Call us for free on 0800 1777 522
Info Articles

NA Legal

Solicitors for small & medium business.

Transport Working Time Regulations

The Working Time Regulations is something often overlooked by Commercial Transport Operators. It is however something which VOSA is now routinely checking up on compliance with alongside checks on tachographs and drivers hours. The rules are quite different to the tachograph regulations and Operators must be careful to make sure they are compliant with both sets of rules.

 

The Working Time Regulations is something often overlooked by Commercial Transport Operators. It is however something which VOSA is now routinely checking up on compliance with alongside checks on tachographs and drivers hours. The rules are quite different to the tachograph regulations and Operators must be careful to make sure they are compliant with both sets of rules.

The rules apply to drivers who are employed but also the self employed including sole traders, partners and directors who also drive.

All work related activities count as work. This could include things like paperwork, loading, cleaning your vehicle and anything done at work. It doesn’t just include driving.

Brief Summary of the Rules

 

Maximum Working Week : 48 hours on average over a 17 week period. Although an average is taken over a 17 week period, total working time in any single week may not be more than 60 hours.

Agreement to Extend : with agreement from an employee, the point of reference over which the average is worked out can be extended to 6 months. This means in practice that an employee might work longer than 48 hours a week for a period of time followed by a number of weeks where he works less than 48 hours providing it is all averaged out to no more than 48 hours maximum over the whole six month period.

Breaks : if a worker works between 6 and 9 hours he or she is entitled to a break of at least 30 minutes, if working over 9 hours then the break must be at least 45 minutes. Mobile workers must not work more than 6 hours without taking a break.

Duration of Breaks : the minimum breaks may be taken in parts rather than all at once but if taken in parts, each part must be no less than 15 minutes in duration.

Night Work : this is defined as any period including the 4 hours between midnight and 4am for goods vehicles and from 1am to 5 am for passenger vehicles. An employee doing night work must not work more than 10 hours in any 24 hour period.

Holidays : employees are entitled to a minimum of 5.6 weeks of paid holidays per year. The rate of pay is the average they have earned during the previous 12 weeks (this calculation will include not just basic pay but overtime aswell).

Record Keeping : employers must keep detailed records of employee working times and these records must be kept for two years. In the case of dedicated drivers the tachographs should provide an adequate record. For other workers you should use a system of time sheets unless the hours are fixed and regular.make sure that behind the paperwork, real rigorous inspections are being carried out by drivers each day.

It is a common feature of the industry that drivers often treat the daily inspection as a semi-serious formality rather than a serious, rigorous legal requirement. The driver CPC will hopefully go some way to redress this.

 
For advice on the Working Time Regulations or any aspect of Commercial Transport Law, please contact us for a free of charge discussion.  You can call us on 0800 1777 522, email us or contact us through our free online enquiry form.  
Guide to Public Inquiries
The Cost of Disruption for Small Businesses

Call us for free on 0800 1777 522


Get In Touch Call or fill out the form below

Please let us know your name.
Please let us know your email address.
Please write a subject for your message.
Please let us know your message.
Invalid Input

 


We advise and represent transport businesses throughout the whole of the UK in all parts of England, Scotland, Wales and N.Ireland

Uk





Latest Blogs

We were approached by an operator who had received public inquiry paper several weeks earlier. The Operator instructed us to represent him at his inquiry listed for a hearing before the Traffic Commis...
We recently represented two companies who were both called to the same public inquiry. Although separate entities, the companies were closely connected because of having the same set of directors. One...
We were approached by a small business owner to represent them at the a public inquiry which had been called to consider their application for a new passenger vehicle operator’s licence.The person app...

IF YOU NEED HELP OR ADVICE WITH A TRANSPORT LAW ISSUE

Call us today for free on 0800 1777 522
Send us an enquiry online via our contact form HERE
Email us on contact@nalegal.co.uk

Latest Transport Law

Transport Law
We were approached by an operator who had received public inquiry paper several weeks earlier. The Operator instructed us to represent him at his inquiry listed for a hearing before the Traffic Commissioner’s (TC) only two weeks in advance.

