One for the part timers / weekend drivers

EastAnglianTrucker:
And how does that equate if the two days you didn’t drive last week, were simply days off? Or maybe I travelled to Blackpool (in my car) and entered a ballroom dancing contest? Or visited my sick aunt? Or attended a flower arranging course? So, not work as such. Why should I account for what I do in my own free time, to a civil servant working for a government quango, who has no proof that I HAVE been driving — merely the suspicion — based on what evidence?

There seems to be some confusion in this thread, you only legally need to keep manual records for days that you work but don’t drive in-scope of EU regulations and these records only need to be made for weeks when you do some driving in-scope of EU regulations.

You do not need to keep records on charts or anything else for days that you do not work.

The only reason the authorities want records for working days is so they can check that you’ve complied with the daily/weekly rest periods for the times you drive in-scope of EU regulations.

djw:
Any time you drive on EU rules, you will need to carry records of your work and rest periods since your last weekly rest …

My reading of GV262-3 p39 has “…within a week where they have undertaken driving…” - and “a week” in tachograph rules terms is a “fixed week”, not a sliding working week.

Is there somewhere else I’m missing which says “since your last weekly rest” rather than “within a week”? The distinction between working weeks and fixed weeks is really important for weekend workers.

EastAnglianTrucker:
Well I understand their concern, but to penalise ALL drivers because some are taking advantage of the system, is unacceptable.

And how does that equate if the two days you didn’t drive last week, were simply days off? Or maybe I travelled to Blackpool (in my car) and entered a ballroom dancing contest? Or visited my sick aunt? Or attended a flower arranging course? So, not work as such. Why should I account for what I do in my own free time, to a civil servant working for a government quango, who has no proof that I HAVE been driving — merely the suspicion — based on what evidence?

They may stop me from driving for 45hrs, or for whatever length of time they deem necessary, but I would/will be taking full details of the officers involved, as well as times, and what was said. In fact, I’d be recording the discussion on my camera phone and asking for the evidence that indicates I had been driving, if I have told them I was not!

Let’s see how that stands up in a court of law. I would also be arguing that by restricting me from travelling or returning to my base, from a most probably distant location, at a most probably unsocial time, they are possibly guilty of unlawful detention.

Dicey, the prominent constitutional theoretician, argued that the UK has a system of ‘negative rights’ - that is, you are free to do anything not restricted by law. More recently, there is recognition of certain expressly granted rights, most notably the human rights in the European Convention of Human Rights, which, with a couple of exceptions that are not relevant here, are enshrined in UK law via the Human Rights Act 1998.

Let’s look first at the ‘negative rights’ position. Your freedom to drive a goods vehicle is constrained by the legislation relating to goods vehicles - amongst other things driving licenses, Driver CPC, operator licensing, vehicle excise regulations, Construction and Use regulations, MoT tests and drivers’ hours rules.

In some cases, the law recognises a so-called reverse burden of proof - you have to prove that you did not break the law, rather than it having to be proved you did break the law. The drivers’ hours rules are an example of reverse burden of proof - if you are driving a vehicle in scope of the EU rules, you must have the tachograph records with you to prove you have not broken the law, or you are assumed to have broken the rules (though the UK assumes you were resting when there are no records unless there is reasonable suspicion to the contrary). The rules for manual records are clear - they must be on an analogue chart, digital printout or a manual entry on a digital tachograph - and in the first two cases you must carry the chart or printout for 28 days. Log books are only recognised for time spent driving on domestic hours.

What you do in your free time is up to you - it’s all recorded as rest (bed symbol). The onus is on you to properly record your rest before you start to drive - if you do not do so, you commit the offence of failing to keep records in the prescribed format (forgive me - I don’t know exactly how this is charged). Whilst the presumption in the UK is that you were not working unless there is evidence to the contrary (as tachograph has explained), this presumption can negate the drivers’ hours offence (failing to take rest) but not the tachograph one (failing to keep records in the prescribed format). The same presumption of rest may not apply in other EU countries - you should carry an attestation to cover any breaks in your records.

