Cars on delivery / flyers / job and finish etc

[POSTMAN]

Lets be honest,loop hole,grey area or whatever you want to call it,do you lot really think that there will not be car users somewhere or another for the rest of the life of The Royal Mail!

Oh and my DO is in my back garden.
Not that it matters or should matter.

[andy2007]

There may be a limited number of cases where it is suitable for an individual to retain their private car for use on delivery.

So as I said before: I think you need to keep looking, if you want a loophole to allow people to keep using their cars long term.

I am not entirely sure how many times we are going to revisit the same old same old BUT - if you could just point out exactly what time limitations there would be in the agreement in this FIRST sentence, who would decide it and how many cases would be considered limited and by whom?

You have a tendency to extrapolate what you consider is the meaning of the sentence in comparison as to what is actually written. As I said many times the words are the words and that is what the agreement will be judged on.

You can try to take sections out of context all you like. But the whole quote is:
There may be a limited number of cases where it is suitable for an individual to retain their private car for use on delivery. DOMs may exceptionally need to address short term operational issues or ongoing health problems typically covered within DDA (for example, where the use of a personally adapted vehicle presents a more suitable option for the individual and supports inclusivity in the workplace). All cases will be assessed on an individual basis.

The limited number of cases are explained later in the same paragraph. It's not a list which says:
1) Limited cases.
2) Short term.
etc.

It''s an explination of how we can have exceptions to the rule of no cars on Deliveries. Have you considered a job as a Spin Doctor?

[fishtank]

Andy,no-one is arguing the intent to remove PCOD...simply that there is scope for DOMs to abuse the exceptional circumstances clause and where there is scope you can be sure it will be scoped to it's maximum.
We were promised the removal of the insurance bond...how can that happen if you have isolated cases?

[dvbuk55]

Andy,no-one is arguing the intent to remove PCOD...simply that there is scope for DOMs to abuse the exceptional circumstances clause and where there is scope you can be sure it will be scoped to it's maximum.
We were promised the removal of the insurance bond...how can that happen if you have isolated cases?

You can't, he knows it, he is just being stubborn. That statement in itself gives licence for private cars on delivery there is no other interpretation. If a postman wants to use his car under whatever guise the DOM will authorise it and use that "guideline" as his authority to do so. In truth if I was a DOM I'd do precisely that if it suited the workplan.

[andy2007]

Andy,no-one is arguing the intent to remove PCOD...simply that there is scope for DOMs to abuse the exceptional circumstances clause and where there is scope you can be sure it will be scoped to it's maximum.
We were promised the removal of the insurance bond...how can that happen if you have isolated cases?

You can't, he knows it, he is just being stubborn. That statement in itself gives licence for private cars on delivery there is no other interpretation. If a postman wants to use his car under whatever guise the DOM will authorise it and use that "guideline" as his authority to do so. In truth if I was a DOM I'd do precisely that if it suited the workplan.

No, I'm not being stubborn. I'm trying to point out how you can prevent your DOM abusing this particular clause. The fact is, that you're right: The DOMs will try to use it as a loophole. Even though no loophole exists. As I'm sure you'll have noticed: I have always quoted the entire clause, and simply highlighted the bits I'm explaining. But the DOMs, will no doubt try to take the first sentence out of context (as has already happened in this thread). But the fact is, that, that sentence is simply pointing out that there may be cases where it's neccessary to continue the use of PCOD for people covered by the DDA (decided by Doctors, not DOMS!). And that there might be short term, exceptional circumstances where it's TEMPORARILY neccessary to continue their use. But NO-WHERE in that clause, is there authorisation for ANYONE not covered by the DDA to continue using PCOD long term.

It won't stop the DOMs trying it on. But they will be in clear breach of the agreement, if they do.

As for the problem of the Bond: Well, the only way around that, is for you to pay for your own Business Insurance. Or refuse to use your car, because it isn't insured for that type of use. No matter how much they want to. They can't ask you to break the law, to get the job done.

