I wrote both of these pieces last year for another blogg now closed but I think the content still is relevant.
First/
I wonder if you have ever thought about which company in the UK has the largest fleet of road vehicles? Surely if you did you would probably included amongst your list Royal Mail but would you really be aware how vast it is? With all the lorries and vans painted red and displaying the crown and ‘Royal Mail’ logo the reasonable person would conclude it was a huge number. However, would you really be aware of the even greater number of unmarked, unofficial vehicles that participate in the delivery of mail six days of the week? I would think the majority of persons in the UK would be completely unaware and why should they?
In the past it was a sackable offence for delivery persons to place mail in their private vehicle as Royal Mail considered this to be theft although it was the intention of the delivery person to take themselves and the mail to their delivery area. Later Royal Mail changed its opinion of this practice perceiving that it was a cost-effective attribute to the service. With postpersons arriving at their delivery points earlier they had more time to do more work and Royal Mail need not employ so many people, especially as mailings were growing. Postpersons were immune from prosecution providing they signed a form provided by Royal Mail.
When the Communications Workers Union (at that time UCW) became aware of this they advised their members to refrain from using their private motor vehicles. Not only was it detrimental to jobs it exposed the illegality of using private vehicles. Most private persons insure their vehicles for private use only. This is less expensive than commercial vehicle insurance allowing the user to travel to and from work but not for the carriage of goods, persons or for pecuniary gain in the performance of business. If a vehicle were used for business then the insurance would be null and void. This placed postpersons in the position of having the authority of Royal Mail to use their personal vehicles but requiring them to buy the more expensive commercial vehicle insurance for the purpose.
The current situation at Royal Mail for those postpersons wishing to use their cars is muddled. Royal Mails official position on the use of vehicles is a no car and motorcycle stance. At the same time third party only insurance is available for those wishing to use their vehicle but with the stipulation that it is only in force whilst the postperson is en route to their first point of delivery and that no mail is left in the vehicle once they have began their delivery. The problem with this insurance is that in exchange the owner of the vehicle has to act as a taxi for other non-car owning postpersons at the delivery office managers request providing they are all heading in the same direction. This has deterred many vehicle owners from acquiring the insurance. Another problem is that many delivery office managers do not like to promote the insurance cover as the onus for the roadworthiness of the insurance seekers vehicle is placed upon them. Certainly partakers will have to provide an up to date MOT certificate and valid driving licence but the final decision rests with the manager following a visual inspection. Clearly delivery office managers do not want to leave themselves liable in the event that a vehicle mechanically fails.
In the event that the third party insurance is provided there remains the legal quandary as to whether two insurance policies can be concurrent upon the same vehicle without one disqualifying the other. The problem here is that Royal Mails insurance covers vehicles third party only should the driver cause an accident the injured party receives compensation for their bodily and property damages leaving the postperson to pay for their own. This is short change if the postperson insures their vehicle fully comprehensively (all parties damages compensated no matter who is at fault). What is not included in Royal Mails insurance is coverage whilst the vehicle remains parked at the delivery destination. Given that the postperson removes all mail from their vehicle it is no guarantee that it will stop onlookers from thinking there is more to be found and breaking into the vehicle. There are many wilful and accidental damages that could happen to the vehicle as to whether the provider of the private insurance will look upon these as claim worthy under their policy is only normally found out when the postperson makes a claim. The postpersons personal insurance company may well declaim it as business use and not pay for the damages to the vehicle. In such circumstances Royal Mail will not pay for the damages although they obtained the benefit as has been found out.
At a recent CWU annual meeting a speaker announced that in the event that a member was to collide with a pedestrian, whilst improperly insured and carrying mail, they would do well to reverse over them. The statement was delivered in order to press the point that the driver would be paying compensation to a survivor for the rest of their life. Whilst no one took the speaker literally concerning reversing, the point was taken very seriously.
The disturbing outlook about vehicles on delivery is that so many postmen and women today are using cars and motorcycles uninsured. There are many reasons for this: getting home early; deliveries are too heavy and too far away; there is insufficient places to stash mail securely; etceteras. All good reasons for using private transport but none of them so good that any person should think it is worth placing themselves in jeopardy of fines, imprisonment, personal loss and a life time of compensation payments. The most disturbing attitude about this situation is that Royal Mail allows it to go unimpeded. Delivery persons at the majority of delivery offices each morning openly fill the back of their cars with mail and the delivery office manager recognises that most of them do not have the relevant insurance to under take the job they are doing. These vehicles include the new and the unroadworthy, driven by good drivers, those whom have never passed a driving test and those whom have been disqualified. All illegally in aid of Royal Mail!
Royal Mail in their wisdom places the responsibility in the hands of their employees. It is in part fair comment to assert that postpersons of adult age have responsibility in how they conduct themselves when they are aware of the facts in regard to cars on delivery and should not use them if they do not have the proper insurance. However, this leaves me wondering why office managers factor in cars when appointing their reserves (those whom cover deliveries when the regular delivery person is on leave). Certainly they have excel documents on their computers informing them whom has cars which is useful information when a delivery is some distance away. What the document is not so particular about is whether the vehicle is fit for business use. Managers do not ask. Most of the know whom has asked for the minimum third party insurance but getting that mail delivered is more important than peoples lives and employees well being in these days of competition. The fact that they keep information concerning whom does and who does not have a car makes them liable. The fact that jobs are dealt upon these bases implies a responsibility upon Royal Mail to find out if the vehicles noted are insured to the minimum requirement.
In conclusion I find that Royal Mails approach to the use of cars on delivery is chaotic but more astonishingly and very disturbing is its indifference and irresponsible attitude to employees and the general public alike. Of course employees are ultimately responsible as to the use of their vehicles. No one is holding a gun to his or her head but if Royal Mail know of employees who use their cars illegally right under their noses to deliver mail do they not have a duty of care to prevent it? Clearly it is within Royal Mail remit to sack employees whom break company rules especially when they are breaking the law at the same time. Keeping records of employees with cars so as deploy them without discovering if they have the appropriate insure is condoning breaking the law, a serious revelation for a government owned company.
Second/
Last July I wrote to this blogg concerning the illegal, potentially dangerous and job erosive nature of the use of cars on deliveries. I expressed anxiety at the employers’ indifference to employees and members of the public alike. In close proximity to the time I wrote, the employer in my, area began informing delivery staff in their team briefing sessions that they would no longer tolerate the use of cars for the purpose of delivery without the owners accepting their insurance arrangement (the consequences of which can be found in my earlier blogg). As for the timing of their action I do not claim to have had any influence and that it was sheer coincidence.
Initially I was rather pleased that my colleagues, in the unit at which I work reacted to the employers’ stand and believed that they would be punished for using their cars without the relevant insurance. Few were prepared to entertain the employers insurance once they understood what was involved in order that they should receive it. Especially when my unit manager acted as if he was woefully uninformed as to the legal consequences and that which the employer held as to their rights over an employees’ personal vehicle. Although, I opine that he knew very well what was the employers’ view of the compact. Questions such as, “Will I have to give other people lifts to their walks?â€
post