So, on reading some of these exemptions, does/would that mean that somebody who is employed as a warehouseman/loader/cleaner or whatever that holds the relevant LGV licence could take said truck out on to the road and do a delivery or 2, providing he doesnt touch the load, or does the fact remain that he will need ‘the card’ as he is a license holder? If the former, wonder how many companies will do away with drivers and only employ ‘warehouseman/loaders/cleaners’ etc? And what about shunters? Would they be able to carry out a night trunk, if all they did at the other end was to swap trailers and drive back to the yard…as we know from threads on here, some call it ‘night trunk’, others call it ‘night shunt’.
I don’t know, that’s why I’m asking…could just be
If there are goods in the truck (not tools or materials for the drivers own use in the course of his main employment) then he’ll need the DCPC.
And even if there are no goods in the truck (running empty to the test station, for instance), he’ll still need the DCPC, unless it falls into one of the specific exemptions (delivering a new truck that has yet to enter service, for instance).
GasGas:
The difference in the scenarios you’ve outlined about is that the telehandler would come under the ‘tools and materials for use in the course of his work’ exemption whereas the transport of farm livestock is the own-account carriage of goods. He will need a driver cpc for the latter (as will all who are carrying goods), but not the former.
There’s a similar distinction for a farmer or gangmaster using a PCV to transport for example, pickers to a field: he will need a driver cpc because he is carrying passengers, rather than tools or materials for his own use in his main line of work.
Think of it this way: driving an LGV or PCV will mean that you have to have a Driver CPC unless you can show that one of the exemptions actually applies to the use to which you are putting the vehicle. A soldier does not need a Driver CPC to drive an army lorry in the course of his duties, but he does need one if he decides to earn a few bob driving for a civi haulier while he is on leave.
I hope this is clear.The line from VOSA is that a DCPC is required for everything that is not specifically exempt. Their list of exemptions is very precise and tightly worded. I honestly don’t think there is much ‘wriggle room’ and fighting a test case will prove much more expensive than paying a fine, so I expect that VOSA will escape challenge in court on most, if not all, of this.
A solicitor is going to want to see at least £1000 on the table before he would take defending a case like this on, and that would just be a start, whereas I suspect VOSA will have near unlimited funds for prosecutions.
It’s probably cheaper and easier to get the card than it is to try to argue the toss.
If it really is that important to you you could try contacting your MP and point out the anomalies in the law and regulations as they stand…ask was this really the intention of Parliament, and can he seek an amendment to the legislation.
There list of exemptions isn’t tightly worded at all really. It’s already been mentioned on this thread that ‘own account’ and ‘hire and reward’ is an incorrect conflation of o-licencing and vocational periodic training. Why should anyone waste their time on training there’s at best a weak legal argument it’s required.
Ok, so we accept the farmer with just the telehandler and the tree surgeon with a 7.5t wagon etc. are exempt but then they’re saying taking a vehicle to MOT isn’t exempt so both would have to get DCPC in order to take the vehicles that are normally exempt to MOT once a year, they’re seriously suggesting this is the intent of the legislation, effectively no-one is exempt? This is clearly ■■■■■■■■ and VOSA are clearly talking confused making it up as they go along ■■■■■■■■.
In this case there’s no distinction between ‘own account’ and ‘hire and reward’. It’s to do with the driver carrying tools or materials for his own use, in which case he doesn’t need the card, and doing pretty much anything else except road testing a vehicle for fault finding or development purposes, or delivering one that has not yet been put into service, in which case he will.
ROG:
Correct
Doing all 35 hours in 2017 will give you 5 years worth of dcpc til 2022
Thank you Sir. Much appreciated.
GasGas:
In this case there’s no distinction between ‘own account’ and ‘hire and reward’. It’s to do with the driver carrying tools or materials for his own use, in which case he doesn’t need the card, and doing pretty much anything else except road testing a vehicle for fault finding or development purposes, or delivering one that has not yet been put into service, in which case he will.
He does use the materials himself in his work as a farmer, animals are materially required for a livestock farmer’s work. So someone who fabricates steel sculptures can deliver them as in this case they fall under the more normal definition of materials even though it’s essentially the same as the farmer? (It’s tools or materials in the course of his main work provided driving is not his principal activity BTW not ‘own use’)
This still neglects the point that if VOSA are saying you need it to take a vehicle to test then effectively no-one is exempt which is obviously not the case.
