Brentwood DO - Illegal and Unsafe Use of Private Cars On De

[k979aaa]

union officials say that thefts are considered an occupational hazard.

What kind of union official would say something like that?

Getting wet in the rain is an occupational hazard but theft can be stopped by not giving the thieves the opportunity to do it.

I suppose it is again another stick to beat the hummble postie with all blame and no responsibility for the management stooge's of royalmail!. Now is the time for us all to remind the management from the TOP :cfo + :lfo down to thier responsibility for the safety and security of our ROYALMAIL!.

[brothermagrew]

Suprisingly or not I came across the following which does mention private cars.

ROYAL MAIL – CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY SAFETY POLICY DEVELOPMENT 2006
Royal Mail - Background
The largest single employer in the UK c197, 000 employees
35,000 vehicles travelling 1.5 million miles a day
c800 red fleet road crashes per year (on highway) that result in injury
700 private car crashes with 25 reported injuries
6 RTA third party fatalities 2006/07 to date.

Royal Mail Accident Investigation
Emergency action and prompt reporting –Line manager responsibility
Focusing investigation effort – line manager but specialist team/process for serious events
Evidence gathering and integration – line manager but specialists for serious event
Implementing lessons learned – line but passed up Nationally depending upon impact
- Changing to Incident investigation
Case Study – Road Crash investigation

Royal Mail – Serious event investigation
Defined as life-threatening or fatal accident involving RM employees or members of the public to whom RM owes a duty of care. May also be an event with little or no injury but significant negative PR. Judgment made by Head of Safety or equivalent role?


Royal Mail – Serious event investigation
Follows DORI 4 paths of decision making. Procedures documented and shared. Roles and responsibilities defined including appointing a senior investigating officer. Outputs are defined at outset – root cause to be established.

Royal Mail – Serious event investigation
Does not seek to replicate local investigation or any carried out by enforcing agency.
Does not apportion blame – blameworthy procedures invoked if necessary.
Interim and final reports sent to main board.
Recommendations made and actions planned, local and group wide.

Royal Mail – Serious event investigation
• Basic process – * Incident occurs
• Central Postal Control (CPC) informed (of any interruption to mail pipeline).
• CPC contacts Accident Management Unit and senior designated people – heads up comms
• Need determined for a serious inv team to be convened
• Team set up
• They liaise with line and other specialists (e.g. Fleet)
• Interim Report compiled on day 1 and sent to key stakeholders
• Full investigation report with recommendations compiled and delivered to key stake holders (inc Main Board)
• CSR action plan updated on site if applicable
• Site risk profile updated and top level review may be triggered


Royal Mail RTA Case Studies:
30th December 2005 14.15hrs
A14 – Ipswich
Parcelforce Leyland Convoy 400cf
Collision with rear of articulated vehicle
RM Driver fatality
Poor road/weather conditions


Serious event investigation process invoked -a day late!
Investigation included in addition to RTA
Circumstances:
- Vehicle condition/maintenance regime
- Drivers training
- Drivers hours
- Licence checks
- General safety training
- Site general safety management


Findings - RTA circumstances
Weather/road conditions poor
Driver familiar with route – fatigue?
Not off route or running late
Driving duty since 1989 – experienced evidence of non seat belt wearing and mobile phone use
Poor tyre condition

Findings – management systems
Site management were unsure of their roles and
Responsibilities immediately following the initial
Reporting of the RTA - late reported to CPC due to
Confusion over informing next of kin
Evidence that driver had received driver
Assessment and training on vehicle safety checks
Licence checked ok

Findings – management systems
No recorded evidence that driver had been briefed on mobile phone or seat belt wearing policy
Local team brief records destroyed 6 monthly
Concerns had been raised about excess wear and tear on his vehicle (excess tyre wear indicating hard driving style) but no follow up driver assessment or training

Findings – management systems
Low CSR audit score
Previous accident investigations had not led to remedial actions on site or post accident assessment reviews

Conclusions
Investigation concluded 30th January 2006
No conclusive root cause established
Fatigue, mobile phone use likely contributory factors
18 Recommendations made – generally on failings of local management issues
Nationally led to tightening of Driver Vehicle Checks in particular tyre condition

