We run a mixed fleet. The majority of our Class 1 drivers are on tacho 80+% of the time, but there are days when they are either driving a van or loafing round the yard getting in the way of their non-loafing boss .
For years we have been dutifully filling in attestation forms and they have been fine. However, we have recently (end of May and this morning), had two instances, same town and I believe the same two coppers, where weāve had a pull and they have not accepted attestation forms and would only accept a manual print out.
Anyone had similar experience? I know there wonāt be many of you running a mixed fleet, but on the off chance. I do have the RHA International dept on the case.
Results so far: albion trucking 0 - Germany 900 euros
I think the attestation forms are open to abuse, why? I can type my own on a Ā£30 printer or get a stamp made on Amazon, we forged our own papers in Colditz and Zie Germans donāt forget.
In a previous life there were a stack of cleaning certificates and attestations in our pigeon hole [emoji12]
They are, but so is a manual print out to cover out of scope days. You can input anything into the tacho head so in that respect itās no different to the attestation form.
In theory, the attestation should carry more weight because the office sign it off as well as the driver. and Iām not aware of a requirement for the office to sign a manual printout.
I, obviously, have no understanding of this āabuse of paperworkā that you talk aboutā¦
I think the attestation form stopped being required in about 2014, but the regs still require you to show other work if away from the vehicle and to be recorded in the official way, manual entry or printout, and the Germans are known for being sticklers for regulations and obviously these 2 coppers are full on German stereotypes.
The DVSA are far more lenient and except anything like a diary entry or timesheet or just some sort of record sheet knocked up on a computer in our case.
Iāve not had similar experiences, but I do a lot of manual entry on the tachograph now, it has got far easier with the new generation, was almost impossible before to keep a track of what you were doing, still easy to make a mistake now though as I found out a few weeks ago by mixing up BST and UTC timings and doing myself out of an hours daily rest.
The RHA seemed to think attestation forms are still legal, according to the conversation I had this morning, this is part of the 2015 briefing they sent out:
2. Enforcement approach a) Drivers should record all their activities when away from the vehicle retroactively by manual inputs at the moment when they resume driving; b) If (a) is not possible for some objective, technical reasons (e.g.: old generation of digital tachographs not allowing for recording retroactively long periods of absence of records, or driver was not driving but carrying out other work for a long period, e.g. last 3 weeks, where recording all āother workā and rest periods retroactively would appear excessively burdensome ) drivers may use the leave form established by Decision 2009/959 and enforcers are instructed to respect such form in case of missing tachograph records. NOTE: attestation form is not to be used to prove the daily or weekly rest. c) Systematic weekly and daily rest periods may but do not have to be registered manually retroactively via tachograph and enforcers should be instructed to deduce from reading the tachograph records for last 28 days that the regular gaps in records (of specific duration corresponding with min daily or weekly rest) are a legitimate daily / weekly rest periods. d) Longer than normally required rest periods ought to be recorded retroactively by manual entries, where a manual input via the back side of a printout should be permitted/respected. To ensure a consistent approach to the implementation of these inter-linked recording and control obligations the EC held a meeting of the so-called Enforcement Working Group. The group has presented its findings but they require EC endorsement. This means that there may be some legal uncertainty in any interim period and members should be advised to make sure they have a ābelt and bracesā approach to leave and rest documentation so that drivers are protected as much as possible. For the moment members way wish to keep using the Attestation Form if they cannot use the tachograph.
I love the woolly, āthere may be some legal uncertaintyāā¦
Yes since 2014 we dont need letters of attestations in Germany,but a) only for German liecence holders b) you dont need them for your weekly rest period. We do need them if we have been on Holiday or on the Sick
At my firm if we drive a van between driving trucks we have to fill out a "Persƶnliches Kontrollblat " (Logbook) and take that page with us the next time we drive Trucks
gbtransp:
We do need them if we have been on Holiday or on the Sick
Only if you are using the first generation of digital tachos that only allowed manual entries for a couple of days. With the new digital tachos, manual entries can be made to cover an extended period of time, ie holidays or sickness.
Yes it depends on the tacho. Basically if you can account for all rest periods or work in continuous form then thereās no gaps in your records for an attestation to fill in.
I expect most of you on this board are familiar with the attestation docs, for those that arenāt, you type out the dates that you werenāt on tacho and then underneath put a cross in the relevant boxes
14 - on sick leave
15 - annual leave
etc etc
so the dates on our attestation were all typed in, the Xs in the box were done by hand. From the German version of the RHA:
My colleague Mr ā¦ confirms that in principle, the attestation of activities may still be used as a proof for days when the driver was not driving a vehicle subject to mandatory documentation . However, use of the attestation is possible only in cases where the digital amendment is impossible or āquite awkwardā. In case a paper attestation is used, it must be typewritten without any manual addendums in order to be acceptable. The attestations you presented do not fulfil these requirements in items 15, 16 and 19. Mr ā¦ assumes that this is the reason why they were rejected ā especially as the need for entry in typescript is even mentioned in the document itself
So Iām looking at fines of well over 1000 euros because a box had an x handwritten in it rather than typedā¦
Just letting you know there are some pernickety German coppers north of Nuremburg.
or loafing round the yard getting in the way of their non-loafing boss 
.
