the back to back thing lets look at that then he started on Monday and finished Saturday
now consider this bit
delboytwo:
An actual working week starts at the end of a weekly rest period, and finishes when another
weekly rest period is commenced
then tell me if its still a week and therefore week 4 rest to be paid back by the end of the 7 week
delboytwo:
the back to back thing lets look at that then he started on Monday and finished Saturdaynow consider this bit
delboytwo:
An actual working week starts at the end of a weekly rest period, and finishes when another
weekly rest period is commencedthen tell me if its still a week and therefore week 4 rest to be paid back by the end of the 7 week
You’re quoting from GV262, now don’t misunderstand me I’m not saying you shouldn’t quote from VOSAs booklet but you should remember it’s intended as a guide to help people understand the regulation, and as such puts things slightly differently to the actual regulations for ease of reading and understanding.
As far as I can see what you’ve quoted isn’t in the actual regulations.
I’m not saying it would benefit your case if it were but it doesn’t seem to be anyway 
tachograph:
You’re quoting from GV262, now don’t misunderstand me I’m not saying you shouldn’t quote from VOSAs booklet but you should remember it’s intended as a guide to help people understand the regulation, and as such puts things slightly differently to the actual regulations for ease of reading and understanding.
no mate i got this from what you posted here
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=50586&p=580669#p580495
i just used that as you have when i was saying look at page 18 its the example at the bottom
delboytwo:
For example, where a driver reduces a weekly rest period to 33 hours in week 1, he must compensate
for this by attaching a 12-hour period of rest to another rest period of at least 9 hours before the end of
week 4. This compensation cannot be taken in several smaller periods.Week 1 // /////////// Week 2 ///////////////// Week 3 ///////// Week 4 Weekly
rest 33 hours ///////// 45 hours /////////////// 45 hours //////// 45 hours + 12 hours’ compensation
if you look at this the rest was in week one so lets base this on steve_24v and call it week four then the rest would have to be paid back in week 4 but that would be week 7 for steve_24v
Del the example you’ve given from GV262 is totally irrelevant to the situation described in this thread as in the example no holiday was taken and it doesn’t show enough time for back to back weekly rest periods.
tachograph:
back to back weekly rest periods.
If the previous weekly rest was a full one, can the back to back weekly rest periods (assuming exactly 69 hours taken) be done either way around 45 then 24 or 24 then 45 
ROG:
tachograph:
back to back weekly rest periods.If the previous weekly rest was a full one, can the back to back weekly rest periods (assuming exactly 69 hours taken) be done either way around 45 then 24 or 24 then 45
Offhand I can’t think of a reason why the reduced daily rest can’t be taken first, but I think a good read of the regulations would probably be a good idea first
Though I can’t really see why you would normally want to do that.
tachograph:
Though I can’t really see why you would normally want to do that.
As the weekly rest can be used for either week but not both then is there a situation where this may be useful to move weekly rest from a previous week to a forthcoming week
in the OP he was on holiday week 3 so he took his rest and the compensation at the end of week two he did not work for the rest of week three and therefore no rest was required he came back to work in week 4,which would be a new week 1 and then and as to pay the 2 hours back in week 4 which is week 7 if you look at the post
but i would like to point out in my first post on the thread he could just do this
the alternative is add it to add it to one of you daily rest of 9 or 11
tachograph:
If the reduced weekly rest was counted for week 5 (as I believe to be legal) then the compensation needs to be paid back by the end of week 8.As I said I’ll wait to be shown to be wrong though
You’re almost right, but the rest you are referring to actually requires no compensation. However the earliest any compensation would be required is indeed the end of Week 8
Del isn’t right.
Here’s why.
The weeks holiday can be counted as back to back rest periods, back to back rest periods only have to be at least 69 hours not exactly 69 hours and that is the critical point here. That rest period was 211 hours so can count as two regular rest periods back to back, the back to back rest period thing isn’t restricted to one regular and one reduced provided at least 90 hours is taken. So the rest period which began in week 2 and ended in week 4 can count as a regular weekly rest period for week 2 plus compensation for the reduced rest in week 1, 16 hours, and as a second regular weekly rest for week 4 .