In most circumstances, the worst that can happen for an alleged drivers’ hours offence is that you will be reported for consideration for prosecution. However, as was seen in one of those TVÂ programmes where PCÂ Angus Nairn arrested a foreign EU national driver for alleged drivers’ hours offences, the police can arrest you under their powers in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, including for prompt and effective investigation of an alleged offence. In that particular case, the arrest took place because the driver had no permanent UK address for service of summons despite being UK based for a few months before ultimately returning to his home country. As bail was impossible without a permanent UKÂ address, the driver was arrested and detained before being brought before a court at the earliest opportunity.

Now, lets turn to the positive rights position. Article 5 ECHR grants a qualified right of liberty of person - but various forms of lawful arrest and detention are expressly allowed, including lawful arrest on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence in order to bring the arrestee in front of a ‘competent legal authority’ (i.e. a court).

Assuming that the police are able to report you on summons for any alleged offences, they are not going to arrest you. However, your absence of records demonstrating you have taken the necessary rest breaks, coupled with reasonable suspicion that you were working rather than resting, means they can prohibit the vehicle until you have taken a full weekly rest period. They cannot compel you to stay with the vehicle - if you don’t care about the consequences for your employment, you can walk away and post the keys back to the yard. In these circumstances, you merely cannot continue your journey until you demonstrably comply with the weekly rest requirement.

As I’ve explained, the legal obligation falls on you as driver to demonstrate compliance with the drivers’ hours rules. An enforcement officer does not have to be able to demonstrate that you have broken the rules to prohibit you until you have taken a weekly rest period - he or she merely has to offer you the chance to prove, via your tachograph records, that you have taken a weekly rest period. The enforcement officer must be prepared to defend their reasonable suspicion that you were working through any breaks in the records, but they would likely be allowed considerable latitude in what is reasonable.

You can take names and numbers, you can threaten legal action (though you have no grounds for such action, as the drivers’ hours rules restrict your otherwise unlimited freedom to drive when you like), but the enforcement officer is likely to be within their powers to prohibit you if they did so. Furthermore, the presumption of rest does not apply to the tachograph offence - if you are within the scope of EUÂ drivers’ hours rules, you must make any manual entries in the prescribed format before starting to drive (and whilst you are doing so, it’s other work!).

EastAnglianTrucker:
Oh, and so far, all I’ve heard on this particular thread is hearsay. Blokes who’ve heard from a bloke who works for VOSA. If anyone has any link to, or evidence of a specific law or condition that VOSA refer to with regard to the recording, and disclosure of driving/working hours — other than the currently accepted times for driving, I’d love to see it.

And yes, I do think this would constitute an illegal hindrance and restriction of my right to carry out my legitimate business.

Do whatever you like - but unless you can produce records in the required format (the definitive statement of the law is EUÂ Regulation 561/2006 for EU drivers’ hours and EUÂ Regulation 3821/85 (as amended) for tachographs - the links go to the latest consolidated version at the time of posting) you risk prohibition and prosecution.

There is no general right of action based on ‘illegal hindrance’ and no general right ‘to carry out my legitimate business’. If you failed to produce the legally required records at the roadside and were prohibited as a result based on reasonable suspicion you were working rather than resting, the enforcement officer was within their rights to do so.

djw r u a driver or a vosa man?

It seems you need a law degree just to work in this country now!

So on weeks (tacho weeks!) where I do no driving, I don’t need any other form of record keeping - although I would need to be able to prove weekly rest before any week where I do some driving?

So if I drive on, say Wednesday, work at my own business as a sparky Monday & Tuesday, and then again on Thursday & Friday, I should have handwritten charts showing my work times (presumably as ‘other work’) for Mon, Tues, Thurs & Fri, also showing my rest periods overnight, along with the chart / digi record etc for the Wednesday, and another handwritten chart showing that I’d had a full 45 hours rest before starting sparkying on Monday?

