|
There have already been protests at the imposition of the VRQ / NVQ; and L & R have agreed to keep the matter under review. At the last meeting my association queried the position on a regulatory basis as requested by Mr Caldicuti.
I have undertaken the suggested training.
I think it is common ground that the decision to impose the NVQ requirement has served to unite drivers, including PH drivers. I am now required by members to present a petition against the proposition. This is a petition against the principle and on the merits of the scheme as it unfolds.
I was originally required to petition on behalf of more experienced drivers; I was asked to circulate the document, drivers themselves deleted that portion of the preamble thereby including all drivers, however recent their experience. The petition is signed by the overwhelming majority of those I directly represent. There is no formal petition from PHV drivers; it will come as no surprise to observe that conversation with our colleagues in that trade also shows overwhelming support.
The “in principle” demand is simply dealt with; it is a request, after consultation, to change policy, so that existing licence holders do not have to obtain an NVQ. You will note that it is only those who are self employed who are unable to claim the expense, or loss of earning, involved in obtaining an NVQ. A dental receptionist taking the appropriate NVQ is given a loss of income payment.
At our meeting three months ago there was criticism because of the lack of training places. The office of “Metro” has a notice board on which there are now advertisements for 4 training courses. Two of these are from educational colleges, two are by private companies. The latter have, quite properly, as their primary need, and statutory object, to make a profit. One has debts registered. The funding for each trainee is £1750. Training groups seem to be of up to 12 people (a couple are often not funded as discussed at our last meeting) a revenue stream of, say, £17,500. Yet there is no recompense for drivers; although one training provider canvassing for students has informed members that if they were to take the training course in Preston that the training provider would share its revenue to the extent of £300.
Members report that funding is available for those who work with a radio circuit. Members working without a radio have been declined a training place, by one of the providers, at least.
Training varies; the NVQ for existing drivers can be undertaken without formal, significant, classroom study. There is competition for students; the boast is that e.g. one can undertake the NVQ with minimal classroom time, I was quoted 1 hour.
Edexcel, as the regulatory body, requires the VRQ knowledge as the requisite, underpinning, and theoretical basis of the NVQ. It envisages that the learning time to get to the VRQ level is 70 hours, in total. The requisite knowledge must be gained even without the VRQ.
Accreditation of Prior Learning or grandfathering of prior knowledge is permitted for both qualifications, but none is assumed and apart from the VRQ being specifically accepted there is no other accreditation method suggested, grandfathering in name only? This accreditation could reduce learning time, but it may well be easier if the material is taught, the paradox of the suggested and canvassed ‘minimal classroom’ approach.
The course material stipulated by Edexcel is provided by Transport Training Technologies, it is not, seemingly, given to members studying for the NVQ as existing drivers, unless they undertake the VRQ first. This material is made up of booklets published by Transport Training Technologies Ltd, and further course work material supplied to trainers. Edexcel stipulates training providers obtain this material, which constitutes the learning syllabus.
Although therefore students are attracted by the alleged promise of few classroom hours for the NVQ, they are disadvantaged by the lack of, formal, training materials at this level. The trainer’s boast of no time off the road reduces their teaching overheads with the disadvantage that students are left to assemble the required knowledge with insufficient material, yet are expected to acquire this, tested, knowledge.
Much of the required information is indeed already within the student’s existing knowledge as is implied in the rationale for the petition. This is organised for VRQ students in the fairly simple booklets, which should be available to all; the absence of these is a further cost saving for trainers.
One member was asked to meet an external verifier; not a problem he thought. Needless to say he will not repeat the process.
I now need to turn to the syllabus and detail of the problem:
I was surprised, when pointing out clear mistakes in the syllabus to be told that I need to know more than the teacher. Flattering to me maybe; but no help to others.
Course material shows that an addict or alcoholic is “disabled”, in fact SI 1455 of 1996 at paragraph 3 states that addiction arising from medical treatment, only, is an impairment.
The seat belt regulations fail to teach that a PHV or taxi with a separate passenger compartment exempts the driver from criminal liability arising from a failure of a child to wear a seat belt; SI 176 of 1993 at paragraph 9 (b). [Paragraph 9 (a), but not (b) was altered by the 2006 regulations.]
An answer to a Q & A (jargon for question and answer) demands that there are 4 compulsory anchorage points for an electric wheelchair. Not only is there no such requirement, there are no such anchorage points in the vehicles actually licensed. There is an aspiration for such facility; but it is not there to use. “The Book” says one should use any restraints actually available.
