SynX Blog

The RAC has recently shared some data about small and medium enterprise fleets and the main issues involved in their breakdown call-outs.

According to the data shared, the chances of a vehicle belonging to an SME experiencing a breakdown in any given year is 3-in-10. The number of callouts for the first quarter of 2019 suggest that 31% of fleet and business vehicles belonging to SMEs will suffer a breakdown this year.

The data seems quite worrying and may come as a shock to some, especially as small and medium businesses have limited resources in terms of budget and fleets and breakdowns can seriously compromise business activity and productivity. Lost business, wasted time, missed appointments and delays are some of the consequences that small and medium enterprises, which make up around 99% of businesses in the UK, can suffer; and all that without taking into consideration the immediate consequences strictly related to a breakdown: the cost of the repairs, of vehicle inactivity and its temporary replacement, to name but a few.

Regarding the most common call-outs, the RAC has shared a ranking of the most popular breakdown causes for SMEs: the topper most is battery failure, accounting for 18% of all callouts, followed by tyres at 13%, clutch at 5%, alternator at 4%, engine mechanical cause, starter motor and fuel-diesel contamination at 3%, and ECU engine management, road traffic accidents and manual gearbox are the lowest cause at 2%.

According to Nicky Brown, of the RAC’s small business team, “Our analysis of the types of breakdowns our small business customers experience shows vehicles are breaking down all too frequently, no doubt at some very inconvenient times and in some very inconvenient places.”

Despite breakdowns being partly unpredictable, it is fair to say that something can normally be done in order to minimise their occurrence. Vehicle daily inspections and walkaround checks, together with a reliable maintenance calendar, can detect issues that might potentially trigger a breakdown before it happens. Making sure drivers are able to do their daily checks pre-trip and post-trip can definitely make a difference, especially if these are no longer treated as something tedious and time consuming  with the aid of paperless checks carried out by an app. Our walkaround checks app can help you in this task and reduce the risks related to your budget, vehicles and resources, whatever the size of your business—contact us to learn more.

Driving for Better Business—a UK initiative to assist employers in the commercial and public sector minimise the risks associated with work-related driving, reduce costs and keep up-to-date with current legislation—have shared some results directly from its online risk assessment database.

The data shared focussed on what you might expect to be a straightforward question for fleet operators to answer: “Do you know how many drivers you have?” Despite the question seeming simple enough, only 71% answered, “yes”, but that left 29%, almost a third, who didn’t know.

To be fair, answering this question is easier if a specific company vehicle is assigned to a single driver, which might be the case for some fleets. Though in other instances the same vehicle is used for multiple shifts and many drivers have access to the same van, for example. In companies using the so-called grey fleets or with staff utilising their own cars, the answer is anything but simple.

This apparently easy-to-answer question is a very important one. If companies do not know the number of drivers with exactitude, they cannot demonstrate that drivers are managed efficiently or are familiar with fleet policy, and not all of the drivers’ licences will have probably been checked, meaning companies are ultimately not 100% sure that their drivers are eligible to do the job.

When asked how many have checked licences directly with the DVLA, the answer was, again, 71% —probably roughly the same 71% that were confident how many drivers are in their employ. As most will know, checking licences highlights a number of potential issues, including the eligibility of drivers to drive different types of vehicles as well as any potential health problems.

It might surprise people to learn that only half (50%) of those answering bother to check any medical issues that could compromise driving ability, which would indicate that most of the checks are cursory and focussed primarily on penalty points.

Still less, just over a third of companies (38%), carry out any formal assessment of driver competency prior to engaging them in work-related driving, with 14% looking to do so at some point. This is quite astonishing if we were to consider this statistic applied to staff who were expected to operate machinery in a factory environment or operate in an industry involving a degree of risk—in other words, why should operating commercially on public highways, in whatever capacity, be considered less hazardous than the aforementioned activities.

Vehicle defect reporting is key to fleets being able to tackle issues in a timely manner — i.e., before a minor issue turns into a major one. Even the smallest looking flaws can soon develop into something that can cause a vehicle to breakdown, become not compliant, affect fuel consumption efficiency or reduce its lifespan.