[dvbuk55]

You've hit the nail there though Andy, it won't just be the DOM, postmen too will want to use exactly the loophole under the guise of DDA - which will be decided on an individual basis by who?

It isn't just DDA though is it? If the DOM and the postman are OK with it what are you going to do about it?, go to disagreement.

It shows the lack of committment by both parties to allow it to continue in any guise - lets take the problem out of context for a moment and say it is an engineering firm - the manager says to joe, we've got exceptional circumstances joe - can you bring your own lathe in next week - in what other occupation would you be expected to use your own equipment because there is a crisis?

I know precisely what it says BUT it is like the 30 mph speed limit.

Ask your DOM tomorrow, if you use cars on delivery, if he expects there will still be usage after the revisions

[superdaddybear]

I know that this is a favourite subject on here and is widely condemned but I wish some people would put things in perspective before criticising others.

Most of us are different, have different reasons for doing the job and wanting or needing to finish that bit early.

None of our deliveries are the same either.

But what I think alot of people fail to understand is the sheer geography and planning handed to us on a plate by our overlords at Royal Mail.

I can understand why someone in a town centre or geographically central office would be negative about people using their cars but I don't think their aware how changes in different offices over the country have affected us as individuals.

Our postcode used to be catered for by a delivery office attached to a Mail Centre pretty much slap bang in the middle of the City with jobs in all directions of the compass, equal distance away. The closer ones cycled, the further ones were accelerated out. The only exception being about half a dozen jobs in a southerly suburb which were made into once over the ground rural type jobs.

Ten years ago the delivery section split from the MC and opened two new office, for the north and south, the south being very south whilst the north was at the ass end of a new industrial estate at the very eastern extreme of the area it covered. Even the closest walks to the office are the best part of a mile away from the industrial estate.

How many people who criticize car users are in this type of office?

What did you do before you could use your car???

[andy2007]

You've hit the nail there though Andy, it won't just be the DOM, postmen too will want to use exactly the loophole under the guise of DDA - which will be decided on an individual basis by who?

It isn't just DDA though is it? If the DOM and the postman are OK with it what are you going to do about it?, go to disagreement.

It shows the lack of committment by both parties to allow it to continue in any guise - lets take the problem out of context for a moment and say it is an engineering firm - the manager says to joe, we've got exceptional circumstances joe - can you bring your own lathe in next week - in what other occupation would you be expected to use your own equipment because there is a crisis?

I know precisely what it says BUT it is like the 30 mph speed limit.

Ask your DOM tomorrow, if you use cars on delivery, if he expects there will still be usage after the revisions

The decision about whether someone's covered by the DDA will be made by a Doctor, Specialist, etc.. The decision about whether that means that an individual need to use PCOD, will be made by ATOS and the DOM. The DOM simply can't make that decision without ATOS and a Doctor, Specialist, etc..

As for people using a percieved loophole that doesn't actually exist. Well, what do you think'll happen if there's an accident?
The DOM will point out that he/she shouldn't have been using their car, and probably try to discipline them. Unless the Postie has it in writing. And what about the Bond?
That won't be around much longer.

I know that it's probably infuriating, having me go on about this. But the fact is, that this could (and knowing RM, probably will) cause a lot of problems for people.

I know that there'll probably be some anti-car users, who'd see that as poetic justice. But although I have serious reservations about PCOD, because of the problems that so many people have had over the last few years. I wouldn't want to see anyone getting screwed, over this.

Obviously it's an individual choice. And I may be completely wrong about this. But it's worth bearing in mind. Particularly considering the way people have been treated in the past, when things went wrong. And that was when it was agreed, that people could use their cars.

[dvbuk55]

Andy, where on earth do you get the ATOS and the Doctor will decide? If you can point out that part of the statement I would be obliged, also where it says the bond will be withdrawn - which in light of the statment seems unlikely. There are many people on "light" duties under so called "DDA" rulings that have never seen ATOS - you are reading far too much into what is quite plainly a loophole in the, NO PRIVATE CARS ON DELIVERY, within the agreement. If either party had been serious about the issue then this statement would have been totally unnecessary.