Does this other work on my day job also mess up the Working Time rules? As I understand it, there are two sets of Working Time regs, for mobile & non-mobile workers - is that right, and if so, how do I even begin to factor that in?

All the money I earn for my one day will go on tacho charts at this rate!

If I work on two days between Monday and Sunday, then I have had five rest days, how do I prove it to the satisfaction of the relevant authorities? Writing on pieces of paper or setting tacho to “rest” proves nothing.

waddy640:
If I work on two days between Monday and Sunday, then I have had five rest days, how do I prove it to the satisfaction of the relevant authorities? Writing on pieces of paper or setting tacho to “rest” proves nothing.

I heard we will all have to wear a tag at the beginning of next year, which will make it a lot easier for us and VOSA

but any people can put manualy in tacho-what he wont.example he was workin 5 day,but put 2-3 day.who can check exactly???yes if work to lgv driver better put 2-3 non driving working day.inspector may be believed more.but if drivers work just 1 day for week-SO VOSA INSPECTOR NOT BELIEVED,WHO PERSON DON T HAVE ANOTHER JOB.

I think this thread has gone off topic a bit as tachoraph said : all the original poster wantedto know is how to record other work , I actually spoke to a guy who works for vosa at the pda training day in wisbech, I told him my regular job is taxi driver and I boost my income with hgv driving , I showed him the logs I keep ie :

monday drove my taxi started day 0800 finished 1600

tues was driving a hgv veh from 0900 till 1700

so on the logs i have which is the example in vosa rules and regs has

veh reg ------------ start location ------------ start time ---------- finish time -------- hours worked all I do is :::::

---- — --------- ------- reading ------------ — 0800 ------ ---------- 1600 --------=- 8-00

TACHO --------- -------- reading --------------- 0900 ---------- ----- 1700 --------- 8-00

etc etc

he told me if i presented this too him he would be fine with that ,
its just showing that im recording my work to make sure I get my daily and weekly rests in accordance with the eu rules

hes not concerned if im driving my granny to meet her mates at bridge as thats my own time and i can do what i like with that time , im not working just doing my granny a favour so not his business :wink:

jx

Think this is getting a little over complicated…

I record everything I do in a diary which I carry with me (and on a spreadsheet on my laptop):

Example

Mon 1st June - worked at xxxxx Ltd 8am - 6pm
Tues 2nd June - worked at xxxxx co ltd 8am - 5pm
Weds 3rd June - DRIVE xxxx haulage ltd 4am - 3pm TACHO
Thurs 4th June - DRIVE xxxx transport ltd 5am - 4pm DIGI
Fri 5th June - DAY OFF
Sat 6th June - worked at xxxx ltd 8am - 3pm
Sun 7th June - DAY OFF

In my bag I have my Digi Card and any Tachos from the last 28 days for VOSA to view. The diary then states what I did on the other days, and they are more than welcome to contact the client (I’ll give them the phone number if they ask nicely enough), if they want to ring them, I’m sure the reply on the phone will be VOSA who? F.Off whats it got to do with you!!!

As far as I’m concerned I’m only governed by Driving rules & regs on the day(s) I drive, and as long as I’ve had 9 hours rest before getting in a Truck, I’m legal. What I do on other days is between me, my accountant & the Inland Revenue

I do Agency driving, they know I do other things, and they never ask questions.

Herongate:
As far as I’m concerned I’m only governed by Driving rules & regs on the day(s) I drive,

You’re governed for the whole week in which you drive.

This is getting over-complicated - a side-effect, unfortunately, of the way the regulations themselves are expressed.

This is long because I’ve attempted to keep the discussion in logical order. However, I’ve used some subheadings to give this some structure and have tried to reach a simple conclusion.