There is another Q & A, and discussion, dealing with the power of an authorised officer, who may be accompanied by police. The answer given by the training establishment alleges that an authorised officer of another authority has power to stop and examine a vehicle. An authorised officer can check licensing requirements; but he never has power to stop. Power to stop a vehicle is reserved, by S.163 of the RTA 1988 to police (and traffic officers – although VOSA is now in on the act as well). A licensing officer from another district has no powers; the 1976 Act at S.68 reads “Any authorised officer of the council in question”. For this reason SMBC authorises licensing officers in Liverpool and vice versa. Otherwise there is no power, if that is in doubt then I refer to paragraph 23 of the well known judgment in “Newcastle v Berwick” 2008 EWHC 2369, Admin. It is there not contested that officers outside the area have no power, it was agreed between the parties that PHV and taxi licensing is a local matter and that local requirements may vary. This is why the legislative scheme is that set out mainly in the Local Government Misc Provisions Act 1976. On checking I note that the 2006 RSA affects S.61 not S.68 of the 1976 Act.
Some officers nevertheless attempt to stop a vehicle. A lady friend with a PH licence in N Wales was once terrified by a chasing car; it turned out to be driven by a licensing officer.
Trevor Jones, who most members of this committee know points out that the suggestion that PH firms could store lost property, may pose a danger. It may be that (depending on each circumstance) such arrangements will fall foul of the “theft by finding” offence. This can be complicated but is a clear danger; and the procedure should not be recommended without warning of the potential problem
Unbelievably the course material states that a passenger failing to pay commits no offence, although this is repeated in the section dealing with London, it goes on (bizarrely) to advise a call to the police. We will be dealing with this topic later and I refer here only to R v Aziz, as that is a reported case on the point, it does not rely on a theoretical explanation of statute law. You will wish to know that a member has suffered an incident where a passenger has been convicted under the Fraud Act.
At the annual meeting in January it was stated that driver safety was a prime reason for this scheme. It is not safe to teach that drunks and addicts have a right to carriage; especially when so many licensed vehicles are saloon cars. Especially as they, in turn will get to think they need not pay.
The well being of drivers cannot be furthered by teaching that this is the only trade where dishonestly refusing payment is not criminalised. If the public thought that payment was legally voluntary then chaos will ensue. But this is what is being taught. In time this advice will become well known; think how many Saturday night thrill seekers will try it on. Do not rely on contract law. I have issued proceedings liberally; I promise others will not wish to do so. I have often stood behind someone in the court trying to issue a few actions, to be told the paperwork was wrong. Mine was identical but accepted because of its frequency. In any event it would firstly it would be necessary to persuade the miscreant to provide accurate details, identity, address and so on. Can you imagine the abuse?
What happens to the driver who refuses a wheelchair because he thinks he must have 4 anchorage points and where does that leave the disabled passenger?
I am staggered that it can be taught that there are powers to stop, examine and inquire which do not exist. Admittedly I support the view that regulatory powers are vastly excessive and unnecessarily numerous; but I have not before encountered the formal teaching of a power that is not there. To be fair to our licensing officers I must make it clear that when they do stop vehicles they do so when accompanying a police officer.
It is clear that these factually incorrect matters should be brought to the attention of past students, who now hold qualifications based on incorrect material.
It is correctly stated that students should keep up to date. There is no recommended method, no specific reference to organisations such as the PHA, Unison (which has sections for all parts of the trade), or any other association.
From the matters I have set out it may well follow that SMBC could incur liability in adopting or continuing a scheme of this nature.
The subject is not taught accurately and is tested wrongly, if for no other reason, the scheme must now by re-considered by councillors. It is surely not proper that SMBC requires incorrect information to be taught to its license holders.
There are also the differing approaches by trainers to the whole set up which must be considered. It would be preferable if any training was only available from established educational institutions.
I am therefore charged with the task of asking that this matter and these comments are laid before “L & R” forthwith. I would hope this can be done by the chairman? If not, I have to approach directly.
I have with me a folder with the various errors shown, and the source material I quote showing the correct position, if you wish to inspect it.
I have not included the theft by finding material.
The folder also contains a portion of a company search relating to Transport Training Technologies Ltd. It can be seen that Bryan Roland is a director, making it surprising, and disappointing, that these errors occur?
There is also a section dealing with Edexcel requirements, taken from its website; you will note the specific reference to the Transport Training Technology material.
_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!
|
Login
Register
FAQ
