Employers duty to record vehicle useage?

sevenhills

I know that employers must record vehicle useage in the event of a speeding fine, are there any set rules about recording a vehicle user?
Does an employer require a drivers signiture, what must be recorded, just useage or mileage and times of useage?

PasturesNew

Bob has the company vehicle, drops it back at 5pm.
John's car was at the garage and at 5.10pm he got a call to say his car would be needed overnight for parts to arrive, last to leave that night, he takes the car and brings it back at 8am the next morning, he unlocks the office as first in. Trouble was, John went out on the beers that night and did a sneaky hit and run, pedestrian in Hospital.
5 days later, pedestrian dies and police turn up at the office as they've now pieced together CCTV footage and got the number plate.

Bob is hauled off for manslaughter as the office diary says Bob was at a meeting that day and everybody remembered he had the car.

Bob says "noooooooo" ... John dashes to the coffee machine and hides.

If you were the boss of that lot .... what'd you do? Bob is clearly the driver of that car, because the diary and people say he had the car that day.....

Mercdriver

PasturesNew wrote: »

Bob has the company vehicle, drops it back at 5pm.
John's car was at the garage and at 5.10pm he got a call to say his car would be needed overnight for parts to arrive, last to leave that night, he takes the car and brings it back at 8am the next morning, he unlocks the office as first in. Trouble was, John went out on the beers that night and did a sneaky hit and run, pedestrian in Hospital.
5 days later, pedestrian dies and police turn up at the office as they've now pieced together CCTV footage and got the number plate.

Bob is hauled off for manslaughter as the office diary says Bob was at a meeting that day and everybody remembered he had the car.

Bob says "noooooooo" ... John dashes to the coffee machine and hides.

If you were the boss of that lot .... what'd you do? Bob is clearly the driver of that car, because the diary and people say he had the car that day.....

But if Bob has had the car signed back in at 5pm?

Car_54

If I were the boss, I'd put my hands up and confess I didn't have a system in place. However, AFAIK that is not a crime.

TooManyPoints

If I were the boss, I'd put my hands up and confess I didn't have a system in place. However, AFAIK that is not a crime

.

You're quite right but that's not even half of the story.

Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act places an obligation on Registered Keepers of vehicles to provide details of the driver of the vehicle at the time of an alleged offence. It is an offence not to provide those details but there is a statutory defence which says the RK shall not be guilty if "...he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was"

However, where the RK is a "body corporate" that get out clause will not apply if records are not kept unless the alleged offender (the "body corporate") "...shows that no record was kept of the persons who drove the vehicle and that the failure to keep a record was reasonable."

So whilst it is not an offence to fail to keep records, unless it can be shown that such a failure was "reasonable", it will almost certainly ease the prosecution of a S172 offence if no records were kept.

System

sevenhills wrote: »

I know that employers must record vehicle useage in the event of a speeding fine, are there any set rules about recording a vehicle user?
Does an employer require a drivers signiture, what must be recorded, just useage or mileage and times of useage?

Just the usage. The employer however must keep a record of the driver's license and also do periodic license checks to make sure you still have one. That is done online with a code you give them so they can do it and they will just get basic details of the categories you can drive and any points. I drive trucks and my employer does license checks every 2 months.

PasturesNew

One day at work, I was asked to "pop out to get some chips" and given the Sales Manager's car to do that ..... he may/may not have known as it was all considered "on the company insurance" ... so off I went, and back. It was a car dealership, so cars/keys were often tossed around.

What if ..... I'd have been speeding, trying to get the chips still hot back to the office...?

The office would've received a fine, 2-3 weeks later, office staff would have said "That's the Sales Manager's car" and got him to pay .... he'd have not remembered that I'd borrowed the car to get chips, even if he knew about it.... he might've just assumed "must have been me, it's along that road between Head Office here and the office I drop in on 2-3x a day"

sevenhills

PasturesNew wrote: »

One day at work, I was asked to "pop out to get some chips" and given the Sales Manager's car to do that ..... he may/may not have known as it was all considered "on the company insurance" ... so off I went, and back. It was a car dealership, so cars/keys were often tossed around.

What if ..... I'd have been speeding, trying to get the chips still hot back to the office...?

In my case I do a school run, so in between the runs the vehicle is parked up, I have the keys, but they have another set.
My employer has over 50 vehicles, so it would be easy for the same model and colour vehicle to be reported, and the reg numbers would be similar.

TooManyPoints

The office would've received a fine, 2-3 weeks later, office staff would have said "That's the Sales Manager's car" and got him to pay .... he'd have not remembered that I'd borrowed the car to get chips, even if he knew about it.... he might've just assumed "must have been me, it's along that road between Head Office here and the office I drop in on 2-3x a day"

That's their decision. There's nothing wrong with nominating the person most likely to have been the driver. Problems begin when no driver is nominated (because his identity is unknown then the company gets into the realms of a S172 offence as above) or if a person who it was known was definitely not driving is nominated (usually jail time).

My employer has over 50 vehicles, so it would be easy for the same model and colour vehicle to be reported, and the reg numbers would be similar.

A similar Reg No will not do. It would have to be your Reg No. In your circumstances I would make it known (in writing) that you are not happy with unfettered access being made available to your car unless records are kept whenever anybody else uses it. Get a written response so that should anybody borrow your car and commit an offence you have it on record.

AndyMc.....

TooManyPoints wrote: »

.

You're quite right but that's not even half of the story.

Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act places an obligation on Registered Keepers of vehicles to provide details of the driver of the vehicle at the time of an alleged offence. It is an offence not to provide those details but there is a statutory defence which says the RK shall not be guilty if "...he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was"

However, where the RK is a "body corporate" that get out clause will not apply if records are not kept unless the alleged offender (the "body corporate") "...shows that no record was kept of the persons who drove the vehicle and that the failure to keep a record was reasonable."

So whilst it is not an offence to fail to keep records, unless it can be shown that such a failure was "reasonable", it will almost certainly ease the prosecution of a S172 offence if no records were kept.

So the company get a fine and no one gets points.

Car_54

AndyMc..... wrote: »

So the company get a fine and no one gets points.

Not necessarily. Section 172 (5) provides:
"Where a body corporate is guilty of an offence under this section and the offence is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to neglect on the part of, a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or a person who was purporting to act in any such capacity, he, as well as the body corporate, is guilty of that offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly."