Does a sqn minibus require an FMT600?

Adult Staff Execs
11

I have always been under the impression that is you do not have a D1 licence, you do not drive a 16 seat bus. The link above clearly says that this is wrong. I would be very reluctant to drive a vehicle that was not on my licence.

This whole section hinges around what is hire and reward. If a sqn is not an operator then no need for permit 19. If we are an operator then we cannot drive a D1 licence. There seems to be a large grey area and much interoperation in this matter. If we all have D1 and are not hire and reward then we do not need a Permit 19

12

It is greyer than that - as we charge a subscription to our cadets for the privilege of taking part in squadron activities, with the associated benefit of getting a ride in the minibus. If that is considered “hire or reward” (as it is more than simply covering of costs) then simply having a D1 doesn’t cover you and realistically everybody should need a P19

13

Doing the activities has nothing to do with subs.
You don’t as a squadron have to charge subs. If you raised enough each year to cover costs through fund-raising or money bequeathed, then you would not need to charge subs. Which negates that argument.

If you specifically charged for journeys, ie £5/head for say athletics, then you could say potentially there was hire and reward. But most SOV journeys are part of something else, which has a cost, but the cost covers the whole activity and in my experience fuel is the only cost redirected for minibuses, the rest goes back to the cadets pro rata or into sqn funds, it doesn’t go into our pockets. Or the costs come out of squadron funds and as these are never ring-fenced to that extent, no one could really prove you were being rewarded for the journey.

14

only for the Air Cadets - it is not valid for my Scouting friends for instance. being not for “hire or reward” they carry on regardless.

although true it goes deeper than this.

if the passenger’s eligibility to travel is based on being part of a club/group and being a member of said club/group is based on subs then that counts as “hire and reward”

which negates my above comment about Scouts, Church groups and anyone else operating a group 16 seat Minibus. - this is where it gets grey between with and without a permit, with and without “hire or reward”

HQAC and certainly out Wing have been very strict - D1 or not even bother.

15

sorry, HQAC have been poor on this matter…
it was from there we got the P19’s and have stopped issuing them recently pending a review,
reviewing what? that we are using them wrong?
if that is the case and there is any confusion then they should be informing sqns urgently,
what happens IF there is a crash in which the CFAV is hit but turns out they are uninsured???

we issue stop orders in this organisation for crap but we dont seem to do it for the big things that can affect peoples lives and families!

16

As I understand it the insurance is separate to the licensing.

insurers cans state must be over X age and do hold D1.
or they can state anyone with a B license held for Y years - depending on the operation of the vehicle.

the legality of the use based on status of the vehicle with/without permit would be questioned rather than a insurance point…

17

Strange. My wing have never mentioned it at all that I remember.

18

Once again Wings are making things up or people who do not know what they are talking about are unable to read the regulations.

DfT Guidance on Permit 19

So basically a Permit 19 is an exemption from the to hold a PSV Operators Licence when providing transport for a charge and under specified conditions provides an exemption for the PCV part of the licence.

So Section 19 covers minibuses with upto 16 passenger seats (plus the driver) you can use these vehicles for your members as long as you are doing so without a view to profit from the journeys.

We’ve covered all this at length many times, now where people are getting hung up is that the guidance goes on to say:

However this is being misinterpreted, what this actually means is that you can’t sneakily run your bus company by having all your passengers become members and work around the law in that manner. (In the same way that members clubs sometimes work around licensing law by all buying the drink between you and then taking it off of your pre-paid books as and when you have a drink).

This has even been clarified in a guidance note put out by the DfT in November 2017 which says:

So any group using small vehicles no issue or any group like us and the scouts who charge subscriptions but where the provision of transport is not our primary purpose is still covered under the system. (It actually goes on to provide even more reasons we are exempt and these can be viewed at the below link.)

If you really were worried, I am not in any way, as long as you can show that subscriptions aren’t used for minibus running costs and that the bus is fully funded by donations (bag packs) etc you would be doubly safe, but I think the guidance is all pretty clear. (I’ve sat down with traffic officers and gone through all this and they agree with me that we are covered by the scheme, indeed its exactly the reason the scheme exists.)

5 Likes
19

Awesome!

A summary of what you have stated here, with references to legal sources, really ought to be included in RAFAC policy documents.

I have seen many official and semi-official, but contradictory, opinions over the years and we have needed an unambiguous and verifiable statement of fact, covering our specific situation, for many years now.

1 Like
20

And using the information that Daws has provided,
The police are saying that the driver of the minibus still requires a D1 and the permit 19 is only to avoid having to register for a PSV license…

21

ACTO 150 gives you the RAFAC version.

22

A permit 19 has a weight limit attached IIRC. Maybe the bus was overweight and so they needed the full D1?

