Did you know that if you have a D1 licence you have to have a medical every 5 years after the age of 45, even if you have the 101 (not for hire and reward) exemption.

There is also a set of slightly less ambiguous "guidelines" coming out of the DafT regarding the use and operation of section 19 minibuses, basically those used by so-called "community transport" groups "not for profit" but with chief executives on high salaries and fleets of minibuses numbering several hundreds.

As from now (and it's been the law for years) if ANY passenger makes any payment or someone makes payment on his behalf, then the vehicle MUST be a licenced psv and the driver must have D1 (without 101 exemption). This will be enforced from 24th April according to my sources.

My bus number (if any): RML2532

Hi Roy,

With regard to the information you've posted, have you any idea how this could affect mini-buses that were driven by school staff, could this affect them also?

Thanks.

As far as I am aware the school minibuses should be run on a section 19 permit. The school staff must have the appropriate licences as mention in the DafT advice. It has always been "the law", as I said it has now been clarified to a greater degree.

Driving school minibuses by school staff also comes under the Working Time Directive as presumably the school staff are being paid to do it, so for instance a teacher who teaches for 8 hours a day has to obey the relevant Driver Hours Regulations, so teaching would count as "other work" for that purpose. I would presume the children being carried are not paying fares if it is part of their school curriculum, so the "hire and reward" or "fiscal activity" part does not come into it, so the drivers will need the D1 (101) licence.

If you cast your mind back to the early 1990's, there was a tragic crash on the M40 where about a dozen children were killed in a school minibus. The probable direct cause of this was driver fatigue as the teacher driving had been teaching all day, drove to London for s theatre visit and drove back again, possibly breaching all sorts of driving hours. the end result was that everything had to have seat belts fitted; the real cause, driver fatigue, was swept under the carpet and ignored by the authorities.

This matter has been bubbling under for well over 10 years and has "recently" been brought to a head by a small group of psv operators who have persued the matter right up to the top of the European authorities who have now issued infraction proceedings against the UK Government (as they have also done with the "sharing of driver information across the borders case mentioned in the press last week). Reasoned opinion has been sought and the government is very likely to lose a case that is being brought by the operators, hence the "new regulations" which aren't really new at all.

Part of the rest of the history of the case is the open abuse of the section 19 permit scheme with operators running over 800 minibuses "not for profit", yes, I kid you not! Some running registered bus services carrying passengers for hire and reward (fares) and virtually none having D1 licences without the (101) exemption. This has been rightly in my opinion classed as unfair competition under the various competition laws, even affecting small psv operators like my company which only ran a couple of buses. There are about 97,000 public service vehicles licenced in the UK, there are over 130,000 minibuses, nobody knows now many run on s19 permits as the scheme is unregulated, so that shows the extent of the problem.

I know the enforcement of the law will affect genuine cases, but the law is there for the safety of those travelling. I'd suggest that things like schools, scout groups and genuine "closed door" groups will not be that badly affected, it is the sham community transport groups who, to all intents and purposes are running psv operation that need to be brought into line.

My bus number (if any): RML2532

Roy, many thanks.

I've just had an email from Martin Allen, the chap who has been persuing this case through the EU system; he's forwarded advice given out by the Community Transport Association which is not only incomplete but grossly misleading.

they say words to the effect of "if you're charging people to travel you my need some sort of operators licence". FFS, if you're giving advice try to make it clear and concise. I'll copy the email across later. The advice they give is not clear and not concise!

You DO need a psv operators licence, end of!

My bus number (if any): RML2532

I think the school minibus is a more complex issue. Parents may well be charged a fee by the school for trips to the theatre etc. The ticket price to the parent and what the school paid for a block booking may be considerably different, even if not it is likely that the cost of running the minibus will be included, but hidden, in the price charged to the parent. Likewise parents may well be charged for after school activities which entail the use of the minibus to reach the venue. Unless the parent is only charged the actual admission price then the rest is hire and reward. I don't see any difference if the charge is for the child's membership of the school chess/swimming club.

And therein lies the difficulty. Having spoken to a Belgian operator, he says the school bus situation is quite clear. The driver must have D1 entitlement (they don't have the 101 exemptions there), but the school does not need an operators licence providing only the school's children and staff are carried. They don't have the equivalent of the s19 permits there. Drivers hours are strictly observed as it is the safety of the passengers that is paramount, not whether they are paying some sort of fare/profit/hire and reward or whatever.

The law on this is the same across the EU, it is just that this country has been selective on what EU standard laws it obeys, even though I have traced all this back to the 1930 Road Traffic Act (UK law, before the invention of the EU, so don't blame them).

My bus number (if any): RML2532

Here's the latest update from the Community Transport Association along with a link from the DaFT. Basically the CTAs MUST licence their drivers properly with category D licences with driver CPC nd their vehicles MUST be licenced PSVs.

Link to follow...watch this space...

here it is....
http://ctauk.us11.list-manage.com/track/click?u=9bde7c95796a4957e726cee8e&id=c4561c1fca&e=2e22699cb1

My bus number (if any): RML2532

I've just had sight of this letter via another source. Well done Martin, you're a hero. Apparently he had the DfT cornered and if they hadn't have published the letter the next step was to take the DfT to court. I know of an operator in Tamworth who lost all their work to a community group that came all the way from Derbyshire to cover contracts at something like £60 per run: way below market rates.

My bus number (if any): RM 912

Yes, Martin Allen and Ian Ashman deserve a medal for their dedication to what many including the mighty Confederation of Passenger Transport treated as a lost cause.

They took on not only the CT groups, the DaFT, the UK government but the EU as well. And won. The EU were very considerate to their cause and issued infraction proceedings against the UK Government, hence the change in tack (advise) from the DaFT. They've been chasing this change for over 6 years.

I lost 2 bus tenders to a CT group 10 years ago, hence my interest in the case, and another operator in north Kent lost all his community bus work to an unlicenced CT group set up by one of the multi-national groups! Charity indeed.

My bus number (if any): RML2532

As some of you may have read in the bus trade press, the DfT have now re-written their "guidance" for what it's worth regarding the section 19 and section 21 minibus operations.

Basically all the community Transport operators have been told they MUST have all their drivers properly licenced with D1 entitlement and Driver Certificate of Professional competence , their buses must all be class 6 vehicles, and the operation must have an operators' licence.

This of course has raised consternation and panic amongst the CT operators who have of course known for years of the moves to get them properly licenced and have now at this lat date decided to act, not to get licenced, which would be the easiest option, but to fight the law, which they will undoubtedly lose.

Local authorities have been told they cannot issue tenders for passenger transport to any unlicenced operator as from now.

There is a case before the Midlands Traffic Commissioner against a CT company in the midlands which should prove interesting. This is a continuation from the case which started a couple of weeks ago. Basically, this lot have operated for years with a substantial number of section 19 minibuses, have been told to get licenced, they have not, so now their chances of getting a licence are in jeopardy as they refuse to take the advice given by the Traffic Commissioner. they also risk having their vehicles confiscated as they could be running illegally!

My bus number (if any): RML2532