Tutoring/Observing

[martine]

Clearly I don't have a massive problem with this as I have been an IAM member myself and benefitted from what it does. I'm just intrigued by an arrangement that must be pretty close to the line in legal terms.

No it's not because the person giving the guidance isn't being financially rewarded...end of.

The DSA would (and does) prosecute and they are fully aware of what the IAM does...in fact they QA what it does.

[MGF]

Strictly, if A pays B to receive instruction from C and C is not paid, C still needs to be an ADI.

The test of payment applies to A, not C. The argument can be made.

However, as Martin points out, the fact that the DSA approves the IAM's Observing, means, in practice, there is nothing for Observers to worry about.

[Gareth]

The odd thing, to someone who thinks rules are sacrosanct, is that laws in the UK aren't applied in a logically consistent manner in line with how they are written. They are often written in a way that would catch many more than the initial intention would suggest, and left to the discretion of the authorities in how they are applied.

In this case the intention was to protect those who purchase driving tuition as part of a commercial arrangement, whereas the efforts of IAM members are in support of charitable aims.

Sometimes you see authorities applying certain laws more widely than intended when created, with resulting complaints and criticism in the press. None of this may be ideal but it appears to be how it is.

[GJD]

That suggests that the IAM doesn't always do a very good job of explaining to associates what it is that they're buying.

Then this is also the fault of your group and tutors. It should be made perfectly clear before any observing/tutoring commences. Is it clearly stated on your Group website?

No idea off the top of my head. As I understand it, a new associate first contacts the IAM itself, parts with £139, and then is put in contact with their local group. So while it would do no harm at all for the group to restate what's going to happen, by that time the associate has already been fleeced of their money. The person who takes it from them really ought to be doing a better job of explaining what the associate is and is not getting for their money.

I was irritated the first time it happened, and gobsmacked when it happened again.

[waremark]

As has correctly been said, from the way the law is written the fact that the Observer/Tutor is not paid is irrelevant. The relevant question is whether instruction has been paid for. There are therefore two defences - that what is provided is not instruction and that it has not been paid for. I do point out both these points to new Associates, but I don't think either would necessarily stand up if tested in court. But neither seems likely to be tested.

I am hoping not to become the victim of the test case.

[MGF]

If the prosecution authority responsible for enforcing the law is the DSA and the DSA approve the Observer system used by the IAM, where would one expect a test case to come from?

[waremark]

If the prosecution authority responsible for enforcing the law is the DSA and the DSA approve the Observer system used by the IAM, where would one expect a test case to come from?

Are the DSA the prosecution authority? Would the DPP bow to their judgement if an officious policeman proposed bringing a case?

[superplum]

That suggests that the IAM doesn't always do a very good job of explaining to associates what it is that they're buying.

Then this is also the fault of your group and tutors. It should be made perfectly clear before any observing/tutoring commences. Is it clearly stated on your Group website?

No idea off the top of my head. As I understand it, a new associate first contacts the IAM itself, parts with £139, and then is put in contact with their local group. So while it would do no harm at all for the group to restate what's going to happen, by that time the associate has already been fleeced of their money. The person who takes it from them really ought to be doing a better job of explaining what the associate is and is not getting for their money.

I was irritated the first time it happened, and gobsmacked when it happened again.

Assuming your "local" group is "Cambs", then their website clearly states:

" All observers are volunteers and receive nothing of the Skill for Life fee – that fee covers admin, some insurance, the test itself and your IAM membership."

No axes to grind!

[drivingsteve]

In this case the intention was to protect those who purchase driving tuition as part of a commercial arrangement, whereas the efforts of IAM members are in support of charitable aims.

I think this is the crux of the matter really. I'm pretty sure what the IAM does could be considered in breach of the law. However, as Gareth suggests, the law is really to stop a random guy advertising himself a driving instructor and operating without any official accreditation, training or regulation.

[vonhosen]

In this case the intention was to protect those who purchase driving tuition as part of a commercial arrangement, whereas the efforts of IAM members are in support of charitable aims.

I think this is the crux of the matter really. I'm pretty sure what the IAM does could be considered in breach of the law. However, as Gareth suggests, the law is really to stop a random guying advertising himself a driving instructor and operating without any official accreditation, training or regulation.

For car tuition.

[MGF]

If the prosecution authority responsible for enforcing the law is the DSA and the DSA approve the Observer system used by the IAM, where would one expect a test case to come from?

Are the DSA the prosecution authority? Would the DPP bow to their judgement if an officious policeman proposed bringing a case?

The DSA investigate this offence - with the Police - as well as prosecute it. The CPS may be able to prosecute independently but it rarely interferes in other agencies' work.

[drivingsteve]

this would provide an interesting test case (not that I intend to do it)...

Husband and wife partnership set up a business providing driving instruction. The husband is a not ADI approved so provides lessons free of charge. However, in order to be put in contact with him, "customers" have to become a member of his wife's driving academy which involves a financial outlay.

Seems exactly the same model as the IAM and RoSPA, but I wonder if they'd face prosecution?

[MGF]

I don''t believe there are any Observers who are married to the IAM.

[ROG]

I don''t believe there are any Observers who are married to the IAM.

I Am Married (IAM) so does that count?

[TR4ffic]

this would provide an interesting test case (not that I intend to do it)...

Husband and wife partnership set up a business providing driving instruction. The husband is a not ADI approved so provides lessons free of charge. However, in order to be put in contact with him, "customers" have to become a member of his wife's driving academy which involves a financial outlay.

Seems exactly the same model as the IAM and RoSPA, but I wonder if they'd face prosecution?

But if the husband is instructing customers so that they can pass some test that the wife has just made up and not the DSA Driving Test, a test that has no legal bearing and generally has little meaning outside of the wife's driving academy, I can't see the problem... That's more like the IAM and RoSPA model.