SoooOO00OOooooo, as I understand it so far. If my unit does not have a permit 19 I should get one PDQ no matter what HQAC said. This will bring us inline with the law.
2 Likes
But I donât think they are dealing with at mo. Know a local Sqn who is chasing
I applied last night direct to the office of the traffic commissioner.
Our insurers required us to have a P19, I chased our application and HQAC advised that they had stopped issuing.
We applied direct to the Traffic Commissioner and got one sent to us.
Out of courtesy, or some other mad reason, I let HQAC know what we had done and things got interesting.
My case was referred to the WO who has since authorised the use of our SOV for RAFAC business under the permit we received directly.
As a result Iâve been feeding my and others concerns to the WO from the âgrass rootsâ perspective in an attempt to have some influence on the impending change. I have no idea how likely I am to be heeded of course.
In the current climate I wouldnât necessarily advise doing what we did until things have been straightened out at HQAC level.
So if the WO has authorised your P19 is he the DDH not the CAC or the RC? Who in the final analysis is the responsible officer or is he acting above his level of responsibility?
How on earth can some WO somewhere âauthoriseâ anything. If the office of the traffic commissioner is happy what say does this person have?
Ridiculous.
If the WO did not grant authority and the driver was involved in an incident the RAFAC would absolve itself of all repsonsibilty, like dropping a pallet load of hot bricks. I feel the WO is stepping outside the bounds of his/her authority as such authority is usually in the hands of a commissioned rank in particular as it appears they are acting in lieu of being a DDH for the whole organisation. Whilst the traffic commissioner may grant aurthority it is up to HQAC to ratify that authority.
Whilst the Squadron/CWC may purchase the insurance Iâm sure the insurnace company may renage on the insurance as the individual was operationg without the organisations blessing.
Except as I pointed out 17 days ago the DfT has issued a letter clarifying the position as it was being misinterpreted.
Even the quote above is contradicted by their own spiel as it says you can charge for journeys if you donât routinely make a profit.
Because they need to make people think they are important and more important than the controlling/issuing government âofficeâ.
Itâs a joke that our daily admin canât get done as HQAC ramble on about not enough staff, yet here they have someone doing admin that doesnât need doing as squadrons can get all the right paperwork themselves and finding all the time to do it. It indicates where the priorities lie.
1 Like
Think that we may be at cross-purposes here - the point is that payment of some sort is the reason for needing a P19.
Ah yes, I think we are arguing the same thing from opposite directions! 
1 Like
In truth, I couldnât see why it wouldnât have been authorised - HQAC are a designated issuing body for the traffic commissioner which I assume makes both the former and latters objective of issuing permits easier. The traffic commissioner would be the highest issuing authority in this regard and HQAC a subsidiary, both should conduct the same checks before issue - why the need for additional checks?
In addition, what are those additional checks? Accounts F82 uses criteria that are different from the direct application. Section 7 of F82âs notes states that the P19 must not be used to operate vehicles over 3.5T/4.25T (adapted) whilst the traffic commissioners criteria are 16 passenger seats maxâŚ
1 Like
This I couldnât say for sure - the company we use is run by an ex ATC Warrant officer and during conversations had there was no mention that insurance cover would be suspended if HQAC had issues.
If the unthinkable happened then all passengers would be fully insured and payouts would be made off the back of that policy. Unless two payments would be made, one from the ATCâs insurance and one from the SOV insurance to affected families.
Realistically - could the organisation absolve itself of all responsibility? What would form would this take? Naturally RAFAC processes would be scrutinized as part of any investigation, which is where we find ourselves currently though thankfully not as a result of any accident.
The 3.5/4.25T figure relates to driving a minibus on a B licence, which is what a lot of people (myself included) used to think the P19 was for!
Yet we are still being told you canât get a P19 from HQ RAFAC
So Iâve just got one privately through the traffic commissioner - does that make it invalid?
So the rules are exactly what they were before?
I did the same and was referred by Chris Howes to WO Hughes who âapproved itâ for use on RAFAC business. I have retained that email chain!
TBH honest though, if the traffic commissioner issued it then they are the ultimate authority WRT this matter and I think RAFAC HQ wish to obtain oversight of who is applying (I suspect an SOV database is being formed) by routing all applications through Cranwell - no mention on if Acc Form 82 is now being accepted however.
Not sure how compliance is going to be checked - random spot checks on units known to have SOVâs? One can use âCheck Taxâ to obtain MOT/RFL status and âAskmidâ to ascertain if a vehicle is insured but SOV road worthiness outside of these options is anyoneâs guessâŚand driver licencing would be difficult to check remotely short of having Driver Licences uploaded to BADERâŚ