If you want to cut to the chase, skip down to What records (at minimum) must you to keep?. I suggest any further discussion of this post is restricted to that section - I offer the rest by way of explanation as to how I got to these conclusions, so that people can disagree with me.

GV 262 page 39 - what is a “week”?

wilbur:

djw:
Any time you drive on EU rules, you will need to carry records of your work and rest periods since your last weekly rest …

My reading of GV262-3 p39 has “…within a week where they have undertaken driving…” - and “a week” in tachograph rules terms is a “fixed week”, not a sliding working week.

Is there somewhere else I’m missing which says “since your last weekly rest” rather than “within a week”? The distinction between working weeks and fixed weeks is really important for weekend workers.

The key question is actually when your obligation to keep to EUÂ hours’ rules ends if you do not drive again, though you rightly point out the importance of ‘fixed weeks’ in determining compliance with weekly rest requirements.

The phrase on page 39 we are talking about is not very clear. It reads:

Drivers must record all other work and periods of availability — including work for other employers — on all driving and non-driving days within a week where they have undertaken driving that comes within the scope of the EU rules on drivers’ hours since their last weekly rest.

The first issue is what ‘since their last weekly rest’ binds to.

What appears to be intended is this:

In any week when a driver has undertaken driving that comes within the scope of the EUÂ rules on drivers’ hours since their last weekly rest, drivers must record all other work and periods of availability - including work for other employers - on all driving and non-driving days within a week.

However, that still leaves the problem of whether ‘within a week’ is a ‘fixed’ week (00:00 Monday to 24:00 Sunday) as used for the ‘fortnight’ rule (see the section starting with the second dark green lozenge at the bottom of page 22 that begins “A regular weekly rest…”) or a ‘sliding’ week (commencing at the end of the weekly rest period). DVLA could usefully clarify this.

I don’t believe Tazbug has driven on EU hours at all yet - I’m pretty certain Tazbug has only just passed his LGV test - sorry if I’ve misremembered when you passed or if you’re female, Tazbug! It was with that in mind that I suggested the records started with the beginning of the weekly rest period to demonstrate it was a weekly rest (though this is, to a strict reading, not necessary, it’s only one more date and time). The requirement to keep records commences at the end of the weekly rest period.

What do the EU Regulations say about weekly rest?

The way the weekly rest requirements are expressed in Article 8 of EUÂ Regulation 561/2006 is clearer to me, and, in any case, Regulation 561/2006 is the definitive statement of the law.

In every week, starting 00:00 Monday and ending 24:00 Sunday, you must take 45 hours of continuous rest (weekly rest period). However, you can shorten this to 24 hours continuous rest (reduced weekly rest period) so long as:* you take a full 45 hours continuous rest next week

  • you took a full 45 hours continuous rest last week, and
  • before the end of the third week after the current week, you rest for the shortfall between your actual rest and 45 hours in one continuous period attached to another rest period (which can be a 9 hour reduced daily rest)

With this in mind, I think the record requirements are then reasonably clear.

What records (at minimum) must you keep?

When you drive on EU hours, you need records for all your time from the end of the weekly rest period before your drove until the end of the weekly rest period after you drove.

In addition, it seems wise to put beyond doubt that you met the requirements for weekly rest periods before and after you drove by recording:* the start and end of the weekly rest break in the week before you drove on EU hours, and

  • if either the weekly rest break after you drove or the weekly rest period in the week before you drove was reduced, the start and end of the rest period in which you took compensating rest (N.B. you cannot reduce both of these weekly rest periods!)

Remember that ‘week’ means 00:00 Monday to 24:00 Sunday in this case.

If you have those records, I can’t see there’s any ambiguity about your compliance with the EU drivers’ hours rules. The “in addition” records, because they are not necessarily contiguous with other records, may have to be written on an analogue chart or digital printout.