All of which means as week 4 already has a regular rest period attached to it no compensation is required for the reduced period at the end of week 4, if it is attached to week 4. If it is attached to week 5 it still doesn’t require compensating because there will be another rest period at the end of week 5. The rest period which begins in week 4 and ends in week 5 is only there to prevent the OP working more than 144 hours between weekly rest periods and serves no other purpose in this situation. If the weekly rest period which commences on the Saturday of week 5 is a reduced rest it will indeed require compensating for before the end of week 8. If it is a regular rest period then the earliest any compensation is required will be before the end of week 9 for any reduction made in week 6.
Summary
Week 1 - Reduced weekly rest of 29 hours, 16 hours compensation required.
Week 2 - Regular weekly rest + 29 hours compensation
Week 3 - No weekly rest required as no work under EU rules undertaken
Week 4 - Regular weekly rest period which commenced in week 3. Reduced weekly rest period, 42 hours commencing Week 4 and ending Week 5, to prevent working more than 144 hours between rest periods. No compensation required as Week 4 already has a rest period attached.
Week 5 - Rest period commencing Saturday. Duration unknown, compensation before end of Week 8 if less than 45 hours.
tachograph:
…At least until what I’ve said has been properly discussed and proven to be correct
Done and done. 
delboytwo:
i have been told many times on here by a few not to confuse the OP question by adding other thing to it so why are you
Tachograph was the only person to add relevant information, in fact the key bit of information required in answering the OP’s question, counting a long rest as back to back rest periods.
ROG:
tachograph:
Though I can’t really see why you would normally want to do that.As the weekly rest can be used for either week but not both then is there a situation where this may be useful to move weekly rest from a previous week to a forthcoming week
Yes, the situation outlined by the OP.
were in the regs does it say you can take a back to back rest in 561/2006 regs as i have being told so many times not to take the gv262 as the regs its just a guide
ask your self this how would vosa know that he had a back to back rest as the driver by then would not have any tacho for that week
100% wrong coffeeholic how do you know for a fact that the driver in the post as done a back to back he never said he did one so why presume, you have said so many times to me not to read any thing into the post, so let look as the vosa example at the bottom of page 18 and do not consider that
delboytwo:
For example, where a driver reduces a weekly rest period to 33 hours in week 1, he must compensate
for this by attaching a 12-hour period of rest to another rest period of at least 9 hours before the end of
week 4. This compensation cannot be taken in several smaller periods.Week 1 // /////////// Week 2 ///////////////// Week 3 ///////// Week 4 Weekly
rest 33 hours ///////// 45 hours /////////////// 45 hours //////// 45 hours + 12 hours’ compensation
week 4///////////////week 5///////////////// week 6///////////week 7
delboytwo:
were in the regs does it say you can take a back to back rest in 561/2006 regs as i have being told so many times not to take the gv262 as the regs its just a guide
You are forgetting one thing Del, GV262-2 is the interpretation of the regs for the UK by VOSA and it is that interpretation that those in the UK work to.
delboytwo:
were in the regs does it say you can take a back to back rest in 561/2006 regs as i have being told so many times not to take the gv262 as the regs its just a guide
Answered by ROG in the post above.
delboytwo:
ask your self this how would vosa know that he had a back to back rest as the driver by then would not have any tacho for that week
By the simple fact he has more than 69 hours between his last record of week 2 and his first record of week 4. If or when VOSA analysed his charts they would see he was legal when the back to back rest thing was taken into account. You don’t have to say you are using it in the same way you don’t declare which week you are attaching a weekly rest period to. They may look at it then realise a prosecution would have no grounds because a rest period of 69 hours or more can be counted as two rest periods.
delboytwo:
100% wrong coffeeholic
Really? You want to go with that given your record and mine on these topics? You’ve accused me of being 100% wrong on a few occasions before yet each time it turned out to be the opposite.
delboytwo:
how do you know for a fact that the driver in the post as done a back to back he never said he did one so why presume,
He doesn’t need to say he has done one, simply the amount of rest between his last working day in week 2 and his next in week 4 allows for back to back rest periods. He asked for advice regarding when he must pay back any compensation and I answered the question by pointing out the fact he could make use of this long period of rest as two back to back periods means he possibly doesn’t have to make any compensation at all.
delboytwo:
you have said so many times to me not to read any thing into the post,
And I never read anything into the post that wasn’t there. Remember, the OP asked for advice on paying back compensation with regard to his specific situation. It wasn’t a general query and his specific situation has a feature which can be taken into consideration. I simply pointed out, as did Tachograph, he could make use of the regulations to either make compensation unnecessary or allow him more time before compensation was required.
