Hi all im currently doing my managers cpc, the book has the standings as £8000 first truck £4500 there after however i just did a question and in a mock and im off in my workings out, so i did a google and found on direct gov it states £4450 there after as of 2021?
can anyone help me here with it and have a look where i went wrong, it asks for the financial standing required and if there is a surplus or deficit
any help would be welcomed
For a course and exam, use the numbers they give you and not the ones you think they should use. Its like the fuel calc you use, it will be nothing like the prices you pay at the pump or card. Remember its an exam not the real world. In case you hadn’t seen, the financial Statutory document was updated and released just a couple of days ago.
I’m getting an answer of £74, 500. But then, I failed my O level maths in 1969, and again in 1970
I’m going to have a bash at this question…
The sheet says you have authority for 11 vehicles at one Op centre and five at another. So you have two operating centres. …Handy to know, but not relevant to this question.
It says you are only using 10 vehicles at Op1 and 5 vehicles at Op2.
Financial standing MUST account for every potential vehicle on your operating licence… this is why guys don’t get approval for loads of trucks if they don’t intend running them - you’ve got to keep financial standing for every vehicle even if you don’t have them.
So we have approval for 16 vehicles on our operating licence. They must all have financial standing.
The first vehicle must have financial standing of £8,000 every subsequent vehicle must have financial standing of £4,500.
1 X £8,000 = £8,000
15 X £4,500 = £67,500
£8,000 + £67,500 = £75,500
Available funds = £80,000
You have a Surplus = £4,500
Acorn:
For a course and exam, use the numbers they give you and not the ones you think they should use. Its like the fuel calc you use, it will be nothing like the prices you pay at the pump or card. Remember its an exam not the real world. In case you hadn’t seen, the financial Statutory document was updated and released just a couple of days ago.
Correct.
Its the same with ADR, the questions are set out to read the question and answer using the details they give you.
Wheel Nut:
Acorn:
For a course and exam, use the numbers they give you and not the ones you think they should use. Its like the fuel calc you use, it will be nothing like the prices you pay at the pump or card. Remember its an exam not the real world. In case you hadn’t seen, the financial Statutory document was updated and released just a couple of days ago.Correct.
Its the same with ADR, the questions are set out to read the question and answer using the details they give you.
+1
Way back when I was teaching Operator CPC, there was always a lag between the info given on a course for that exam and the reality of the real world.
I’m not sure whether the OP has unwittingly fallen into this trap, but that’s my main reason for strongly recommending that folks DON’T buy second hand CPC materials.
If the provider is using up-to-date materials, then those facts and figures what will be used in the exam.
Provided that the course provider is using EOS CPC course notes, then candidates won’t have any issues with their course notes tallying with the exams.
Real world figures can be used post-qualification.
To address Malc’s point about ADR, the EOS course notes will rarely change much in practice because the Operator CPC course and exam are designed to get the point across that the real world requires a company to have a properly qualified DGSA. For this reason, the ADR stuff in the Operator CPC exams is pretty basic.
If it fits my schedule, I sometimes do a cameo appearance on an Operator CPC course to cover just the dangerous goods (DG) module, and I’m usually available on here if anybody gets stuck with DG stuff. 
Acorn:
For a course and exam, use the numbers they give you and not the ones you think they should use. Its like the fuel calc you use, it will be nothing like the prices you pay at the pump or card. Remember its an exam not the real world. In case you hadn’t seen, the financial Statutory document was updated and released just a couple of days ago.
exactly this , I feel in to that hole. Still passed though,just .
Might as well update, so sat the course or should I say logged into exam, only to find an exam that I wasn’t expecting. The leading award body the new one! Put the wrong exam online. So instead of the multiple choice I was expecting first I was greatest with something I’d not seen before. After much back and fourth to the robots that watch it was just sit it. So sat the exam thinking if only I could use my book I know where that is, but we’re told part one is closed book even said so I front cover of our folder. End of exam came only to find out it the old exam and you could use your book. Needless to say my results are now in the post so I expect a big fat fail for the first part of the exam.
