle with no insurance BUT if the court deemed that the driver did all that was reasonably possible to ensure that it was insured then the charges would MOST LIKELY be dropped
I assume that the same would apply to no MOT but as for no in-date tax or operator disc then I doubt that would wash because it would be reasonable for the driver to check that themselves
i would think any tm that knowingly sends out a vehicle with no test, tax or insuranace, deserves everything he gets should the truck get stopped or have an accident. the truck will be impounded just for no test alone
ROG:
Re insurance of company vehicles
I spoke to traffic about what would happen to the driver if there was no insurance on a company vehicle and their reply was that the driver would initially be charged with driving a vehicle with no insurance BUT if the court deemed that the driver did all that was reasonably possible to ensure that it was insured then the charges would MOST LIKELY be dropped
I assume that the same would apply to no MOT but as for no in-date tax or operator disc then I doubt that would wash because it would be reasonable for the driver to check that themselves
What do you mean if a court deemed? Go google some more, a driver canot be prosecuted for having no insurance in his employers truck. It wouldn’t even get to court. Luckily we have the CPS to make these descisions and not rely on your friend in traffic who is obviously not as au fait with the regulations as they could be.
"Mike-C:
, a driver canot be prosecuted for having no insurance in his employers truck.
That’s not the way I understand it, no insurance is an absolute offence so if your using a vehicle without you’re guilty. However in the case of company vehicles you’d have mitigating circumstances if it went to court so I think ROG was on the right lines with what he said.
ROG:
Re insurance of company vehicles
I spoke to traffic about what would happen to the driver if there was no insurance on a company vehicle and their reply was that the driver would initially be charged with driving a vehicle with no insurance BUT if the court deemed that the driver did all that was reasonably possible to ensure that it was insured then the charges would MOST LIKELY be dropped
I assume that the same would apply to no MOT but as for no in-date tax or operator disc then I doubt that would wash because it would be reasonable for the driver to check that themselves
What do you mean if a court deemed? Go google some more, a driver canot be prosecuted for having no insurance in his employers truck. It wouldn’t even get to court. Luckily we have the CPS to make these descisions and not rely on your friend in traffic who is obviously not as au fait with the regulations as they could be.
The offence for the driver is that of driving a vehicle that does not have current insurance and there is no getting away from that because either the driver is or is not
The CPS will decide whether to proceed to court and if it does then the court will hear mitigating circumstances
There is no law that says the driver is absolved of any responsibility if the vehicle they are driving, but not owned by them, is not insured.
Mike-C:
, a driver canot be prosecuted for having no insurance in his employers truck.
That’s not the way I understand it, no insurance is an absolute offence so if your using a vehicle without you’re guilty. However in the case of company vehicles you’d have mitigating circumstances if it went to court so I think ROG was on the right lines with what he said.
He’s wrong and so is his source.
You wouldn’t need mitigating circumstances, its already clearly written in legislation that its not an offence. Try Road Traffic Act 1988,section 143 (3)
A person charged with using a motor vehicle in contravention of this section shall not be convicted if he proves–
…
(b) that he was using the vehicle in the course of his employment, and …
ROG:
Re insurance of company vehicles
I spoke to traffic about what would happen to the driver if there was no insurance on a company vehicle and their reply was that the driver would initially be charged with driving a vehicle with no insurance BUT if the court deemed that the driver did all that was reasonably possible to ensure that it was insured then the charges would MOST LIKELY be dropped
I assume that the same would apply to no MOT but as for no in-date tax or operator disc then I doubt that would wash because it would be reasonable for the driver to check that themselves
What do you mean if a court deemed? Go google some more, a driver canot be prosecuted for having no insurance in his employers truck. It wouldn’t even get to court. Luckily we have the CPS to make these descisions and not rely on your friend in traffic who is obviously not as au fait with the regulations as they could be.
The offence for the driver is that of driving a vehicle that does not have current insurance and there is no getting away from that because either the driver is or is not
The CPS will decide whether to proceed to court and if it does then the court will hear mitigating circumstances
There is no law that says the driver is absolved of any responsibility if the vehicle they are driving, but not owned by them, is not insured.
As a driver turning up for a shift you should obviously note as part of your daily inspection NO TAX DISC and more than likley no O LICENCE, these should be defected, and pointed out to the office before you leave the dept, and if confirmed all in order ask for your defect to be signed by the responcible person, if this happens you as the driver will be clear of any prosecution as you have carried out your required checks, and the law has been broken by the operator, which is confirmed by your defect report.
