Squadron Owned Vehicles

[romeo_bravo]

Heard this was out there. Seems they have a WO at HQAC who is hot on MT procedures and had highlighted the DDH issues and where (and who) they sit…

[themajor]

I don’t believe that D1 allows you to drive a minibus for Hire/Reward, which means a Section 19 Permit is still required… While that has come from HQAC, I don’t think we would be legal.

The Section 19 Permit is not to allow a non D1 Driver to drive a minibus, but for a suitable qualified/experienced driver to drive for Hire/Reward without the need of a PCV.

More here in the Squadron Owned Vehicles thread

[Mr_OZ]

Next it will be private cars they will be getting twitchy over.

This is a downward spiral of micro management…

[Moist_Van_Lipwig]

Hasn’t HQAC already stipulated that you need business class 1 insurance to transport cadets, despite us not being employees…?

[themajor]

6.3. Members of the Corps/parents of cadets/cadets using their own vehicles and intending to claim a refund of mileage/passenger allowance are advised to ensure, by consulting their insurers, that any hire or reward clause in the vehicle’s insurance policy will not thereby be infringed.

6.4. It must be noted that the onus is ultimately upon the driver to ensure the legal compliance of both themselves and their vehicle. They also take responsibility for ensuring that their motor insurance policy is adequate and covers use on RAFAC business. Insurance companies may vary on whether RAFAC business is covered within an existing motor insurance policy, and will also vary between policy holders (i.e. age, experience, occupation, previous claims etc; all having an effect on the premium). It is feasible that some may be unwilling to cover this sort of activity, or will only do so for an increased premium.

6.5. Individuals must contact their own insurers if they are in doubt about the level of cover their policy provides and to ensure that it is adequate.

My Bold.

The fact we claim expenses for travel - means that in the insurance world, we are are using the vehicle for business use instead of SD&P

[Mr_OZ]

Agreed but that is not actually audited. It is the same with SOV, there is a policy but no audit. This latest panic is over audit of SOV.

Like so much with the senior management of the RAFAC there are many unknowns out in the wings, they do not have a clue how the RAFAC actually operates. Now that there is a DDHs out there and they are asking questions of what they are signing off and they are not liking it. It is understandable when you could go to jail for corporate manslaughter. I can see many commonly undertaken activities being admined out of existence.

[bob]

SOVs and transport in any form is going to go the way of flying/gliding.

If parents require any extension to their insurance which maybe costly, who is going to pay for it? the Squadron, the CWC or the parent? How is HQAC going to audit privately owned vehicles or are they going to put a stop to parents transporting cadets in any circumstances? One OC wing advocated recently when two squadrons co-located for that read eventual merger that parents could transport their child and friends.

[steve679]

The fact we claim expenses for travel - means that in the insurance world, we are are using the vehicle for business use instead of SD&P

is this fact??

The RBL have never asked me to prove insurance status before reimbursing me for travel i have made on RBL business…there has never been a reminder or policy released to my knowledge by the RBL restricting travel expenses (fuel for car travel) to those only with business insurance cover

It does not indicate explicitly a must have/not need for on anything on insurance but this document does show how to treat expenses for the volunteer
http://www.volunteernow.co.uk/fs/doc/publications/volunteers-and-expenses-information-sheet.pdf

looking further into Google i find this link Knowhownonprofit which offer this document link

For what it is worth, based on this document as I am currently with eSure insurance, they don’t need to be informed of my volunteer driving. be that with the ATC, RBL or other…

[incubus]

who is talking about us trying to control parents transporting their children?

[bob]

If a parent wishes to or is asked to use their vehicle and we now have audits of SOVs the next logical step for DDH is to want to know about any vehicle transporting cadets in particular when for instance going to an event from a Squadron.

The point is not their children but other cadets as well.

[incubus]

As we do now, you assume control of the child at the moment it reaches the activity. Transport to/from an activity falls to the parents to coordinate and organise and is not our responsibility. We would hope that the parents are driving legally and that a parent would seek assurance from the driver if they were sending their offspring with somebody else, but it is all on them now.

If a cadet travels to a squadron by bus, do we assume responsibility for auditing the local bus company?

There is justification to take reasonable steps to ensure that our equipment is fit for purpose as it is a service we are providing. That must be the bounds of that responsibility.

[bob]

There is justification to take reasonable steps to ensure that our equipment is fit for purpose as it is a service we are providing. That must be the bounds of that responsibility.

Totally agree there must be limits, but you never know where HQAC will end up with this?

[incubus]

but you never know where HQAC will end up with this?

They may end up being told where to stick it by a group of private individuals…

[bob]

Oh I agree with your sentiments, then HQAC informs squadrons that private transport is off limits.

[daws1159]

That’s fine if Cadets sort their own collective travel, so Cadet Bloggs says “Mum can we take Jones & Smith with us to X event”.

But what if the Squadron knows Mrs Bloggs will be driving and asks Mrs Bloggs to take Cadet Jones or Cadet Smith. At what point are we arranging travel and do we start being responsible.

[bob]

That is the point I’m trying to make 2FTS control flying/gliding but will not allow a civil flying organisation to fly cadets without inspection and authorisation and to me this seems the same thing, if not forgive me for being a little ‘thick’.

[themajor]

I would say that if there is transport provided to an activity, it needs to be provided for all in a way that complies with the current RAFAC Policy, as the cadets are “On Duty” during this travel period, and it is not unreasonable for RAFAC to ensure that the vehicle in use is road legal - MOT / Tax / Insurance

If the activity starts at Location X at Time Y, the cadets are not “On Duty” until they arrive at X at time Y, and how they get to X is the responsibility of their Parents.

The question of who is responsible for transport will determine what checks are needed. Parent Transport to a hobby without a mileage claim is 100% SD&P

[talon]

I don’t believe that D1 allows you to drive a minibus for Hire/Reward, which means a Section 19 Permit is still required… While that has come from HQAC, I don’t think we would be legal.

The Section 19 Permit is not to allow a non D1 Driver to drive a minibus, but for a suitable qualified/experienced driver to drive for Hire/Reward without the need of a PCV.

I think you have your wires crossed a little there. A section 19 permit allows someone to drive a PCV if they do not have PCV entitlement (D/D1 or higher) on their license and it is not-for-profit. If you have a D1 license you do not require a section 19 permit.

[themajor]

Squadron Owned Vehicles

So the Permit 19 scheme, as I said is there to waiver the PSV License to carry under commercial requirements. the DVLA guidance is as follows;

If you wish to drive a Minibus with 16 seats or more, the driver has to have a D1 license and the Vehicle a Permit 19

If you have a standard B1 license then you can drive a minibus 3500Kg or under and no more that 15 seats. Again a Permit 19 is required.

Please note that BOTH vehicles require a Permit 19, without it the driver should be a PSV Licensed driver.

@big_g conversation with the DVLA suggests otherwise.

Until recently that was my understanding as well @talon

[Mr_OZ]

If you have a D1 license you do not require a section 19 permit.

That is how I have always read the situation. My sqn minibus (16 seat + 1 driver transit) is only driven by D1 holders and we do not have a Permit 19.

Personally I would not be happy with somebody who does not have a D1 licence driving a 17 seat bus. This is another one of those changes that have been made and one of the unintended consequences is to stop volunteers driving minibuses so there has been a fudge to allow but it is not properly understood or implemented.