In a well-managed fleet, vehicle damages should be reported as quickly as possible, so that the possibility of breakdown is minimised, the vehicles are kept in a roadworthy condition and maintenance expense is kept to the minimum necessary. But according to a survey recently published by Venson, a provider of compliance and fleet services, there is still quite a high number of company car drivers who are still failing to report damages—not only in a timely fashion, but who are actually not reporting them at all.

According to the study carried out by Venson, around 33% of the company car drivers interviewed would not bother reporting minor damage to their employer. What is especially alarming about this figure is that the same question was put to company car drivers in 2017 and the figure was 17% of those interviewed, so the statistic has doubled in a year or so.

The survey published by Venson a few days ago also yielded other disappointing results as it seems drivers feel uninvolved in, or not responsible for, the maintenance and condition of the vehicles they drive. Over half (57%) of the interviewed view servicing as the sole responsibility of their employer, when drivers should in fact be doing simple maintenance checks and flagging issues. It is actually part of the legal obligations of fleet managers to have a system able to record and rectify vehicle defects or carry out servicing to keep vehicles safe as they are considered workplaces, and that inevitably involves the honest cooperation of their drivers. The mistaken habit of company drivers shrugging off their responsibilities, even though they are putting themselves at risk, was highlighted by the large percentage who admitted this in the 2015 Venson survey.

Moreover, 24% of the company car drivers interviewed admit they ignore dashboard warning lights and 43% of the participants do not top up water coolants: this attitude can compromise safety and lead to breakdowns which are a source of higher maintenance costs in the long run that could have easily been prevented if these types of issues were dealt with in good time.

It seems to be vital for companies to keep sensitising their drivers about the importance of vehicle checks and inspections. The risks to safety are extremely high, but an irresponsible attitude can also result in maintenance bills rocketing or vehicles being stopped on the roadside and not being allowed to continue their journey for being non-compliant.

Having a system that is simplifying the process of regular vehicle checks would go a long way to solving the issue; an issue that it is probably not just down to a lack of responsibility on behalf of the drivers, but also caused by the absence of a sound process for defect reporting, or one that is inefficient and time consuming. Call us if you want to get started with a fast and errorless vehicle defect reporting system—or get a free trial now.

As we often repeat, there is generally ever increasing emphasis on the importance of fleet compliance and safety. What was initially seen as merely just a box-ticking exercise has recently started to get the attention it deserves as clumsy attempts at cost-saving that compromise safety and compliance must no longer be an option for fleets. But safety and compliance are not only impacted by a company’s investment in risk assessment or wise processes to keep vehicles and fleet documents compliant, there is another huge factor that can definitely make a difference for a safe/unsafe or compliant/uncompliant fleet—we are talking about drivers being fit to drive.

Apart from the necessary certifications, licenses and qualifications that fleet drivers should have in order to perform their daily tasks, their health status is also extremely important as it definitely has consequences on their ability to drive and might be considered in some cases as responsible for driving behaviours bearing similarities to those of impaired driving.

Fleet driver eyesight has been under particular scrutiny recently as a police crackdown was enacted in the UK in the Thames Valley, Hampshire and West Midlands regions during the first days of September; and the last week of September has also been the UK’s National Eye Health Week.

The crackdown during the whole month of September consisted of the police stopping drivers at the roadside and checking their sight was good enough to correctly read a vehicle plate from 20 meters. Anyone not passing the test would have their licence revoked by the DVSA in an attempt to increase the safety of all road users and decrease the risks associated with drivers not having the standard of eyesight necessary for safe driving; for example, not spotting an obstacle on time, not having appropriate reaction times, which can result in dramatic consequences.

Venson, a consultant firm dealing with companies’ duty of care and compliance in fleet management, has shared the results of a study during the same period dealing with drivers’ eyesight. According to their findings, one out of four motorists interviewed were not confident at all they would pass the test posed in the new police crackdown—reading a number plate from 20 meters. Only 39% of the total respondents have expressed confidence in doing it.

According to the current legal settings ruling in the EU, employees who drive for work must have regular eyesight tests, and their employer has a duty of care to confirm drivers are physically able to do their job safely. The consequences include the possibility of prosecution and licence revocation for anyone who breaches the rules.

Drowsy driving is another issue potentially impacting on global road safety and on companies regularly relying on driving as part of their business practices. The effects of driver fatigue are partly similar to those of poor eyesight, with reduced reaction times being key, but also inability to focus, forgetting to take the correct exit on the road or getting lost without realising and constantly drifting from one lane to the other. In other news from the last few days, a research group is currently working on a new type of blood test, the stated aim of which is to detect if drivers have skipped a night’s sleep.