I’m sure that, as many have suggested, most VOSA personnel will exercise their discretion to accept unambiguous manual records written on something other than an analogue chart or digital printout. However, these records are outside the strict requirements of the law and may not be accepted - an individual VOSA officer, police officer or magistrates’ court accepting these records does not create a precedent that you or anyone else can rely on. By all accounts, some other EU countries take a stricter approach to the tachograph rules than the UK does, so you should be particularly careful to use an analogue chart or digital printout if you are going to drive outside the EU later that day or in the 28 full days thereafter.

If you drive a digital vehicle and think you may not drive on EU hours again or may not have access to a digital vehicle to make all the manual entries, I’d take a printout at the end of your shift to record manual entries after your shift. Alternatively, use a blank analogue chart. Either way, this becomes part of the records you need to carry for 28 days after the current day before handing in to the relevant employer.

Why is the law so complex - and why does my mind work in this (twisted?) way

Someone asked who I was. I don’t work for VOSA or the police; I hold some legal qualifications which I am in the process of topping up to a full law degree (I’ve completed my study of topics including EUÂ law and constitutional law, with criminal law underway). However, it must be borne in mind that I am just as fallible as the next person - the law is interpreted in the courts and anything anyone else says is educated conjecture. Ultimately, the only institution that can give a definitive ruling on EUÂ law is the Court of Justice of the European Union.

UKÂ law is written in a way that attempts to be comprehensive in its explanation of what is required (or prohibited). These requirements are usually applied literally. This is the so-called common law system.

EU law follows the so-called civil law system typical of most non-Commonwealth countries, including most other EU countries. This system involves laws that set out principles, rather than a comprehensive set of requirements. These principles are applied using the teleological approach - a nasty long word that means the courts apply the principles in a way that attempts to uphold the spirit of those principles in order to implement the intention behind them. EU law is typically not comprehensive in its explanations.

It is the lack of comprehensiveness in EUÂ law that causes confusion here. The only requirement to keep records in Regulation 2006/561 is found in Article 6(5) of Regulation 2006/561:

A driver shall record as other work any time spent as described in Article 4(e) [definition of ‘other work’] as well as any time spent driving a vehicle used for commercial operations not falling within the scope of this Regulation [domestic hours or AETRÂ rules], and shall record any periods of availability, as defined in Article 15(3)(c) of Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 [definition of ‘period of availability’], since his last daily or weekly rest period. This record shall be entered either manually on a record sheet, a printout or by use of manual input facilities on recording equipment.

The comments in [square brackets] are my clarifications.

So the requirement to record is ‘since his last daily or weekly rest period’ - which doesn’t help one bit in resolving when you need to keep records until! However, it does underline that you must keep records from end of the rest period before you drive.

This particular requirement does not cover recording driving in scope of EUÂ regulations or rest - for those requirements, you have to look to the tachograph regulations in Regulation 3821/85.

Amongst many other things, Regulation 3821/85 says that the tachograph must be used (Article 3(1)), and that the driver must have any manual records for the current day and the previous 28 days with him, together with his digital driver card if he has one (Article 15(7)).

Conclusion

Keep true records that demonstrate full compliance with the EUÂ hours regulations - I believe I have outlined the bare minimum in What records (at minimum) must you keep? above. This way, you will not have a problem - though it theoretically involves a lot of manual records, if you record each change between other work (which can be the beginning and end of your work on that day, as breaks are immaterial if you are not driving a goods or passenger vehicle that day) and rest (everything else) on an analogue chart or digital printout as you go along, it isn’t that much of a chore. It’s only likely to be two transitions a day, five days a week.

The maximum records you need to carry are manual records for the current day plus the previous 28 days.

If there are gaps in the records that create doubt that you are in full compliance with the drivers’ hours regulations, you invite the conclusion that you are not in compliance, with the consequences that may bring.

