How is a van share suppose to work?

[DB1100]

I don't understand all these arguments about who is driving or not. Some people appear to want to be in control - like the old drivers-type. Or some are just being pedantic with rules which is not even black or white?

Yes, it is impractical to note every changeover in the logbook but this is supposed to be a partnership. There is nothing in the P&L agreement that states that one person has to be a dedicated 'driver' and the other a 'walker'.

So what is the worst that can happen? One of the partners commits an offence or damages the van and then denies it: I doubt that very much; and after an investigation, the truth will come out.

Its is not about trying to finish early - but doing the job the most efficient way. Ours loops are often fairly similar in size and we tend to return to the same base most of the time after going off; early returners can quickly do a packet or something else (tidy up etc).

For example, I was a walker today - complete walker using a trolley and bag drops from start to almost finish, But my partners who does a corresponding walk which is more rural used the van and packs the van for me at the end to return to the office.

Partner is a FT staff and helps with prepping and does bulky packets... He lives not very far (at a nearby round) from where I pick up the van; so he leaves the van for me to return to the office. I complete the logbook with final figures and sign van back in. What is the problem? During lapse, he can drop me at the start, he packs up at the other and I pick him up later - some of our lapse do not loop.

People are taking vans home, using other people's vans for collection and doing all sorts without any manager batting an eyelid.

Exactly,I asked the question in Work time drivel about driving and was told by management that as long as you both sign for the key's it is ok for you both to drive as long as you are both qualified for that class of vehicle,and that was in front of approx 40 witnesses.

[fishtank]

People can do what the f**k they like.
They can ignore the rules if they want and they can take their chances.
As long as they know they are ignoring the rules and can take their chances.
Of course if it goes tits up they'll start crying like babies and look for someone to bail them out.
That doesn't bother me though,what bothers me are the people who advise others to ignore the rules and take their chances.
They are the real dicks.
I've seen 20 years of people who know best ending up knowing f**k all.

So what is the worst that can happen?

You could get sacked.
No biggy for you.you're a grade A genius but for others...not so good.

[DB1100]

People can do what the f**k they like.
They can ignore the rules if they want and they can take their chances.
As long as they know they are ignoring the rules and can take their chances.
Of course if it goes tits up they'll start crying like babies and look for someone to bail them out.
That doesn't bother me though,what bothers me are the people who advise others to ignore the rules and take their chances.
They are the real dicks.
I've seen 20 years of people who know best ending up knowing f**k all.

So what is the worst that can happen?

You could get sacked.
No biggy for you.you're a grade A genius but for others...not so good.

Chill out,you won't lose your job.You mostly give good advice but sometimes get too involved.

[FinishOnTime]

Classic Royal Mail. Have a clearly written down rule( with legal implications) and everyone from managers to posties ignores it because it isn't convenient.

[chrisj]

Lets just say it again, the rule is not crystal clear. the rule might have been clear when we had specialist drivers but with P&L the set-up and ways of working has changed.

I have read the so-called rules and my interpretation does not say that 'one van one driver', at the most people can endorse the logbook. As for doing a proper vehicle check every time you swap over, do us a favour!

If someone does not get sacked for losing a van then I cannot see how you can be sacked for a road traffic incident, illegal parking or vehicle prang - whether you sign the logbook or not.

I shall like to see manager start monitoring the logbooks and stopping posties taking the vans home, then we might be unto something...

[clashcityrocker]

Only the driver whose name is recorded in the logbook may drive the vehicle until responsibility is transferred.

It is only not crystal clear if you don't want it to be.
If your managers are telling you anyone can drive, ask them to put that in writing and show you where they are getting their information from.

[fishtank]

Lets just say it again, the rule is not crystal clear. the rule might have been clear when we had specialist drivers but with P&L the set-up and ways of working has changed.

The document was not designed for specialist drivers.
It was designed specifically for park&loop.
The document is part of the CDV guidelines http://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/communit ... 09#p266582" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The union endorsed this document in April 2010.
The section quoted is entitled Shared vans: vehicle accountability:Principles of Shared Van working.
http://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/communit ... 27#p506038" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I have read the so-called rules and my interpretation does not say that 'one van one driver'

Right at the top.
Third line down.

