Private use of RM van

[Woody Guthrie]

It could actually be worse than if they were insured.

As they are responsible for any losses directly they could after dismissal come after you and your pension assets following an accident while you were using the vehicle inappropriately.

[Cucumber]

It's like vehicle roll aways.
Every single person it happens to thinks *I never thought it would be me* yet it happens probably several times a week given the size of our fleet.

[HarryBlessKnapp]

Where is the line between doing the shopping and getting something from a shop whilst you're on duty?

There's a Screwfix by my round, I've picked up a couple of bits here and there. I've picked up a few bits in Tesco when I deliver there.

[TopperGas]

Where is the line between doing the shopping and getting something from a shop whilst you're on duty?

There's a Screwfix by my round, I've picked up a couple of bits here and there. I've picked up a few bits in Tesco when I deliver there.

If you hit a parked car, or another car hit you're parked van, in Screwfix how would you explain the accident location to your COM? You may get away with Tesco as long as it's during your duty.

Apparently one van was involved in a non fault accident recently and was found to be not roadworthy by the police when they inspected it whilst the driver was using it "off route". Possibly a child was injured hence the police involvement.

[k979aaa]

Where is the line between doing the shopping and getting something from a shop whilst you're on duty?

There's a Screwfix by my round, I've picked up a couple of bits here and there. I've picked up a few bits in Tesco when I deliver there.

If you hit a parked car, or another car hit you're parked van, in Screwfix how would you explain the accident location to your COM? You may get away with Tesco as long as it's during your duty.

Apparently one van was involved in a non fault accident recently and was found to be not roadworthy by the police when they inspected it whilst the driver was using it "off route". Possibly a child was injured hence the police involvement.

I used to have a screwfix on my drop point you can be anywhere but if out of area or accident or with non RM people in the van expect the book to be thrown at you!

[tomdhu]

Update...

Despite being advised by email 3 times with full details of the van and times, the Manager at the DO concerned did not stop the driver using the van for this purpose.

He has since been contacted by phone and denied receiving any email advice even though the email(s) did not bounce back.

He then asked that an email be sent again. and gave his email address. This was precisely the same email address used previously.

Now, just how stupid is it for a Manager to put his job on the line because he ignored the alert and did nothing about it????

I can only guess that there is something else going on whereby the Manager is unable/unwilling to take action.

The driver must be even dumber because he should realise that the sharp eyed parents at the school gates will eventually twig that a trM van should not be used to ferry infants to school.

[yellowbelly]

Update...

Despite being advised by email 3 times with full details of the van and times, the Manager at the DO concerned did not stop the driver using the van for this purpose.

He has since been contacted by phone and denied receiving any email advice even though the email(s) did not bounce back.

He then asked that an email be sent again. and gave his email address. This was precisely the same email address used previously.

Now, just how stupid is it for a Manager to put his job on the line because he ignored the alert and did nothing about it????

I can only guess that there is something else going on whereby the Manager is unable/unwilling to take action.

The driver must be even dumber because he should realise that the sharp eyed parents at the school gates will eventually twig that a trM van should not be used to ferry infants to school.

Who is emailing/phoning the DO manager? If it's you or someone you know using a private email address then perhaps
it's being filtered out by the corporate RM email servers as junk or something and you may not necessarily get a bounce back.

If you really want to pursue this to prevent a serious accident then your other option is RM 'Speak Up':

Speak Up is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. You can remain anonymous, too, if you wish.

From today, to use Speak Up, you can:

Phone the new helpline number on 0800 090 3154 to speak to an operator
Use Google Chrome only to access this online service, as it doesn’t work in Internet Explorer: https://royalmail.gan-compliance.com/p/speakup

[tomdhu]

It's not primarily an attempt to "prevent a serious accident" it is an attempt to curtail the illegal usage of a RM van. The van would not have been insured and I cannot imagine a DO Manager condoning unauthorised usage.

The email address was given to me by the agency that handles claims. Likewise the phone number.

I know the manager received my email but he did not stop the misuse.

I phoned him on the number for the DO and he confirmed he was the Manager.
He was evasive in his responses as to whether he knew about the misuse or whether he condoned it in principle.

He was on the hook and he knew it. He thougt he could get away with ignoring my emails.
Lets see what he does next but if he has any sense he will curtail the abuse.
Failure do do so will mean it gets escalated rapidly.

[yellowbelly]

It's not primarily an attempt to "prevent a serious accident" it is an attempt to curtail the illegal usage of a RM van. The van would not have been insured and I cannot imagine a DO Manager condoning unauthorised usage.

The email address was given to me by the agency that handles claims. Likewise the phone number.

I know the manager received my email but he did not stop the misuse.

I phoned him on the number for the DO and he confirmed he was the Manager.
He was evasive in his responses as to whether he knew about the misuse or whether he condoned it in principle.

He was on the hook and he knew it. He thought he could get away with ignoring my emails.
Lets see what he does next but if he has any sense he will curtail the abuse.
Failure do do so will mean it gets escalated rapidly.