I thought I would just chuck this one in the mix. I got pulled by the polish traffic guys last thursday on the way back from Odessa (ukraine). They say I should carry with me a ATTESTATION for other work I have done or have not done for the previons weeks.

dan dare:
I thought I would just chuck this one in the mix. I got pulled by the polish traffic guys last thursday on the way back from Odessa (ukraine). They say I should carry with me a ATTESTATION for other work I have done or have not done for the previons weeks.

I’m self employed (not driving) so I just have to write myself an Attestation - easy!

I’ll stick to keeping my own records & then argue the toss if/when the problem arises. Reading back through the post I can’t see anywhere that someone has actually had the VOSA/record-keeping problem occur so until it’s tested I’d have thought it impossible to get a definitive answer. Also, just as a side point I didn’t think VOSA administered the WTD regulations?

tallyman:
I’m self employed (not driving) so I just have to write myself an Attestation - easy!

I’ll stick to keeping my own records & then argue the toss if/when the problem arises. Reading back through the post I can’t see anywhere that someone has actually had the VOSA/record-keeping problem occur so until it’s tested I’d have thought it impossible to get a definitive answer. Also, just as a side point I didn’t think VOSA administered the WTD regulations?

If you’re referring to the original question of how should records be kept for work days that are none EU driving days the definitive answer has been given, legally they should be recorded manually on tachograph charts/printouts, entered manually into a digital tachograph or if you’re driving to domestic rules recorded on log sheets.

It appears that some VOSA examiners are using their discretion and allowing records of none driving work days to be kept as written records in diaries/forms ec’t which is sensible in my opinion, however you should understand that this method does not comply with the (EC) 561/2006 regulations and if you happen to bump into a jobsworth VOSA bod (every large organisation has a few) he would be within his rights not to accept records that do not comply with the regulations.

None of this has anything to do with the WTD it’s all about the (EC) 561/2006.

A very well argued case there djw, and respect for your ability to interpret the regulations in a way that is comprehensible for laymen like me. I suspect though that, like much of UK law, a lot of what you have said is merely one view of the regulations. There will almost certainly be an opposing view and that is what I would imagine would be argued in court. I would be expecting to see some case law before pursuing such a case though…

That said, I can see the basis for any challenge to what you write, in the last para of your excellent post. In fact, two possiblly contentious issues.

djw:
There is no general right of action based on ‘illegal hindrance’ and no general right ‘to carry out my legitimate business’. If you failed to produce the legally required records at the roadside and were prohibited as a result based on reasonable suspicion you were working rather than resting, the enforcement officer was within their rights to do so.

I think there would be a case to answer for the illegal hindrance of legitimate trade, under current European Human Rights legislation. Whether it would top the Euro and/or UK legislation you have quoted is a moot point, but I suspect Human Rights law tops pretty much anything —Â as we see on a constant basis when it comes to immigration law.

The second point is your use of “reasonable suspicion” in your last sentence. Even in magistrates court I suspect what is reasonable would need to amount to more than; “It was my view your honour…” or “In my opinion your honour…”

It would be a brave judge that established mere opinion as reasonable suspicion. In fact, on that basis, I could well imagine there would be the potential for arguing that “mere opinion” amounted to “UNreasonable suspicion,” and thus liable to an award for damages if found in a driver’s favour.

However, as mentioned, I’m no lawyer.

If the regulations were made correctly in the first place, ie the loopholes were detected and removed, there would be no need for the courts to have to interpret what the EU or our own parliament meant. It should be clear, concise and unambiguous.

Just a quick thanks to Jennie and djw for giving me a few pointers. I will read up on it and, Jen I’ll look into making use of the form you suggest.
I have just remembered that the HA require us to complete time sheets which includes days off. I guess I could always print completed ones off and use as evidence of work along with any tacho records I might have!

Tazbug

waddy640:
If the regulations were made correctly in the first place, ie the loopholes were detected and removed, there would be no need for the courts to have to interpret what the EU or our own parliament meant. It should be clear, concise and unambiguous.