I would interpret it that someone who predominantly drives vehicles to and from test for most of their working day requires it. A fitter who takes one every day or so doesn’t - this may have been what VOSA actually said/meant I wouldn’t rule out the DCPC industry twisting the words to suit their own agenda, in fairness. That original link came from Richard Simpson’s site, I think. His tedious hectoring, in his column, about how wonderful DCPC is was one of the reasons I stopped buying the mag.
You don’t have to take your own vehicle for test. It’s likely that many vehicles are taken for test by third-party workshops, who have prepared said vehicle for test. And I’m sure VOSA will be delighted to create an extra income stream for companies operating ATFs, who will no doubt jump at the chance to charge extra for collect and return as well as the pit fee!
There are times when I seriously wonder about the economics of all this: a 44-tonne truck pays (in fuel duty, road tax driver’s income tax and NI) about £60,000 a year to the Government, and makes about £2 k profit when all costs are paid.
Angus25:
You won’t loose it but you won’t be able to drive for a living but its just changed slightly you used to be able to do test runs as a mechanic but that’s been scraped
Scraped surely bad driving by the mechanic try scraPPed
From the RHA website
“the DfT has confirmed to the RHA that, in its view, UK regulations implementing the DCPC Directive mean that all mechanics taking HGVs to test are covered by the DCPC requirements and that this is considered proportionate.”
DCPC is bollox , but lets all shrug our shoulders and put up with it because we have to…except drivers that realise there been taken for a womans peice and chuck the towel in, what good is it to older drivers with perhaps a year to do or so or in fact anyone with 25-30 yrs experience…taxed in all corners and some and we put up with this crap. 
Actrosman:
So, on reading some of these exemptions, does/would that mean that somebody who is employed as a warehouseman/loader/cleaner or whatever that holds the relevant LGV licence could take said truck out on to the road and do a delivery or 2, providing he doesnt touch the load, or does the fact remain that he will need ‘the card’ as he is a license holder? If the former, wonder how many companies will do away with drivers and only employ ‘warehouseman/loaders/cleaners’ etc? And what about shunters? Would they be able to carry out a night trunk, if all they did at the other end was to swap trailers and drive back to the yard…as we know from threads on here, some call it ‘night trunk’, others call it ‘night shunt’.
The way I understand the regulations is the need for a DCPC is relevant to what the truck is being used for not what the driver is employed as. In our case some of our racecar mechanics also drive the trucks, now the way I interpret the regs are if you are taking a car and equipment to a track and then working on that car they don’t need a DCPC, but if they take the same car to a place to install a roll, cage or for a sponsor to put it on show then they’ll need a DCPC regardless of whether they are employed as a driver or mechanic.
muckles:
Actrosman:
So, on reading some of these exemptions, does/would that mean that somebody who is employed as a warehouseman/loader/cleaner or whatever that holds the relevant LGV licence could take said truck out on to the road and do a delivery or 2, providing he doesnt touch the load, or does the fact remain that he will need ‘the card’ as he is a license holder? If the former, wonder how many companies will do away with drivers and only employ ‘warehouseman/loaders/cleaners’ etc? And what about shunters? Would they be able to carry out a night trunk, if all they did at the other end was to swap trailers and drive back to the yard…as we know from threads on here, some call it ‘night trunk’, others call it ‘night shunt’.
The way I understand the regulations is the need for a DCPC is relevant to what the truck is being used for not what the driver is employed as. In our case some of our racecar mechanics also drive the trucks, now the way I interpret the regs are if you are taking a car and equipment to a track and then working on that car they don’t need a DCPC, but if they take the same car to a place to install a roll, cage or for a sponsor to put it on show then they’ll need a DCPC regardless of whether they are employed as a driver or mechanic.
The other two examples it could still be argued driving is not their principal activity unless they were spending the majority of time transporting vehicles to shows, you could easily argue that they were required to fettle the vehicle going on show. Driving vocationally is what’s mentioned to require a DQC unless the answer to the question of main vocation is ‘lorry driver’ I can’t see how it applies, it has to be stated like this to get the legislation through as like with grandfather rights on 7.5t etc. it’s legally almost impossible to remove something someone already has.
I don’t think the one size fits all approach works the whole thing was clearly designed whilst thinking about about employed PAYE lorry drivers within larger logistics operations and certainly those who spend so much time driving that hours rules are going to be an issue.
It would simplify things greatly if driving vehicles for restricted licence holders was exempt. The problem with that is that it would stagnate the labour market making it difficult to move jobs between own account and hire and reward work.
The other alternative is exempting anyone who’s self-employed in the sense of tree surgeons, farmers etc. but this runs into trouble because so many drivers it’s aimed at are sort of phoney technically self-employed through an agency work set-up.
