Squadron Owned Vehicles

Would you rather wait until after there is a nasty accident?

1 Like

The question that you need to ask is has there been any ‘nasty’ SOV accidents in all the time that squadrons have had minibuses?
I’m certain that is there had been, the rules around SOVs would have been much,. much tighter and more rigorously enforced. Probably there hasn’t because squadrons do ensure they are kept roadworthy, that and they are used so infrequently.

I have become more sceptical about the wider interest of the RAF, as they don’t offer solutions to the problems they seem able to find, only introducing barring tactics.
If off the back of this RAF mechanics (do they have them of are they all civvies now?) came out to squadrons and did all the maintenance etc at no cost to ATC squadrons, excellent, but can you see that happening? Squadrons will be expected to comply with whatever comes out and the find the costs and as squadrons with SOVs run them as an expense, any additional costs will in time mean squadrons, ditching them.

I dare say they can. But the MOT test is a fixed price test, with fees set by the government. Garages rarely make any profit on a MOT test, so the sooner the vehicle is inspected and off the ramps, the better.

Besides, the MOT standards are the absolute minimums required as well as being non invasive. For example, making sure the tyres are at the correct pressure is not included in the test, nor is braking under load, but you’d probably want someone to check those on a safety inspection. Exhaust emissions are on the suggested dvsa safety inspection checklist.

Ultimately, garages are free to set their own hourly rate, and I can’t think of any reason why they wouldn’t want to make a profit on a job like this. If the hourly rate is £160, and the book says it takes an hour, you will get a bill for £160. It doesn’t matter that the technician rattled through it in 40 minutes, and then started on another inspection.

Yes, except that you could just book an extra MoT instead. Assuming that I’m probably not the only person to think of this, there wouldn’t be much business in charging £160 if you can get essentially the same thing for £60.

Would any garage accept the work? MOT testing stations can refuse to test a vehicle, if they have a valid reason.

If you were the owner of a garage, would you agree to MOT a minibus, for ÂŁ50, that held a valid test certificate with 6 months left to run, when you could legitimately charge ÂŁ160 for almost exactly the same amount of work?

Which is the key part.

If you submit a vehicle for MOT testing and still have time on the old certificate and it fails the previous certificate is void. You cannot drive away on the old certificate, the tester downloads to the DVLA the new certificate or the reasons for refusal. Rules just changes recently.

Or:

J. “Sorry mate, our tester called in sick today - here’s your 50 quid, why not give quick fit a call. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.”

Don’t get me wrong, I think garage labour rates can be extortionate, especially main dealers, but trying to manipulate a system that is put in place to protect motorists being overcharged for mandatory annual inspection is wrong IMHO.

But you’re happy for them to be overcharged for a quarterly inspection?

Overcharged, or charged the appropriate hourly rate for a skilled technician to complete safety assurance checks? :wink:

MOTs are capped for a specific reason (I also think insurance should be capped as well, but that’s another topic), and that reason isn’t to make non-mandatory safety checks more affordable for a national youth organisation. Like I said, the MOD could negotiate on our behalf for preferential rates with national garages…

FWIW, I’m not advocating introducing additional checks, just wary that the “Total Safety” mentality at HQAC will mean they err on the side of caution with this issue, and by introducing a policy that aligns with the DVSA guidance, effectively prices SOVs out of existence. Especially since one of the requirements of the P19 seems to be regular safety inspections.

Given that MOTs are all on a central system, of you take any vehicle in for an MOT well within the current ones life you are going to get asked a question. They’ll still take your money.
I feel for squadrons with SOVs, as not only are they “garden ornament” for effectively 11 months of the year, but they have the expense insurance and MOT and now it seem any sort of additional admin and costs HQAC decide on the whim of some random they’ve got hold of. That way it should be well maintained etc and if it goes wrong it’s not your problem.

I doubt the MOD would have the will to do this. They could have done so much like this and haven’t across a range of things. Better still get a preferential deal through a national vehicle hire company, so all we need to do is quote a code and get that rate, no involving anyone in the ATC CoC. As long as you meet the driving licence requirements, you’re fine and you can charge what you like, no permit 19 BS as it’s not your vehicle.

While not a reason behind HQACs thinking, as that would ascribe a notion that they can think before doing anything, this will be the consequence, as like in so many ways HQAC do not understand ATC squadrons or staff. If a minibus needed regular tests, who takes it for the test. remembering they need to be suitably licenced? If the people who could do this, work, they’d need to take a day off. The squadrons I know with SOVs say that even MOTs create problems like this.

Might be being a bit simple here, but Squadron Owned Vehicles arent owned or operated or insured via HQAC. The Civilan Committees would surely make decisions based around recommendations from HQAC - rather than enforced policy on something they dont own, maintain, insure or manage?

2 Likes

If that’s the case why do SOVs come under the AI questions posed to OCs and not the CWC “AI”?
It seems that something that the provision. upkeep etc as suggested sits outside the “uniformed” side, is scrutinised within the uniformed side.

You’re also overlooking the fact that HQAC are (in their opinion) the universal experts on everything related to squadrons

You mean like they tried to do with Flight Sims a while ago?

I’m guessing a possible change in rules could be seen as:

“The CC can do what they like, but cadets on duty are only to be transported by minibus if the stipulated conditions are met”

If that means that the cadets can’t travel in an SOV which someone has just paid x thousands for, then that’s the CI’ve Comms lookout, and not the fault of HQAC.

Sell the SOV and put the money into a pot to hire vehicles as needed. Thus removing any HQAC interference.

If an SOV is seen as a MUST have, put the money used to pay for the SOV each year towards hire costs.

I would imagine many squadrons with them, use SOVs when parents could be encouraged to do the transporting, just because it’s easier. We don’t have an SOV so parents get asked and you know what they don’t mind.

2 Likes

The DfT’s clarification letter seems to address those groups that already hold permits to provide assurance as to whether they can still use them.

I read "I want to make clear that the following groups of permit holders are
unaffected by Regulation 1071/2009: " to mean that the group would already hold a permit.

In the Section 19 Permit info under definitions it states “The payment may be made by the passenger or on the passenger’s behalf. It may be a direct payment, eg a fare or an indirect payment such as a membership subscription.”

Naturally the Government advises that getting legal advice to quantify operations if there is any doubt is the way to go, which is why I assume the question has gone to the DLS.

I can only see safety of assurance increasing admin - obviously it’s a key issue and I have no idea why Air Command suddenly decided to take a look - I know of no trigger event but perhaps someone somewhere took an interest. I’ve been hearing a lot of chatter from various MT’s about minibuses being overloaded above the MAM whilst carrying the bespoke number of passengers (16) resulting in driver fines. Seems the Traffic Officers have been told to have a crackdown and are hauling vehicles into onto weigh bridges to check all are complicit.

A possibility might well be a Transport Manager who is responsible for all SOV’s in the Corps, Lord only knows how that would work. So I figure policy updates are more likely.

I believe the engagement is 6-8 weeks.

I saw an email come out from a commercial provider about the every “10 weeks safety checks” it was swiftly followed up by another saying they are recommended and not mandatory as I assume they must have received a number of panic replies from School business managers who could see their deficits getting progressively deeper!

It’s certainly an idea - Hiring brings it’s own addition admin however.

Generally I vehicle plan on an efficiency basis starting a Private Car, moving to 8 seat then 16 seat options as cadet numbers dictate - I prefer that idea rather than having multiple parent’s vehicles out on the road doing the job - however that’s certainly the lightest route on the administrative front!