I’ll go and correct him now, I did mention that either you were wrong or things have changed. 
Things have changed.
me being wrong hasn’t
1 Like
There’s worse situations than that: talking to a guy today who drives for a company that does road work, some of the guys drive an HGV, but most are 3.5T.
The 3.5T drivers work seven days a week, their bosses seem to be happy allowing them to do that. These 3.5T drivers complain to their bosses that the HGV drivers should work seven days too, the HGV driver I was speaking to actually wanted to do that - Live to work? WTF? Naturally he said “But I need the money…”
@greendiff
I’m sorry to say that you are almost certainly wrong, the fact that you was double manning does not negate the night time working time limit of 10 hours working time without an opt out agreement.
So unless there is an opt out agreement in place the infringement for exceeding 10 hours working time is technically correct.
If the company has planned the shift this way, I think it’s reasonable to expect them to know if the drivers are opted out of the night working limits, and to confirm that this has been included in the settings of their analysis software before dishing out an infringment.
That assumes most companies give a lot more forethought than many give though.
True, but if they haven’t used their heads, OP can tell them what to do with their infringements 
Whether or not the OP can claim that the company should have planned the journey differently or advised the drivers that they must finish before midnight is debatable, the point I was making was more to do with the idea that the multi-manning rules override the working time rules.
As far as I can see, without an opt out agreement in place the night time working limits are there regardless of whether or not the drivers are multi-manning
Having said that, it could simply be that the analysis software is not set up correctly as has already been suggested, we don’t really have enough information to give a definitive answer as to whether or not the infringement is justifiable 