I guess the ‘trick’ in this question is that there is two operating centre’s, in two different areas. Therefore the company would need to have two separate operating licence’s.
My workings out would be based on these figures
First Vehicle = £8000
Additional Vehicles = £4500
OC1 (11 vehicles) = (1 x £8000) + (10 x £4500) = £8000 + £45000 = £53000
OC2 (5 vehicles) = (1 x £8000) + (4 x £4500) = £8000 + £18000 = £26000
OC1 + OC2 = £53000 + £26000 = £79000
Available Funds = £80000
Available Funds - Amount Required = £80000 - £79000 = £1000 Surplus
It’s probably worth noting (unless it has changed since i took my test) that even if your initial figures are incorrect, providing you show the correct workings you would still get some marks
dieseldave:
Provided that the course provider is using EOS CPC course notes, then candidates won’t have any issues with their course notes tallying with the exams.
+1, anyone who uses anything different from the EOS notes has been poorly advised
To address Malc’s point about ADR, the EOS course notes will rarely change much in practice because the Operator CPC course and exam are designed to get the point across that the real world requires a company to have a properly qualified DGSA.
A topical issue for me, I keep getting things put my way after-the-fact, soooooooooo many companies not having a clue about DGSAs or the requirement for any kind of training, and drivers simply accepting DGs without question - sometimes with disastrous results.
The best one recently was at a company who do A LOT of ADR work, I’ve taught a lot of their drivers, many of whom have shown theirselves to be ill-suited for a course with exams 
My buddy went to work at this place as a TM, then found out they just expected him to be assisting some original TM. This original TM told a driver to take a DG load, the Monday after passing his exams. Driver asked my mate if this was ok, my mate called me, I told him “No way until he gets his certificate, and why doesn’t their DGSA advise this TM in stronger terms?”
My mate confronts other TM guy with this and got the reply: “What’s a DGSA?” 
My mate has now left the company, telling their MD in no uncertain terms what an absolute shower he has working for him.
Regarding the original question: two traffic areas requires two O-licences.
gov.uk/being-a-goods-vehicl … -a-licence
so:
- £8000 + (10 x £4,500)
plus - £8000 + (4 x £4,500)
=£79,000
so you have a £1000 surplus
If this exam question was from an original past paper for OCR, online you will find not only the past papers but also the Examiner’s Report which will give you model answers which would have resulted in a pass.
Zac_A:
… My mate confronts other TM guy with this and got the reply: “What’s a DGSA?”
My mate has now left the company, telling their MD in no uncertain terms what an absolute shower he has working for him.
Dave’s ADR trivia…
The requirement to appoint a properly qualified DGSA has been UK law since 01/01/2000, so any TM who hasn’t heard of it is clearly deficient in knowledge, … especially if the company carries dangerous goods!!
It’s wonder that drivers haven’t been telling their bosses this because the subject of a company having a DGSA is required teaching in the Core module of any ADR course that’s been taught in the last few years. This has livened up many a Monday morning.
For the googlers… ADR 1.8.3.1 is where you’ll get the details, then there’s the specifics in the rest of ADR 1.8.3
The sad truth is Dave that many of this company’s drivers are pretty much bottom-of-the-barrel, so they just turn up to work and drive off in their wagons, most with inadequate load security 
One course candidate was clearly illiterate and failed the whole kit and caboodle, despite having previously held a Class 7 ADR Certificate! We reported this to SQA so they can flag up the TP who handed that certificate out (no doubt in exchange for a back-hander).
Another driver, not illiterate this time, managed to fail Core THREE TIMES! I told his bosses he simply could not cut it but they just kept sending him back.
Another driver failed Comm Char, Classes Grp A & Classes Grp B. After three resits I got him through them all, but only after creating a whole series of pre-exam tests to grill the life out of him.
My buddy was very tempted to report the company to DVSA, not out of malice, but out of concern for the general public.