23

I’ve always thought that the “minibus lite” they advertise was going to fall foul of this.

The bus is over the weight limit but has a folding ranonjd the ability to remove seas for a wheel chair. The company who make it claim this covers the “specialist equipment” bit which gives you 4.25 tonnes, I’ve never been 100% convinced of that.

24

It was a light minibus too…
It’s all a mess at the moment hopefully it’s all sorted rapidly.

25

Notwithstanding some of the nuances in terms of what constitutes hire and reward, how Wings etc can say you must have a D1 to drive say an MPV, is just testes.
How many of us know people with “7 seaters”, that they just drive, so why a squadron, if they could afford the insurance and other costs, couldn’t have 2 of these, which offers greater flexibiiity than a single 16 seater. Also parking etc is a lot easier.
No need for anything else licence wise. The licence problems make having an SOV more trouble than it’s worth.

26

We got by with a 17-seat bus for years but it put an undue strain on the few members of staff with D1 licences (primarily people with “grandfather” rights) so we bought a 9 seat van last year that has probably had double the amount of use the big one has since.

When we dispose of the large one I think it’s unlikely we’ll buy another one that requires a D1.

27

FWIW my school moved from a fleet of lighter 17-seaters with S19 permits to a fleet of ‘full size’ Transit 17-seaters and required everyone to have D1 a couple of years back. The reason being that while the lighter vehicles might have a MAUM of 3.5t, we had no way to verify they were not overloaded making the whole operation illegal and dangerous; whereas it’s harder to overload a ‘full size’ minibus with a higher MAUM.

I think that was the right decision (indeed I was consulted in the process and supported it) even though there is the attendant problem of D1 training - although I’m lucky enough to work in a school with the resources to fund our own D1 training rather than queue up for Leconfield.

28

Schools really need large minibuses given the need to move (if nothing else) sports’ teams around and do so on a regular basis. My school in the 70s had two minibuses which were used almost daily.
The majority of ATC SOVs stand around unused and rusting, so having vehicles that do not have specific licence needs will mean greater usage and if petrol, short journeys do not bring in the problems diesels can have with short journeys.

29

So basically a Permit 19 is an exemption from the to hold a PSV Operators Licence when providing transport for a charge and under specified conditions provides an exemption for the PCV part of the licence.
[/quote]

There is much confusion, but as has been said Section 19 is an exemption from having an operators licence ( ie potential for hire & reward), but generally extends to a not for profit operation. But as parents do contribute towards annual camp, it could be argued that there is a charge made for transport. The issue is whether it is for profit or not, but this is not a charge which links to any ACO charity.

The driving licence requirement is not linked directly to the Section 19, but is geared to the size and type of vehicle, but because there are so many grey areas, you might get differing views from the constabularies. If you ask DVSA people a specific question, they will often say they dont know which is the easiest way to avoid being quoted and therefore any implied liability.

But let’s face it if you have a D1 there are no worries either way.

Dont forget the minibus is purchased by the Civcom, is insured, taxed and maintained by the Civcom, and remains a Civcom asset, provided for the benefit of the Cadets to further their training. It is a civilian charity asset, as such it will never be a military asset, and therefore an FMT600 would never be required.

However an FMT 600 is required if you have to drive White or Green fleet vehicle, and most servicemen holders will have the full deck of licence qualifications; As MT management is outsourced and those providers (eg Babcock) hold an Operators licence, it is then debatable whether you could then legally drive any service MT vehicle legally on the highway if you dont hold a D1, if the vehicle comes within scope of the O Licence.

It is also then debatable whether the issue strays into other areas of say use of tachographs and Driver Qualification (CPC). As the RAFAC is not part of the military, and use of an MOD would not be for military purposes, there is unlikely to any exemptions, besides which any military deployment seems to require someone to be detailed to manage drivers hours.

The issue has grown since SOVs became popular,but as usual there is no definitive guidance,I suppose a bit like the DVSA inclination towards positive advice, do your best to further the aims and get left up the creak without a paddle (sorry I know we are not Sea Cadets)

30

although i agree a CFAV is not a military person, the use of tacho is not required when driving military vehicles

While at Leconsfield (yes i did the D1 course) we were told for the purposes and terms of use of the vehicle driven under a FMT600 “licence” the vehicle and driver are classes as “military” and thus exempt from needing a tacho - this includes the use of Phoenix/Clarity vehicles as these are classed as “white fleet” FMT600 vehicles for the period of use.

to drive a service vehicle requires a FMT600 that will then be annotated with that vehicle’s license requirement to get that vehicle annotated on your FMT600 it must also be on your Driving Licence as a minimum, and typically requires a “check drive” with MT.

thus no one will be allowed to drive a service Minibus without holding a D1 - as it is not on their driving licence it will not then be included on their FMT600.