• Typically one of the shared van pair is nominated as the driver each day to minimize inefficiency as a result of driver changes during the duty

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Don't presume to tell me how I am doing my job, the fact that you seem to be incapable of following a few simple guidelines doesn't mean we all are.

The fact that you sound as if you are happy to sit in a van for 20 minutes tossing it off until your designated driver of the day comes back and does all the work says everything

I guess if your partner collects all the specials from the locker, you make him deliver them all as well.

I was going to compose a considered response to your abusive post, but I can't be arsed.
You're a twat.

My post abusive

I have just seen this and I hope the abuse and counter abuse stops now. But to answer your question. Yes

You accused him of being a w****r "tossing off" in all but name didn't you.

His abusive is a little clearer, but neither should be accepted on here. However lets move on and debate like the adults we are.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

As to change over - there is a legal responsibility on both the driver/s and the Royal Mail under Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Royal Mail has a procedure that should be followed and if it isn't then drivers sharing the responsibility and not following the instructions to the letter may well be liable for prosecution. Unless of course 1 of them coughs up to it, not sure I would.

http://www.motorlawyers.co.uk/offences/ ... driver.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What if I don't know who was driving at the time of the offence alleged in the Notice of Intended Prosecution?
Your legal obligation is to identify the driver, the assumption being that you know who was driving the vehicle at all times. If you cannot be sure, then the Police have the option to prosecute for failing to identify the driver. If there is a genuine reason why you cannot provide this information (and you may have an entirely justifiable explanation), then you should advise the Police accordingly. If there has been no attempt on your part to with–hold information deliberately or negligently, you may have a defence.

Failing to follow your employers guidelines because it was too difficult, or took to long and therefore not knowing with certainty when and who was driving some weeks or months later, would I suggest be a case of negligence. As indeed, I suspect, would your manager saying that under the system of both signing for the keys allows both drivers to operate the van, when they also cannot identify who was driving the vehicle at the time and date of which the police are interested in.

Just mentioning this because its not all down to Royal Mails rules, the law needs to taken into consideration as well.

What is the maximum penalty for failing to indentify the driver at the time of the alleged offence?
You are required to identify the driver of the vehicle. You must do this within 28 days and if you fail to do so, you have committed a separate offence for which your licence can be endorsed with 6 penalty points and a fine up of £1,000.

[chrisj]

Some people do not even fill out the logbook?

P&L makes it very difficult to be fully accountable for most things - even making misdeliveries at the most basic.

Did you just say that you might not cough up to committing an offence where someone else might possibly take the blame or jointly?

We now have a chart of complaints and manager is threatening to take people down the conduct codes, 12 months serious and possibly dismissal. But how can they be absolutely sure of who made the mistake? Customer do not always complain on the same day of mistakes and I doubt they specify the day and time of mistakes. When they complain they tend to over-exaggerate and claim that one incident is two or two is always...

I think when we discuss here, some people are so comfortable and always doing the same round and possibly with the same partners that they do not understand the chaos that floaters and Reserves face daily/weekly.

Anyone that has to cover a round where the walkholder has been on long-term sick will understand how rules are simply not followed for the most basic things and managers are just too happy as long as the work is somewhat done. We even had a van that had a cracked windscreen driven for at least 9 months or so and the logbook was never filled. The mileage was at least 2500 more than the other vans...

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Did you just say that you might not cough up to committing an offence where someone else might possibly take the blame or jointly?

No what I meant was without the documents being completed correctly could I be certain that it was me or my partner who committed the offence, and therefore would I compound the offence by admitting it even if I wasn't sure it was me - again not sure I would.

As to the other problems of accountability for mis-deliveries etc or the manager blaming someone who isn't responsible, I take your point but that's work administration and not a legal requirement (and in the worst/best case could be a saving grace). Knowing who the driver of a vehicle is at a given time on a given date is a LEGAL requirement - not just RM being its usual officious self.

Don't forget RMC is here to share information and experience, and that sometimes means pointing out legal stuff. However, we are all big enough and ugly enough to make up our own minds and if given all the information you decide on a particular action, in full knowledge of all the possible consequences that is, as an adult, your privilege and whether anyone else on here think its the right decision or not matters not a jot. But we would be ignoring own own motto if we didn't at least point these things out.

Regards