ADVISING WORK COLLEAGUES

[ROG]

Are we not in that same situation as observers?

[Maximum Bob]

Are we not in that same situation as observers?

No. The IAM provide cover on behalf of their Observers through their Groups' insurance scheme. It's a specific policy tailored to the IAM's requirements.

You doing it as an individual is a completely different issue. You need Public Liability insurance for what you want to do. Your company's insurance policy is highly unlikely to include Public Liability for the context in which you wish to use it. When I say 'highly unlikely' I mean won't!

The only real way to cover yourself for what you want to do is become an ADI, and get yourself Public Liability and Professional Indemntiy insurance.

[JamesAllport]

Beware the nasty logic loop in this scenario, which goes as follows:

1. The trainer is employed by the company.

2. But not as a driver trainer. They do that "voluntarily" while on standby as a relief driver.

3. Therefore, arguably, the trainer does not need to be an ADI.

4. BUT: If the trainer does some voluntary training and has a crash;

5. And the company and/or the trainer are sued as a result of the crash;

6. The company will NOT be vicariously liable for the acts of the trainer if he is acting outside the scope of his employment;

7. Which surely he would be because his employment isn't as a driver trainer otherwise he'd have to be an ADI.

In other words, if it all goes horribly wrong, you can choose which of two happy outcomes you'd prefer:

(a) Being left high and dry by your employer and their insurers, and potentially liable for millions of pounds of personal injury damages; or

(b) Being prosecuted for accepting money or money's worth for driving instruction without being on the DSA register.

Fun, huh?

James

[ROG]

The only way around that one would be for the driver & "trainer" to claim that the driver was giving a lift to the "trainer"

[JamesAllport]

The only way around that one would be for the driver & "trainer" to claim that the driver was giving a lift to the "trainer"

Well, OK. But what if they're suing the trainer, claiming that it was his advice that caused the crash?

And beware: ten years as a barrister tells me that the number of people who are convincing liars in a witness box is pretty low.

James

[ROG]

I agree. I could not lie my out of a paper bag

[vonhosen]

Why don't you just do the ADI & get your work to cover the costs for it ?
That's what I did.
The work you are doing trying to avoid it is probably less than actually doing it.
Legislation is only likely to get more restrictive not less.

[waremark]

Why don't you just do the ADI & get your work to cover the costs for it ?

ROG has told us he cannot pass the HPT as he is not able to identify hazards quickly in a 2D picture - that lies behind his attempt to find a way to instruct for his employer without being an ADI. I think he has had a clear steer from the forum, but understandably he does not welcome the message.

What about getting his work colleagues to sign up as IAM Associates? If he takes them out as IAM Associates noone is going to be bothered whether or not it happens in work time. I think. But his group might be a bit upset if none of them went on to take the IAM test.

[vonhosen]

Why don't you just do the ADI & get your work to cover the costs for it ?

ROG has told us he cannot pass the HPT as he is not able to identify hazards quickly in a 2D picture - that lies behind his attempt to find a way to instruct for his employer without being an ADI. I think he has had a clear steer from the forum, but understandably he does not welcome the message.

What about getting his work colleagues to sign up as IAM Associates? If he takes them out as IAM Associates noone is going to be bothered whether or not it happens in work time. I think. But his group might be a bit upset if none of them went on to take the IAM test.

ROG

Is it a recognised documented medical condition ?

If so could an appeal/action be taken under the Disability Discrimination Act ?

(Seeing as the condition doesn't affect your real world ability to carry out the task, just disadvantages you in the application process.)

[ROG]

It is a recognised condition but there is no point presenting any evidence as DSA do not have an alternative in place under current legislation. This is something which must be addressed by government and I have been lobbying my MP, who, in turn, is lobbying the transport minister. Maybe a change will happen in 10 years time if lucky

[MGF]

I don't think the DSA are exempt from the DDA, (in fact I believe they constitute a 'qualification body' within the meaning of the Act).

So they have a statutory duty to make reasonable adjustments to their test for disabled people. (Disabled people as defined by the Act).

The problem you have is whether or not your 'condition' has a 'substantial adverse effect' on your ability to carry out day to day activities (among other things). If not then you cannot be disabled within the meaning of the Act.

If you fail to meet the definiton there is no requirement to make adjustments despite your condition preventing you from carrying out the test properly.

[ROG]

They are willing and legally able to adjust the on-screen test but are not legally able to offer an alternative to it.

[MGF]

What about getting his work colleagues to sign up as IAM Associates? If he takes them out as IAM Associates noone is going to be bothered whether or not it happens in work time. I think. But his group might be a bit upset if none of them went on to take the IAM test.

Again we're back to breaking the law but avoiding detection as opposed to avoiding breaking the law. A subtle difference but one of fundamental importance.

I think the IAM would be very concerned that an Observer was taking advantage of the IAM's insurance cover whilst ostensibly conducting an observed driving session when in actual fact he is carrying out paid instruction on behalf of his employer.

[MGF]

They are willing and legally able to adjust the on-screen test but are not legally able to offer an alternative to it.

So they have no 'reasonable' alternative. Any adjustment would therefore be unreasonable.

Makes sense but I struggle to accept they cannot determine your capacity for hazard perception by any means other than the on-screen test.

[ROG]

You would have thought they could do it the same way we do - by commentary whilst driving or as a passenger - the candidate would pick up the extra cost.