[not me]

I have to agree
theres really should be no scenario that should require staff to use their cars on delivery

[andy2007]

Andy, where on earth do you get the ATOS and the Doctor will decide? If you can point out that part of the statement I would be obliged, also where it says the bond will be withdrawn - which in light of the statment seems unlikely. There are many people on "light" duties under so called "DDA" rulings that have never seen ATOS - you are reading far too much into what is quite plainly a loophole in the, NO PRIVATE CARS ON DELIVERY, within the agreement. If either party had been serious about the issue then this statement would have been totally unnecessary.

Well, in that case, either there were specific guidelines given by the Doctor or Specialist. Or the DOM isn't following proper procedure. As for the Bond being withdrawn: That's been discussed elsewhere for some time. It's not something I came up with:
http://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/communit ... wn#p264145" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/communit ... wn#p252280" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And as I keep saying: Unless you take the first sentence out of context. Then no loophole exists.

[dvbuk55]

Andy, where on earth do you get the ATOS and the Doctor will decide? If you can point out that part of the statement I would be obliged, also where it says the bond will be withdrawn - which in light of the statment seems unlikely. There are many people on "light" duties under so called "DDA" rulings that have never seen ATOS - you are reading far too much into what is quite plainly a loophole in the, NO PRIVATE CARS ON DELIVERY, within the agreement. If either party had been serious about the issue then this statement would have been totally unnecessary.

Well, in that case, either there were specific guidelines given by the Doctor or Specialist. Or the DOM isn't following proper procedure. As for the Bond being withdrawn: That's been discussed elsewhere for some time. It's not something I came up with:
http://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/communit ... wn#p264145" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/communit ... wn#p252280" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And as I keep saying: Unless you take the first sentence out of context. Then no loophole exists.

Lovejoy first suggested that the bond would be withdrawn from each office in March BUT in April Dingo suggested it would be withdrawn NOT from Offices BUT from individuals where a specific delivery method applied, such as CDV or HCT, so within a month there had been a slight change of tac OR the original statement by lovejoy was in error. If there are to be "exceptional circumstances" where cars will be sanctioned then the bond cannot be withdrawn except from individuals where it does not serve RMs purpose. Surely it is a simple enough query for one of our resident oracles to answer - is it in or out?

[postiechris]

Its all you idiots who use your cars on delivery whos fooked the job up. We would have had no extra walks put on us. Like the dicks who dont take there meal reliefs and comming in early to throw in

[andy2007]

Andy, where on earth do you get the ATOS and the Doctor will decide? If you can point out that part of the statement I would be obliged, also where it says the bond will be withdrawn - which in light of the statment seems unlikely. There are many people on "light" duties under so called "DDA" rulings that have never seen ATOS - you are reading far too much into what is quite plainly a loophole in the, NO PRIVATE CARS ON DELIVERY, within the agreement. If either party had been serious about the issue then this statement would have been totally unnecessary.

Well, in that case, either there were specific guidelines given by the Doctor or Specialist. Or the DOM isn't following proper procedure. As for the Bond being withdrawn: That's been discussed elsewhere for some time. It's not something I came up with:
http://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/communit ... wn#p264145" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/communit ... wn#p252280" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And as I keep saying: Unless you take the first sentence out of context. Then no loophole exists.

Lovejoy first suggested that the bond would be withdrawn from each office in March BUT in April Dingo suggested it would be withdrawn NOT from Offices BUT from individuals where a specific delivery method applied, such as CDV or HCT, so within a month there had been a slight change of tac OR the original statement by lovejoy was in error. If there are to be "exceptional circumstances" where cars will be sanctioned then the bond cannot be withdrawn except from individuals where it does not serve RMs purpose. Surely it is a simple enough query for one of our resident oracles to answer - is it in or out?

Sorry. You're right about the Bond. At least as far as we know so far, anyway. I hadn't noticed the subtle change.