You on the other hand were insisting he would have to compensate, that would depend on the length of the rest period at the end of week 5 which we don’t know so isn’t a given, or would have to compensate earlier than legally required, which could wrongly limit his availability for work and therefore his earning potential.
delboytwo:
so let look as the vosa example at the bottom of page 18 and do not consider thatdelboytwo:
For example, where a driver reduces a weekly rest period to 33 hours in week 1, he must compensate
for this by attaching a 12-hour period of rest to another rest period of at least 9 hours before the end of
week 4. This compensation cannot be taken in several smaller periods.Week 1 // /////////// Week 2 ///////////////// Week 3 ///////// Week 4 Weekly
rest 33 hours ///////// 45 hours /////////////// 45 hours //////// 45 hours + 12 hours’ compensationweek 4///////////////week 5///////////////// week 6///////////week 7
Which is all fine and correct under ‘normal’ circumstances. However, in the OP’s situation he can take advantage of the regulations, as VOSA apply them, and he doesn’t have to make any compensation for that reduced break at the end of week 4 due to using the back to back rest option which gives him a regular rest period for week 4. Which in turn means no compensation required before week 8 at the earliest and certainly not in week 7.
Hi coffeeholic
you have now just confirmed my answer for as been week 7 and not week 8 if week can use the vose book to interpret the regs there way
look at this bit
tachograph:
An actual working week starts at the end of a weekly rest period, and finishes when another
weekly rest period is commenced
we are taking about week in which you have to pay the rest back so base on the book a week is (see quote) and this is why i have based my answer to the vose book forget about back to back rest look at what vose say a week starts and a week ends
so he was in week 4, and as you know rest as to be paid back by the end 3 week following the week in question, which is week 7 as i have already said
we talk about words the words in red is as you would tell me is the key words. he ends a rest on Monday and then finished Saturday and the commenced a rest on Saturday thats week 4
week 4 reduced rest 2 hours owe week 1 is wear the reduction took place
week 5 full weekly rest taken week 2
week 6 full weekly rest taken week 3
week 7 full weekly rest plus 2 hours end week 4 2 hours to be paid back
if its was week 5 his rest weekly rest would have to have started on Monday of the 5 week but it did not it started on the Saturday of week 4
also lets look how you would use the back to back rule in vosa book is say
A weekly rest period that falls in two weeks may be counted in either week but not in both. However, a rest period of at least 69 hours in total may be counted as two back-to-back weekly rests (e.g. a 45-hour weekly rest followed by 24 hours), provided that the driver does not exceed 144 hours’ work either before or after the rest period in question.
there say in the above quote between two weeks but steve_24v does Mon to sat shifts and not between weeks so how could you use it and why would you in a fixed week
this rule is for drivers that start work in the middle of a fixed week if i am not mistaken and a normal driver that works a fixed week would have no call to use it
delboytwo:
forget about back to back rest
Why? We are answering a specific question from the OP and the back to back option is very relevant to his situation so why would you choose to ignore it
delboytwo:
as you know rest as to be paid back by the end 3 week following the week in question, which is week 7 as i have already said
Not disputing that when answering a general query but this is answering someone’s specific circumstances and the back to back option removes the need to compensate for the reduced weekly rest at the end of week 4. The OP is asking when he must pay back the 2 hours from the rest at the end of week 4 and because of his circumstances the answer is he doesn’t. Not week 7, not week 8, it’s fact not at all.
delboytwo:
we talk about words the words in red is as you would tell me is the key words. he ends a rest on Monday
Which was a regular weekly rest period and can be counted for week 4.
delboytwo:
and then finished Saturday and the commenced a rest on Saturday thats week 4
And that rest period is the second one in week 4 so requires no compensation.
delboytwo:
week 4 reduced rest 2 hours owe week 1 is wear the reduction took place
That reduction was compensated for during the week he was on holiday, Week 3,and is no longer outstanding in week 4.
delboytwo:
week 7 full weekly rest plus 2 hours end week 4 2 hours to be paid back
That rest was the second rest period in week 4 so requires no compensation.
delboytwo:
if its was week 5 his rest weekly rest would have to have started on Monday of the 5 week but it did not it started on the Saturday of week 4
No, it starts when he finishes work on the Saturday of week 5 and we don’t know how long that rest will be so we don’t know if he requires to compensate for it before the end of week 8.