There were several serious issues that the TC indicated he wanted to examine at the hearing and was threatening regulatory action against the Operator Company. The Operator had approached another firm of solicitors, who informed him that the likely outcome of the hearing would be loss of repute and licence revocation.

We provided the Operator with advice about immediate steps to be taken in preparation for the hearing. We requested the operator send us a number of documents critical to the success of his inquiry. A consideration of those document showed significant—but not insurmountable—shortfalls in maintenance standards and legal requirements.

The operator had recently appointed a new Transport Manager (TM) with an excellent reputation in his field. The TM worked along with us in analysing the Company’s compliance systems to create better compliance systems and improve the of the Company’s mindset about such.

We prepared extensive written representations and sent these to the TC in advance of the hearing along with supporting documentation.

We recommended that both the Operator (Director) and his Transport Manager attend the hearing. As expected the TC questioned the Operator and TM extensively about the various issued raised. We guided and advised the Operator and TM throughout the hearing. Following our final submissions, the TC decided not to revoke the licence or disqualify the Operator Company. The Operator was issued with a warning and a very short suspension of one vehicle until it had a further maintenance inspection and remedial work done. The Operator was allowed to keep the rest of his fleet working with minimal disruption to the business. The Operator was thrilled with our services and has since instructed us at least one other transport matter.
Transport Law
We recently represented two companies who were both called to the same public inquiry. Although separate entities, the companies were closely connected because of having the same set of directors. One of the companies (the Operator) had years previously been issued with a restricted goods vehicle operator’s licence. The other company had recently applied for the same kind of licence (the Applicant).

Over the previous year, the directors had decided to progressively move most of the Operator’s business interests to its sister company the Applicant. Without understanding the potential consequences, and before being granted its operator’s licence, the Applicant began using the Operator’s heavy goods vehicle. The Operator company had not informed the Traffic Commissioner (TC) of its change in business arrangements and of the apparent change of entity (though the companies were actually wholly owned subsidiaries of another company – see below).

The Public Inquiry was convened because of changes at this business group and a fundamental misunderstanding of the operator’s licence regime, and that there had been what appeared to be a change of entity involving the companies.

The TC needed to be satisfied as to whether the companies were not unfit to hold an operator’s licence due to relevant activities and convictions, and about the events relating to a change in the circumstances of the licence holder. The Operator risked revocation of its licence. The Applicant was at risk of not having its licence granted.

In advance of the inquiry, and to start building their case, we obtained as much information as we could about the businesses and provided each company comprehensive legal advice. We examined the companies’ compliance systems and made recommendations about immediate and longer-term changes that needed to be implemented. On our recommendations, the companies invested time and resources into their maintenance and other systems

As a result of our preliminary work and advice, the companies were fully prepared for the public inquiry hearing. In particular, to answer questions and provide evidence about the apparent change of entity.

At the hearing we demonstrated that the companies were running professional and competent businesses. With specific reference to the issue of the apparent change of entity, the TC accepted that Section 3(4) of the Goods vehicle (licencing of operators) Act 1995 was relevant and that this was not a typical “change of entity” case – because of the companies being subsidiaries. We were able to persuade the TC that the issues that lead to the inquiry arose out of ignorance rather than an attempt to mislead or gain financial advantage

The TC granted the new licence to the Applicant with the Operator company voluntarily surrendering its licence. The directors were delighted with the outcome of the public inquiry hearing and that they managed to avoid the damaging consequences they feared.
Transport Law

We were approached by a small business owner to represent them at the a public inquiry which had been called to consider their application for a new passenger vehicle operator’s licence.

The person applying for the licence had a long background of work in the transport industry as a driver but had never before operated his own transport business. One of the key issues was that the nominated transport manager was also nominated some other licences and the Traffic Commissioner was concerned whether this meant that the transport manager would be able to properly carry out their duties on so many licences at once.