After a study last month revealed that 52% of transport companies experienced compliance inspections, both on the roadside and also regarding driver’ hours regulations, a report by the Road Safety Authority (RSA) of Ireland, made public by RTE’s programme This Week, made for negative news for September where compliance was concerned.

According to RSA data revealed during the RTE broadcast, 51% of buses inspected during the year 2017 by the RSA were found not to be compliant and failed roadside inspections, with, alarmingly, around a third of the buses inspected subject to major defects—bearing in mind that school buses obviously account for a substantial proportion of the bus vehicles involved in the checks.

The RTE programme provided a figure breakdown of this worrying data, where 873 buses account for the total of bus vehicles inspected, 445 accounted for those failing to comply with safety regulations, 268 actually had major defects and 37 showed dangerous defects—the range of defects which immediately allows authorities to stop that vehicle from operating and take it off the road—with all the consequences this might lead to.

The concern over these vehicles and especially the school buses is actually nothing new. Reinforcement actions over the roadworthiness of school buses have been put in place by the RSA for the school year 2017/2018 following a negative record dating back to 2016: 1,207 buses were inspected by RSA enforcement officers at the roadside and, while again a considerable proportion (50%) had defects, one in five (20%) showed major faults. The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) in the UK followed a similar programme when some buses were found to be defective, apparently after clumsy cost-cutting attempts had impacted on safety and ended up actually costing operators their licence.

According again to the RTE broadcast, RSA had expressed their concerns by way of a letter sent to Bus Eireann, the major operator of school buses, which is ultimately responsible for almost 4,500 vehicles, via private operators, that bring 117,000 children to and from school. In the letter, Liz O’Donnel, chairperson for the RSA, claimed that RSA roadside inspections yielded little progress in terms of roadworthiness and compliance improvement. Bus Eireann’s spokesman said the company has a robust system in place, though the RSA seemed to claim the company had contacted them to get more information on the programme for high-risk operators (typically school buses)—which it is not strictly connected to running a compliant fleet.

After the broadcast, the Coach Tourism and Transport Council of Ireland did not release any statement, though among the private bus industry some sources pointed the finger at high fuel and insurance costs, together with falling payments of school transport operators as the main causes for the safety breaches.

If you think fleet compliance is not the top priority for our business, you really ought to read on in order to demonstrate just why you’d be wrong. A study conducted by a telematics company and recently published by Fleet News has revealed that more than half of the companies owning fleets in the whole European territory have been the subject of compliance inspections—so the likelihood that your company will be audited by authorities for compliance is not just a matter of “bad luck”. Inspections happen; and in any case they shouldn’t be the sole motivating factor in getting your fleet in order where compliance and administrative paperwork is concerned.

Drivers’ hours compliance has been the objective of inspections carried out in 2017, but the research also reveals that almost half of European fleets (43%) have been involved in roadside inspections (between 1 and 5) in the same period of time and that even 41% of businesses that rely on driving had to cancel between 1 and 10 jobs they wanted to assign to drivers as they had no visibility on the available driving hours of their drivers.

The study shed some light on how companies are lacking real-time availability of driving hours, as they are still relying on more manual methods like the remote download of tachograph data, that to be fair provide a relatively easy way of processing driving hours to see if they comply with the regulations, but such an operation can only be done if vehicles are not on the road. So how can businesses anticipate if driving hours will exceed the statutory limits, as the chance of discovering breaches of regulations only after data download can be very high?

Apart from the possible sanctions deriving from incorrectly recording driving hours, roadside inspections are an added source of worry for fleet managers and companies operating vehicles. Roadside inspections really ought to be considered a fact of life rather than an unfortunate turn of events: but apart from the consequences from the perspective of violations that might involve financial penalties and the stopping of vehicles for a period of time and the need to find temporary replacements, if one of your vehicles is found to be non-compliant, it means it has already taken risks. This could be for exceeding the hours your employees are on the road or because the inspecting authority has found out something that should have been identified through a regular maintenance regime—something you definitely should have in place.