That’s being somewhat optimistic. I think you’ll find that the majority of laws produced by the EU are deliberately ambiguous, either because they want case-law to refine them or they have a lot of lawyer friends who need the work…

EastAnglianTrucker:
A very well argued case there djw, and respect for your ability to interpret the regulations in a way that is comprehensible for laymen like me.

I try. It’s what I’m trained to do, and one day I hope to be able to pursue law as a career (possibly as a solicitor). However, there’s many hurdles yet to overcome, not least the difficulties of securing a solicitor’s training contract (though I’m still several years from that). At the moment, it’s a bit like the situation with LGV drivers - there’s plenty of unemployed qualified solicitors with relatively little post-qualification experience (so why should a law firm go to all the hassle of running a training contract to train someone to that level when such people are plentiful?) and plenty of people who hold law degrees and post-graduate vocational legal qualifications are stuck in badly paid paralegal jobs that do not need any formal qualifications, hoping they’ll be next in line for a solicitor’s training contract if one is offered.

EastAnglianTrucker:
I suspect though that, like much of UK law, a lot of what you have said is merely one view of the regulations. There will almost certainly be an opposing view and that is what I would imagine would be argued in court. I would be expecting to see some case law before pursuing such a case though…

As you rightly say, there is always two sides to a legal dispute - if there was only one side, then there would be no dispute in the first place. It is a case of balancing the various factors in the case. Case law is a helpful guide, especially in the courts of England and Wales where there is a strict system of binding precedent (a case decided in a sufficiently senior courts binds inferior courts to the same decision on the same facts, assuming no underlying legal changes - though binding precedent can never be set in a magistrates’ court).

EU law does not follow strict binding precedent, though the Court of Justice of the European Union tends to stick by its previous decisions - if it did not do so, it would be very hard to know where you stood in relation to the law (in other words, legal certainty would be lacking).

EastAnglianTrucker:
That said, I can see the basis for any challenge to what you write, in the last para of your excellent post. In fact, two possiblly contentious issues.

djw:
There is no general right of action based on ‘illegal hindrance’ and no general right ‘to carry out my legitimate business’. If you failed to produce the legally required records at the roadside and were prohibited as a result based on reasonable suspicion you were working rather than resting, the enforcement officer was within their rights to do so.

I think there would be a case to answer for the illegal hindrance of legitimate trade, under current European Human Rights legislation. Whether it would top the Euro and/or UK legislation you have quoted is a moot point, but I suspect Human Rights law tops pretty much anything —Â as we see on a constant basis when it comes to immigration law.

Actually, human rights are not as strongly protected as many people think. Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 requires the courts to interpret legislation in line with the European Convention on Human Rights (‘ECHR’) “so far as possible”. If Parliament passes an Act of Parliament that runs contrary to the ECHR, the courts must uphold the legislation rather than human rights. The most the courts can do is issue a ‘declaration of incompatibility’, stating that the law is incompatible with human rights.

If you want to be really strict about it, at least one senior judge has argued that if legislation profoundly offends fundamental democratic principles, such as abolishing free elections contrary to ECHRÂ Protocol 1 Article 3, the courts may have to uphold democracy even though it would spark a constitutional crisis by breaching the supremacy of Parliament (in the UK constitutional settlement, the right of Parliament to legislate is fundamental) and the doctrine of separation of powers (arguably judges have no right to take legislative authority from Parliament). This is, fortunately, an unlikely scenario.

In practice, there are few such conflicts, not least because the Human Rights Act 1998 requires the minister or other Parliamentary sponsor of proposed legislation to declare it is compatible with the ECHR or explain why the Government wish to proceed with legislation that is incompatible with the ECHR. In the latter case, Parliament is likely to give the government a particularly tough time.