[brothermagrew]

MORE than 200 people turned out to say an emotional goodbye to the dedicated community champion tragically killed in a town centre crash.
Family, friends and parishioners packed into Hutton and Shenfield Union Free Church for the funeral of Carole Paulson, 63, who died after being hit by a vehicle in Shenfield Road earlier this month.

http://www.thisistotalessex.co.uk/gazet ... ticle.html

[brothermagrew]

CAUSING DEATH BY DRIVING DEFINITIVE GUIDELINE:

In accordance with section 170(9) of the Criminal Justice Act (CJA) 2003, the
Sentencing Guidelines Council issues this guideline as a definitive guideline.
By virtue of section 172 of the CJA 2003, every court must have regard to a relevant
guideline. This guideline applies to the sentencing of offenders convicted of any of
the offences dealt with herein who are sentenced on or after 4 August 2008.

http://www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk ... deline.pdf

[brothermagrew]

I sincerely hope that at least 2 things happen as a result of this incident:
1) The DOM should be sacked for gross negligence, and have charges brought against him, for the same reasons.
2) The Postie who had the accident, should be prosecuted to the full extent of the Law. Because that would provide a powerful deterrant for anyone else considering using a Private Vehicle on Deliveries.

Will they ever learn?
DON'T USE YOUR OWN VEHICLE ON DELIVERIES!!!!!

Do any of the brothers and sisters know if this tragic incident has appeared before the Courts yet? And if so, what was the outcome?

[heapsy]

In our office, people currently driving whilst doing work for RM, including driving own vehicles is a staggering 55. About 45 of these are own car drivers, and I hope they take note of this tragic accident and think very carefully about using their cars, illegally or otherwise.

[fedup postie]

Do we have anymore information if this incident has appreared before the courts yet or not?

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Do we have anymore information if this incident has appreared before the courts yet or not?

http://www.brentwoodweeklynews.co.uk/ne ... th_charge/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Man faces road death charge

11:47am Thursday 11th June 2009


A MAN accused of causing the death of a pedestrian has appeared in court.

Keith Gunn, 51, faced one count of causing the death of Carole Paulson through careless driving when he appeared at Basildon Magistrates’ Court, on Wednesday.

The charge relates to an incident in which 63-year-old Mrs Paulson was allegedly hit by a Jeep Wrangler in Shenfield Road, Brentwood, on September 26 last year.

Gunn, of Wheelers Hill East, in Little Waltham, near Chelmsford, did not enter a plea at the hearing.

He was released on unconditional bail and will reappear at Basildon Crown Court on Friday, July 24 for a plea and case management hearing.

[fedup postie]

Thanks TB.
So what about RM, Have they got away with it again!

[norbert]

Thanks TB.
So what about RM, Have they got away with it again!

from my experience of that sort of management prior to privatization , is that they would be quite happily throw their staff to the wolves to save their sorry skins . If I was up in court , I'd would have expected my managers to be in the public gallery shouting at the judge to put his black cap on .

" Them & us " works both ways . RM have never done responsibility .

[brothermagrew]

A brief insight into plea and case management hearing:

http://www.justice.gov.uk/criminal/proc ... ge1-19.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[brothermagrew]

Another consequence of what can befall those who regularly continue to use their private cars for delivery purposes.

http://www.shropshirestar.com/2007/11/1 ... r-on-fire/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Fortunately customers mail was rescued in the nick of time unfortunately poor old posties car totally engulfed in flames. Will the postie be reimbursed by Royal Mail for a new vehicle?

Also happened to by chance stumble across this which provided interesting reading but do not actually know when in came into force or from where it originated:

http://www.postimage.org/image.php?v=Pq1FzHmS" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[POSTMAN]

Ahhh bm you've jogged my memory.
Regarding the original start to this thread.......

"The facts following an investigation by the CWU Area Safety Representative Paul Rew is that the Delivery Office Manager has failed to discharge Royal Mail's health and safety duty of care to staff employed by Royal Mail and to members of the public who may be affected by Royal mail operations. The Manager has failed to ensure there is no risk to the health and safety of the staff.