If you are struggling with having full visibility on your vehicles, as most companies do, and with strategies to successfully pass roadside inspections, make sure you do not miss this potentially game changing opportunity: a free trial of our tracking system or our compliance and maintenance module. Get in touch if you have any questions—stop relying on your luck holding out and on not being singled out for an unwelcome roadside inspection and just enjoy the benefits of a safe and efficient business!

Whenever companies allow vehicles to be used privately by employees or private vehicles that are also used for work purposes, they are all generally required to keep a good record of the mileage travelled, particularly in this case where business and private travelling need to be separated.

Apart from the risk of not fully controlling the safety and vehicle roadworthiness if it does not fully belong to the company and the difficulty in sharing responsibilities and having full control over compliance usually linked to grey fleets, companies often ignore the fact that the capturing of business mileage for tax purposes and travel and subsistence reimbursements can still constitute a risk for fleets as they could be susceptible to accusations of mileage fraud.

It seemingly isn’t unusual for companies to have inaccurate mileage despite the high risk of receiving fines. Inaccuracy in mileage recording can be due to different approaches to the logging of business or work mileage:

Rounding of mileage: legitimate journeys distances might actually be rounded in their mileage as it is easier to do due to the use of spreadsheets or manual odometer recordings, but even as a result of acting in good faith they can still draw suspicion from the authorities and constitute fraud.

Wrong business journey attribution: according to the specific legal settings, personal stops or daily commutes do not belong to business mileage and should not be grouped under the distances travelled with that purpose in the logbooks.

Sharing a business journey with all the parties involved reporting it: it might happen for some specific meetings that employees share the same vehicle on a specific occurrence but then all of them report it in their mileage capturing because of the lack of information on how to correctly do it or the lack of tools for this particular admin task.

Lack of employee knowledge: in order to correctly administer business mileage and travel and subsistence reimbursements, employees need to be aware of the proper rules of recordkeeping rather than relying on prior experience that is not founded on a solid company process. This often translates into business journeys not being reported or private ones considered business by mistake.

Massive use of spreadsheets: how many times has an error in an excel formula happened to you? Think about what might happen if drivers completely depend on spreadsheets: not only can formulas be responsible for mistakes but also typing in the wrong numbers or copying over wrong amounts.

Manual work and lack of a digital solution: this is another typical scenario where the additional issue is that financial departments and anyone else interested in fleet digital data does not have access to the crucial information that can actually help to better manage vehicles.

All the scenarios and approaches presented are quite common in fleets, but mileage claims do not necessarily have to lead to fraud. If you have tracking systems that help determine with exactitude the journeys to and from locations, along with their purpose, and organise them into reports, you can get so much more than the bare minimum that a spreadsheet offers, with the peace of mind that comes from eliminating potential legal problems arising from human error. Make sure you get in touch if you need to track your fleet journeys.

Updated 20th February 2019

We consider compliance important enough to be our C in a continuing series of posts where we cover the A-Z of fleet management.  This applies to any business activity, but of course we are particularly concerned with vehicle activity as it pertains to work and fleet management.

Compliance means conforming to a rule, a policy, a standard or a law. Organisations should ensure that they take steps to comply with the relevant laws, policies and regulations of not only their country but also their working environment and industrial sector—fleets are no exception.

Fleet compliance is specifically about keeping your drivers safe on the road and your business on the right side of the law. Several directives belonging to fleet management are strictly related to fleet compliance: 

Fleet maintenance:

Keeping vehicles in roadworthy conditions in order to operate safely and efficiently. According to legislation, companies might be liable if adverse events such as accidents happen and involve other road users; and if vehicles are found to be faulty and it is demonstrated that servicing has not been taken care of, a company might incur serious consequences. Compliance is achieved via regular maintenance schedules and daily walk-around checks.

Driver hours:

There are established rules for drivers that govern the time they spend driving on the road and the compulsory breaks they need to take in order to ensure they can continue driving safely. Driving hours cannot be exceeded and the rules of the road have to be respected: companies can be prosecuted if authorities discover a breach in any of these rules.

Duty of care:

All companies have to provide a safe place of work for their employees. With regards to fleets, vehicles are generally considered extensions of the workplace.

