I have tonight had a conversation with my neighbouring ACF (who are Doomsayers before we start).
They claim that they have been told that the new MOD policy is that you can’t use Permit 19 exemptions under any circumstances, has anybody in the ACO heard something similar?
Obviously as has been the case for years you can’t use permit 19 on white fleet or MOD hire vehicles and I had heard rumours that they were looking to amend policy so that you can’t drive on MOD property under Permit 19. (Leave your bus at the main gate effectively). But this would be a crippling change if we’re true that you couldn’t drive an SOV without a D1. (I suspect it is misinterpreted drivel but would like to hear other views).
I don’t know much about the ACF but maybe their minibuses are owned by their equivalent of Wing, and are more MOD than ACF, therefore coming under white fleet rules?
You only need a permit 19 if you are charging the passengers. If not you can drive a minibus with restrictions on a car licence if it is not for hire or reward.
Be careful about the ‘charging the passengers’ bit bfg. The regs expand on what ‘hire or reward’ actually means, ‘…payment from or on behalf of the passengers’ and receiving a day’s pay (or remuneration as we should say) could be taken as getting payment on behalf of the customers.
Talking with my local MT Manager only last week (about tachographs etc), he mentioned specifically the pay/remuneration vs payment and reward bit, and said that the MoD wanted to take us down this route for white fleet vehicles, ie restricting what we could drive on certain licences. Unusually, it seems that common sense prevailed, at least for a while, in that VR(T) and WO/SNCO were argued to be military personnel on duty and therefore exempt some of the regs; CIs don’t get paid/remunerated so the rule didn’t apply to them anyway. I didn’t specifically ask how SOVs fitted in and this could be the issue as they’re not MoD white fleet, but we may be trying to apply military exemptions to them, I really can’t comment.
It will of course be interesting to see what the future holds regarding our ‘new’ commissions and whether the MoD will actually consider them as Military and allow the same rights and privileges as we have now!
I will add that dig deeper into “hire and reward” and that covers the passengers paying for the “right” to be on the vehicle. Ie if by paying a membership fee entitles them to transport that counts. Given our Cadets pay a subscription to remain at Squadron, and by default you will only be transporting Cadets and not joe public to the Wing Athletics, flying, shooting, NCO training, event there is a valid, black and white argument that even a CI cannot drive a Minibus as a Cat B driver because what the DVLA claim as “hire or reward” is not met because of what the passengers are “paying” rather than what a driver is “rewarded”
You can also read too deeply into “hire and reward” the whole reason the exemption exists is so that schools and charity groups could continue to operate without having to go the expense of getting everyone a D1.
Schools operate under the same exemption, the teachers are actually being paid (rather than renumerated) and they are fine legally as they are being paid to be teachers. The fact that they are driving a minibus is secondary and is not what they are being paid for. The same would apply to us.
I am happy that as long as the minibus is light enough that the law enables our staff to drive it using the exemption. Where Squadrons can come unstuck is that most new buses have a gross vehicle weight in excess of 3.5 tonnes. (Hence why so many are doing what schools are doing and going to Minibus Lite).
This is the argument that everyone has used in the past daws - I’m not actually paid to be a driver, I’m paid to be something else. The MoD, presumably after consultation with their lawyers and the DVLA, seemed to go hard over and take the line that it didn’t matter whether you were actually paid to drive, your paid duties could require you to drive and therefore you may be deemed to be driving for payment or reward. As steve also says, even cadets subs could be seen as a form of payment.
This has been the case in the ACF for a while. The issue is that the minibuses are owned by RFCA (I think - it might be MOD but it isn’t that important) and I believe it is actually an insurance issue that means they cannot be driven via permit 19, and require drivers with full D1 entitlement.
As I understand it, your minibuses are usually locally owned and insured so you should not have a problem.
Our ACF were saying that the same now applies to their minibus which like ours is owned by the unit. Apparently it’s on their intranet? As I said before the member of staff in question is very much a “We’re all doomed!” Individual!
If this was applied to SOVs, it would create havoc across the Corps.
I wouldn’t put too much faith in something coming out of Whitehall, govt depts are notorious for not having joined up thinking and here you have three : MOD, DVLA and Treasury. If there was an accident and on investigation there was something in the DVLA’s small print you may find insurance is void, as insurers will look for any reason not to pay out.
Where are HQAC in this? Hiding under the stairs, with their fingers in their ears hoping it all goes away? You would expect (or hope) them to be making noises to avoid problems for squadrons.
I was under the impression we couldn’t anyway due to the nature of the organisation (much the same as needing business insurance on personal vehicles)…
Quick quote from gov .UK:
“Commercial organisations, including privately owned schools, nursing homes, activity centres are not eligible to be granted a permit.”
A teacher I know was put through his D1 by his school. A TA at a special needs school has been told she needs a D1.
Why would the ACO provide courses if they could get away with it?
If I was able to apply for exemption then would I not have been told when I got my 600?
You can’t drive MOD vehicles under the exemption (this includes the Phoenix system), hence why MT wouldn’t mention it.
You can however drive SOV’s as they are privately owned and insured. If you look on Sharepoint the application form for a Permit 19 is under forms.
The organisations you listed as not being eligible doesn’t include volunteer youth groups or state schools hence why we (and schools) can use the exemption. Mostly using the minibus lite style of vehicles these days.
I have an email from HQAC bod responsible for P19 stuff saying that it is under review but nothing is changing in the short term - if the organisation gets to the point where it can actually deliver D1 training easily (i.e. not just at Leconfield), then it may be reviewed again. But for now, P19 stays.