It is the operators responcibility to ensure the vehicle is taxed tested and insured, and there instruction/confirmation all is in order would clear any employed driver from any chance of prosecution.
I had this senario some years back, whilst on agency, and because my defect pad (which we filled in for the agency) was all in order, the agency, who could have been prosecuted for permitting the offence, and myself were both exhounerated for any offences as we could prove all reasonable precautions had been taken to ensure compliance with the law, and that the operator had by deception left us technicaly guilty of offences, we were no compliant too.
The operator BTY was fined over 50k as they found half the fleet had no tax or mot (trailers inc.) which left probably most drivers whithout insurance, for there combination. No names but the co no longer trades.
ROG:
Re insurance of company vehicles
I spoke to traffic about what would happen to the driver if there was no insurance on a company vehicle and their reply was that the driver would initially be charged with driving a vehicle with no insurance BUT if the court deemed that the driver did all that was reasonably possible to ensure that it was insured then the charges would MOST LIKELY be dropped
Sorry Rog but WRONG! Strange as it may seem a driver has NO legal right to insist upon seeing a certificate of insurance on his employers vehicle therefore he has no liability for driving without insurance and it would be incorrect for him to be charged with the offence! Ask me how I know…
PC Neil Frodsham is probably still blushing to this day…!
I assume that the same would apply to no MOT but as for no in-date tax or operator disc then I doubt that would wash because it would be reasonable for the driver to check that themselves
Edit to add: I posted this before checking similar replies!
waynedl:
Who here has ever seen the vehicle mot or insurance?
wayne , we get to carry a copy of our insurance policy and have for years. ok, its only a photocopy of the original document but every driver in the fleet is issued with one. they also give us a little book telling us what to do in the event of an accident and issue us with a disposable camera to take any pics of any accidents.
i would have thought a lot of big firms would have done thisâ– â– ?
Mike-C:
, a driver canot be prosecuted for having no insurance in his employers truck.
That’s not the way I understand it, no insurance is an absolute offence so if your using a vehicle without you’re guilty. However in the case of company vehicles you’d have mitigating circumstances if it went to court so I think ROG was on the right lines with what he said.
He’s wrong and so is his source.
You wouldn’t need mitigating circumstances, its already clearly written in legislation that its not an offence. Try Road Traffic Act 1988,section 143 (3)
A person charged with using a motor vehicle in contravention of this section shall not be convicted if he proves–
…
(b) that he was using the vehicle in the course of his employment, and …
143 Users of motor vehicles to be insured or secured against third-party risks (1) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act–
(a) a person must not use a motor vehicle on a road unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act, and
(b) a person must not cause or permit any other person to use a motor vehicle on a road unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that other person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act.
(2) If a person acts in contravention of subsection (1) above he is guilty of an offence.
(3) A person charged with using a motor vehicle in contravention of this section shall not be convicted if he proves–
(a) that the vehicle did not belong to him and was not in his possession under a contract of hiring or of loan,
(b) that he was using the vehicle in the course of his employment, and
(c) that he neither knew nor had reason to believe that there was not in force in relation to the vehicle such a policy of insurance or security as is mentioned in subsection (1) above.
It is (c) that the driver gets arrested for and then, after investigation, the CPS and possibly the courts get involved
To conclude - the driver does get arrested for driving a vehicle without current insurance but it then gets investigated and on the findings of that investigation further action, if any, is decided
waynedl:
Who here has ever seen the vehicle mot or insurance?
wayne , we get to carry a copy of our insurance policy and have for years. ok, its only a photocopy of the original document but every driver in the fleet is issued with one. they also give us a little book telling us what to do in the event of an accident and issue us with a disposable camera to take any pics of any accidents.
i would have thought a lot of big firms would have done thisâ– â– ?
Our insurance certificate is in a frame in the transport office, we get a leaflet with the insurance details printed on it to give to someone in the event of a crash the other side of the leaflet has got questions to ask the other person and space to write their details. We’ve got a accident camera kit too tape measure,chalk, cardboard camera all that carry on.
So we have access to the insurance document but i have never seen a mot document for my wagon. They’re kept in a cabinet somewhere id assume.