The DOM hasn't undertaken documentary checks as required in Royal Mail's policy and checked drivers licences, insurance and MOT certificates. There has been no Safety Checks undertake on staff's cars being used on delivery. None of the Brentwood DO staff (at the time of the accident) had been 'authorised' to use their cars and none had been instructed by the DOM to sign the Royal Mail private car user's declaration for authorisation and business use insurance cover."

I'm wondering if it's the same manager who is 'bigged up' on page 11 of the courier 'Accolades for Brentwood'!

Also as the 1st post has gone in this thread,the news story link is below.

http://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/08/news1034.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[brothermagrew]

Driving offences involving death:
The main types of driving offences involving fatalities are 'dangerous driving' and 'careless or inconsiderate driving'. The driver's behaviour is what is important, not what the driver believes. Someone may be committing a dangerous driving offence even though they believe they are driving safely.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/fact_sheets/ ... s_driving/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[brothermagrew]

http://www.thisistotalessex.co.uk/gazet ... ticle.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.thisistotalessex.co.uk/gazet ... ticle.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

DRIVER FOUND GUILTY OF CAUSING CAROLE'S DEATH

A FORMER postman has been found guilty of causing the death of a pensioner by driving without due care and attention.

On Wednesday a jury of 11 unanimously found Keith Gunn, 52, of Little Waltham, guilty of striking Sunday school teacher Carole Paulson, of Brentwood.

The crash happened as Mrs Paulson crossed near a traffic island, as she headed to the Homewood Dental Surgery.

Southend Court heard Mr Gunn was driving along Shenfield Road, towards Wilsons Corner in his Jeep Wrangler when the accident happened on September 26 last year.

Gunn broke down repeatedly in the witness box during the trial at Southend Crown Court, but said he could find no explanation for what had happened as the first time he saw Mrs Paulson was when he turned around after hearing something hit the front of his car.


He said: "I'm truly, truly sorry for the loss of Mrs Paulson, I would do anything to bring her back, but I was not driving without due care and attention, or recklessly."

Gunn and his defence team suggested Mrs Paulson may have stumbled backwards into the road – but prosecution expert witness PC Steve Perrett said, from her injuries, it was likely the mother-of-two was upright when hit and two steps away from the traffic island.

The defence challenged this interpretation, but prosecution barrister Mark Halsey insisted that even if Mrs Paulson had stumbled backwards, Gunn should have seen her.

The defendant said: "I know Mrs Paulson never crossed the road because I would be looking straight in front of me.

"I have had 15 months of going over this in my head and I can't see she has come from anywhere else other than coming back off the island."

He explained that he had not worked since the accident and had been diagnosed with post traumatic stress disorder and depression.

Defending him, David Miller said: "This is simply an accident that should not have happened and it may be that it will never be explained.

"Mr Gunn didn't see her – he is not trying to hide anything.

"There's no evidence at all of careless driving. He was not speeding, undertaking, driving too close, he is not on a phone or playing with a sat-nav or a radio – nothing at all.

"If Mr Gunn is telling you the truth, he is looking ahead, he is paying attention and that's not someone who is careless."

The jury also heard PC James Ireland reading aloud the interview which Gunn gave, where he repeatedly stated he had not seen Mrs Paulson.

Closing his case, Mr Halsey said: "He can't have been driving with due care and attention.

"He can't have been alert and concentrating to a proper degree at that time. He totally failed to see the pedestrian."

Following the verdict, Gunn was disqualified from driving for a year, given an 18 month supervision order and told he would be electronically tagged, meaning he must remain at home between 7.30pm and 6am until May 31.

Sentencing, Judge Alan Saggerson said: "It's a case where the carelessness is plainly there.

"You are plainly consumed with regret about what has happened. Given your fragile medical circumstances following the accident, I can deal with you by way of a community order."

Speaking after the result, Mr Paulson said: "The one thing I have learned from this is there are no winners and losers here – just losers."