The situation with immigration matters and Article 8 ECHRÂ (right to respect for private and family life) is one of ongoing debate. Much of the time, the infringement of Article 8 ECHR relates to any children, who may have been born here and are therefore British citizens. Should their parent be deported, there is clearly infringement of their right to respect for private and family life.

This is a difficult issue of balancing rights and responsibilities, which is being re-examined at present.

In fact, I did cover the only conceivable human rights claim in your scenario in my earlier post.

djw:
Article 5 ECHR grants a qualified right of liberty of person - but various forms of lawful arrest and detention are expressly allowed, including lawful arrest on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence in order to bring the arrestee in front of a ‘competent legal authority’ (i.e. a court).

Assuming that the police are able to report you on summons for any alleged offences, they are not going to arrest you. However, your absence of records demonstrating you have taken the necessary rest breaks, coupled with reasonable suspicion that you were working rather than resting, means they can prohibit the vehicle until you have taken a full weekly rest period. They cannot compel you to stay with the vehicle - if you don’t care about the consequences for your employment, you can walk away and post the keys back to the yard. In these circumstances, you merely cannot continue your journey until you demonstrably comply with the weekly rest requirement.

The ECHRÂ rights incorporated into UKÂ law can be found in Schedule 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998. If you read through those rights, you will see that they are all socio-political in nature - they relate to social and political matters, but do not cover economic or cultural matters at all. As such, it is should not be surprising that there is no ECHR right of freedom of trade.

In some circumstances, it may be possible to argue that a restriction of trade contravenes freedom of inter-EU trade, which is protected by EU law, but that is not going to be the case here, not least as you would be a UK driver being subjected to EU road transport law by the UK authorities. That leaves the only way to argue for such a freedom as the Diceyan freedom to do everything not restricted by law, but the tachograph rules, drivers’ hours rules and other road traffic legislation are specific restrictions on your freedoms in this area. Accordingly, a rights-based challenge cannot succeed.

EastAnglianTrucker:
The second point is your use of “reasonable suspicion” in your last sentence. Even in magistrates court I suspect what is reasonable would need to amount to more than; “It was my view your honour…” or “In my opinion your honour…”

It would be a brave judge that established mere opinion as reasonable suspicion. In fact, on that basis, I could well imagine there would be the potential for arguing that “mere opinion” amounted to “UNreasonable suspicion,” and thus liable to an award for damages if found in a driver’s favour.

Well done - that is the area where any challenge would centre. Whenever the law has a requirement for reasonableness, a person must be prepared to justify the reasonableness of their actions to a court.

In this case, any offences are likely to be dealt with in the magistrates’ court, so it’s “your worships” for lay justices or “Sir / Madam” if a District Judge is sitting. “Your honour” relates to a judge sitting in a Crown Court.

The presumption in the UK in the absence of records is that rest was taken - though that presumption is rebuttable if the enforcement officer has grounds to suspect rest was not taken. In this case, you’d have to consider the bounds of the spectrum of reasonableness. If the driver was falling asleep at the wheel, had covered a vast distance in the previous few days and the digital tachograph shows a considerable distance driven with no card inserted, I think the court would accept that an enforcement officer had reasonable suspicion that the driver had not taken his required rest periods.

Reasonableness can only be determined on the facts.

In this case, reasonableness would likely be argued over in a criminal prosecution.

It is also possible to seek judicial review of a decision made by a public body that affected you (in this case, on the grounds that the enforcement officer had no reasonable suspicion, and was therefore acting outside his legal powers), but this would be a pyrrhic victory (i.e. expensive and bringing no real reward).

Judicial review proceedings have to be brought in the High Court, and are therefore expensive, also any prohibition would be over before you could really get the court action going unless you are prepared to pay lawyers to work out of hours to bring an emergency application. There is therefore no real remedy you can seek; damages are only available in judicial review in conjunction with another remedy, such as an order quashing a decision. Your losses by being prohibited for 45 hours are disproportionate to the court fees - this alone suggests that judicial review is pointless.