At the moment it’s a total mess that would be simpler just to say ‘anyone driving 3.5t+ requires DCPC’ probably the main reason they don’t is the extra hassle it would be for the government’s own employees with the forces, council workers etc.
GasGas:
You don’t have to take your own vehicle for test. It’s likely that many vehicles are taken for test by third-party workshops, who have prepared said vehicle for test. And I’m sure VOSA will be delighted to create an extra income stream for companies operating ATFs, who will no doubt jump at the chance to charge extra for collect and return as well as the pit fee!
There are times when I seriously wonder about the economics of all this: a 44-tonne truck pays (in fuel duty, road tax driver’s income tax and NI) about £60,000 a year to the Government, and makes about £2 k profit when all costs are paid.
Even they wouldn’t suggest something as daft as a tree surgeon can drive his 7.5t, that he does his own maintenance on, but must pay someone specially trained to drive it to MOT once a year.
I would also consider the RHA a silly DCPC vested interest, you would need to see exactly how the question to the DFT was framed before you could draw any conclusions. I suspect some of this with mechanics maybe to quell dissent from drivers in firms that fitters drive the lorries but aren’t having to do it.
As it stands either mechanics/fitters don’t actually need it, unless they spend the majority of their time driving, and they’re talking ■■■■■■■■ or everyone will have to get someone with a DQC to undertake the dangerous task of driving to an ATF. I very much doubt it’s going to be the latter.
Own Account Driver:
muckles:
Actrosman:
So, on reading some of these exemptions, does/would that mean that somebody who is employed as a warehouseman/loader/cleaner or whatever that holds the relevant LGV licence could take said truck out on to the road and do a delivery or 2, providing he doesnt touch the load, or does the fact remain that he will need ‘the card’ as he is a license holder? If the former, wonder how many companies will do away with drivers and only employ ‘warehouseman/loaders/cleaners’ etc? And what about shunters? Would they be able to carry out a night trunk, if all they did at the other end was to swap trailers and drive back to the yard…as we know from threads on here, some call it ‘night trunk’, others call it ‘night shunt’.
The way I understand the regulations is the need for a DCPC is relevant to what the truck is being used for not what the driver is employed as. In our case some of our racecar mechanics also drive the trucks, now the way I interpret the regs are if you are taking a car and equipment to a track and then working on that car they don’t need a DCPC, but if they take the same car to a place to install a roll, cage or for a sponsor to put it on show then they’ll need a DCPC regardless of whether they are employed as a driver or mechanic.
The other two examples it could still be argued driving is not their principal activity unless they were spending the majority of time transporting vehicles to shows, you could easily argue that they were required to fettle the vehicle going on show. Driving vocationally is what’s mentioned to require a DQC unless the answer to the question of main vocation is ‘lorry driver’ I can’t see how it applies, it has to be stated like this to get the legislation through as like with grandfather rights on 7.5t etc. it’s legally almost impossible to remove something someone already has.
I don’t think the one size fits all approach works the whole thing was clearly designed whilst thinking about about employed PAYE lorry drivers within larger logistics operations and certainly those who spend so much time driving that hours rules are going to be an issue.
It’s the way I understand the regs from trying to work out how it affects us, but you are right is saying that the regs are very geared to haulage operations. We had the similar problems when they changed the tacho regs, and when I asked VOSA how we were to comply with certain parts of the regs even they admitted it caused quite a bit of discussion before we got an answer.
As for the DCPC we’ll have to wait to see how it will affect non haulage operations, but as for me my boss is paying for it and I’ll be doing it in work hours, so I’m getting a far better deal than many drivers. Do I want to do it? Well I’ve never been worried about training, I went back to college for 2 years when i was 30, but I think this is something that’s been very poorly thought out and implemented.
Here in BELGIUM we dont have to comply till at least 2016 then no doubt someone will question it and it will be delayed again.its like when no smoking in pubs came in it took BELGIUM 5 years to impliment it
On the other hand (and perhaps surprisingly) Ireland has been very prescriptive: everyone has to do seven hours a year.
von max:
Here in BELGIUM we dont have to comply till at least 2016 then no doubt someone will question it and it will be delayed again.its like when no smoking in pubs came in it took BELGIUM 5 years to impliment it
Sounds like common sense is alive and well in Belgium. 
Is there much work for drivers over there ?
Belgium is essentially two different countries with two different legislative and enforcement chains…and it actually didn’t have a functional government at all quite recently.
I’m not sure if this is a good thing or a bad thing.