You can’t have it both ways Del, if that rest period is indeed counted for week 5 - and by counting it for week 5 you are using the back to back rest feature and counting the rest over week 3 as two periods, one for week 2 and one for week 4 otherwise this one can’t count for week 5 because it will leave week 4 without a rest period - then it will require compensating before the end of the third week following the reduction. Reduced rest for Week 5 + 3 weeks = Week 8.
Even if we work on the assumption that the rest which commences on the Saturday in week 4 is counted for week 5 it still might not need compensating for if he takes a regular rest period commencing when he finishes work in week 5. He would have 2 rest periods for Week 5 and as long as one of them is a regular rest period no compensation required.
Whichever way you chop this up the earliest compensation is possibly required is Week 8.
steve_24v:
Week 1: run in sat finished 11:00, 3 hrs total, start 16:00 Sunday run 3 hrsWeek 2: run in sat finished 11:00, 3 hrs total
Week 3: Hols
Week 4: run in sat finished 11:00, 3 hrs total
Monday’s usually 06:00 start, is this legal as long as I payback 2 hours by week eight ?
Also, I assume I should be getting back for 09:00 sat if I need to start 06:00 monday on a regular basis ?
coffee
have a look here mate at the post he came back to work in week 4 and only took 43 hours rest in week 4 as started in the above post he is asking if the rest of 2 hours he owes from week 4 as to be paid back by week 8 but no its week 7 as he says he finished at 11 am on sat of week 4 and started week 5 at 6 am which is were the rest was reduced in week 4 and therefore week 7 would have to pay back that 2 hours, or like i said add to one of is daily rests
i think some have not read the post right
delboytwo:
coffeehave a look here mate at the post he came back to work in week 4 and only took 43 hours rest in week 4 as started in the above post he is asking if the rest of 2 hours he owes from week 4 as to be paid back by week 8 but no its week 7 as he says he finished at 11 am on sat of week 4 and started week 5 at 6 am which is were the rest was reduced in week 4 and therefore week 7 would have to pay back that 2 hours, or like i said add to one of is daily rests
He did indeed ask if the 2 hours for the rest at the end of Week 4 had to be paid back at the end of Week 8 and the correct answer to that question is no, they do not have to be paid back before the end of Week 8. The answer is no because it is his second rest period of Week 4, due to being able to use the back to back rest feature, which means he already has a regular weekly rest attached to Week 4 so no compensation is required.
So from your previous post when that rest was counting for Week 5, and if it required compensating it would be Week 8, you have gone back to counting it in Week 4 to try to justify your answer of Week 7?
delboytwo:
i think some have not read the post right
I think someone has not read the answers right and is also answering a specific situation with a generic answer without taking all the facts in the original post into account.
so your saying that the back to back rest he had before he came back to work in week 4 is counted as week 4 rest and therefore no rest required for week 4 the rest he took at the end of week 4 is counted as rest for week 5 is this what you are saying
Week 3: Hols - so full weekly rest counted for week 4
Week 4: - reduced weekly rest counted for week 5 (2 hours owing)
Week 5: - full weekly rest counted for week 6
Week 6: - full weekly rest counted for week 7
Week 7: - full weekly rest counted for week 8
Looking at the answer by coffeeholic I can see where I’ve made the error -
Week 3: Hols - so full weekly rest counted for week 4
Week 4: - reduced weekly rest counted for week 4 - that’s two for the same week so no compo accrued - GOT IT - the reduced is ignored as it is not needed.
Week 5: - full weekly rest counted for week 5
Week 6: - full weekly rest counted for week 6
Week 7: - full weekly rest counted for week 7