Ok, whatever the reason for the complaint (just trying to be diplomatic), just seems a bit strange that 'the agency'
has given you the manager's email/phone number and you as the complainant are chasing it up directly - thought that would have
been their job to process the issue through and down RM chain of command to ensure there's a formal record of
who's looking into it in case there's future disciplinary action required. As it stands I don't think the actions that have occurred provide that.

[tomdhu]

Ok, whatever the reason for the complaint (just trying to be diplomatic), just seems a bit strange that 'the agency'
has given you the manager's email/phone number and you as the complainant are chasing it up directly - thought that would have
been their job to process the issue through and down RM chain of command to ensure there's a formal record of
who's looking into it in case there's future disciplinary action required. As it stands I don't think the actions that have occurred provide that.

The agency is a third party organisation that processes claims on behalf of RM. Their terms of reference only allow them to process an issue following an accident where the claimant wants resolution.
The lady I spoke to said that the van would not be insured and expressed genuine concern for the kids. On that basis she was willing to provide the contact details after she had consulted her manager.
Any right minded citizen would do the same. That way the DO manager could investigate thoroughly and take whatever action was necessary,

For the manager to fail to curtail the mis-use after two weeks is inappropriate and for him to subsequently allege he didn't receive the emails is very odd - given that after he was telephoned, he received emails OK sent to the exact same email address. The original emails had a subject header that left it now doubt that it was a serious operational matter for that DO.

To subsequently be evasive in the manner to did was equally stupid.

[97gaz]

We had a guy who was picking his kid up from school and the kid even had a RM jacket. It was starting to be noticed by a few people and I knew it wouldn't be long before the DOM found out so I had a word with his best mate to warn him. He took the hump about it and wanted to know who had told his mate. I was doing him a favour but regret it now. We've had two sacked so far for unauthorised use of RM vehicles.

[yellowbelly]

Ok, whatever the reason for the complaint (just trying to be diplomatic), just seems a bit strange that 'the agency'
has given you the manager's email/phone number and you as the complainant are chasing it up directly - thought that would have
been their job to process the issue through and down RM chain of command to ensure there's a formal record of
who's looking into it in case there's future disciplinary action required. As it stands I don't think the actions that have occurred provide that.

The agency is a third party organisation that processes claims on behalf of RM. Their terms of reference only allow them to process an issue following an accident where the claimant wants resolution.
The lady I spoke to said that the van would not be insured and expressed genuine concern for the kids. On that basis she was willing to provide the contact details after she had consulted her manager.
Any right minded citizen would do the same. That way the DO manager could investigate thoroughly and take whatever action was necessary,

For the manager to fail to curtail the mis-use after two weeks is inappropriate and for him to subsequently allege he didn't receive the emails is very odd - given that after he was telephoned, he received emails OK sent to the exact same email address. The original emails had a subject header that left it now doubt that it was a serious operational matter for that DO.

To subsequently be evasive in the manner to did was equally stupid.

Ok, I can see why you're not happy with the response of the manager but:

1. The 'agency' obviously concerned about what you told them IMO should not have given you the manager's contact details
even though 'a manager' apparently authorised it. There may be a potential data protection issue there and you, now having
those details, may be a party to that. If the 'agency' were that concerned about it they should have gone to RM Fleet
or the manager directly to raise the issue. If their TOR's say they can't do that then again IMO I don't believe they should
have given you the manager's contact details.

2. I'm not sure from your posts if you are a postie, I don't think you are, but even so you can use the whistle blowing
link I gave you in a previous post. You can be anonymous if you want. That way you are not getting involved in
the resolution to the situation - you'll have done your civic minded bit so to speak. I think this is the best route
for you to go down.

3. As you've said not being insured is illegal but someone has to catch the postie in the act of committing the
offence. This would require the police knowing about it and putting resources towards catching him in the act
as a random 'drive by' or traffic camera ANPR check would just show the van as being insured.

[Woody Guthrie]

3. As you've said not being insured is illegal but someone has to catch the postie in the act of committing the
offence.

You are only uninsured if using a vehicle in breach of the policy of an insurance company.

Since Royal Mail use a bond lodged with the government as an assurance against 3rd party claims there is technically no point that you aren't legally covered even if using the vehicle without permission or authorisation.

It would be a matter between Royal Mail and the driver and nothing to do with the police.

No law is broken although it is most likely gross misconduct possibly leading to dismissal.

[yellowbelly]

3. As you've said not being insured is illegal but someone has to catch the postie in the act of committing the
offence.

You are only uninsured if using a vehicle in breach of the policy of an insurance company.

Since Royal Mail use a bond lodged with the government as an assurance against 3rd party claims there is technically no point that you aren't legally covered even if using the vehicle without permission or authorisation.

It would be a matter between Royal Mail and the driver and nothing to do with the police.

No law is broken although it is most likely gross misconduct possibly leading to dismissal.

Cheers for the explanation Woody. Makes sense why they'd come after your pension if you had an accident!

[sequinn]

Surely he would be in breach of the insurance policy as taking your kids to school in a Royal Mail van would not be covered by the policy, therefore he would be driving without insurance which is an offence. If he had a reportable accident while his children were in the car, I doubt the insurance company would pay out. I know of posties using vans for moving house, transporting large items etc all out of work time.