The UK Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 stipulates that employers have a “duty to ensure so far as is reasonably practicable the health, safety and welfare at work of all employees”. The Management of Health & Safety at Work Regulations 1999 obliges employers to make comprehensive risk assessments of possible injury to employees or members of the public as a result of a company’s business activity; inform employees of any identifiable risks; provide the necessary training to recruits on how to minimise risk, or whenever an employee’s responsibility changes, and ensure that training is kept up as frequently as necessary.

The Irish Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act, 2005, infers that it has always been a common law duty for employers to provide as safe a place of work as practicable.

Vehicles used for business:

If you allow drivers to use business vehicles for personal use as well as work, there are implications that you should definitely be aware of and logbooks that need to be kept updated in order for your company to file records in the appropriate way. This is also an aspect of compliance and any negligence in this area could lead to serious consequences that will ultimately affect your finances.

Driver training:

As part of the duty of care responsibilities, it is not only important that drivers are in possession of the necessary certifications and licences and are authorised to drive the vehicles they are driving, but that their conduct is also monitored so as to manage risks and their training is continuous in order to make them aware of how they should keep their workplace (in this case the vehicle) safe.

When discussing health and safety as it applies to fleets, the roadworthiness of vehicles and the procedures in place to meet legal obligation, we invariable touch on the ‘duty of care’ that employers have vis-à-vis their employees. It’s an important subject and something we should explain further. What is it, exactly?

What is ‘duty of care’? From a legal perspective, ‘duty of care’ is the idea that an individual or organisation takes reasonable measures to ensure that no harm comes to anyone as a consequence of their actions. More specifically, from a business sense, an employer has a ‘duty of care’ to their employees—there is a legal obligation to safeguard employees as far as possible from unreasonable or foreseeable loss or injury. If we reflect on this concept for a moment and how it might apply to a fleet operation, it will seem quite apparent to most of us that an operator is responsible for their employees’ wellbeing during work and that of the general public with whom they come into contact. Any failure of this legal responsibility on their part could result in a claim of negligence, fines and prosecution. It cannot therefore be emphasised enough how crucial it is for operators to observe proper safety checks on all their vehicles, carry out meaningful risk assessments and make health and safety an ongoing priority.      

What happens with fleets and vehicles? From the point of view of the law, although a vehicle is mobile, it is more or less considered an extension of the work place. As such, the rules regarding health and safety in the workplace apply equally to a vehicle if used for work. If you take into account that 25% of road traffic accidents involve vehicles being driven for work purposes, we can see how big an issue this is for fleet operators.

Who is responsible? To a large extent it is the driver who is legally responsible for the safety of the vehicle, that it is properly maintained and the manner in which it is driven, but that doesn’t mean the employer is not also liable for the vehicle and the driver. ‘Duty of care’ still applies and can be carried out in a number of ways, such as educating drivers on potential dangers by means of risk assessments, providing them with the appropriate manuals and leaflets to refer to, training them to operate safely and how to conduct proper walkaround checks, ensuring vehicles are regularly serviced and maintained and also checking that drivers are good to go, that their licences are legitimate for the work they are expected to do and accident management is effective.

What happens in the event of an accident? As we alluded to earlier, if an employee driving in a work capacity is involved in a preventable accident, the company may also be considered liable. This is why ‘duty of care’ cannot be deferred or ignored if a potentially serious prosecution for negligence is to be avoided.

How is ‘duty of care’ understood according to British and Irish law? The UK Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 stipulates that employers have a “duty to ensure so far as is reasonably practicable the health, safety and welfare at work of all employees”. The Management of Health & Safety at Work Regulations 1999 obliges employers to make comprehensive risk assessments of possible injury to employees or members of the public as a result of a company’s business activity; inform employees of any identifiable risks; provide the necessary training to recruits on how to minimise risk, or whenever an employee’s responsibility changes, and ensure that training is kept up as frequently as necessary.

The Irish Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act, 2005, infers that it has always been a common law duty for employers to provide as safe a place of work as practicable. In light of this, employers are legally expected to provide the five following measures: safe systems of work, machinery that is safe and fit for purpose, a safe place of work, training and supervision, a duty of care in the selection of fellow employees.

We know managing fleets is vital for companies that have vehicles and deliver their products or services by means of them, and this certainly does not exclude vehicles that are not provided by a business or company—the so-called “grey fleet”.

Vehicles belonging to grey fleets might have been purchased via an employee ownership scheme or are privately rented or owned outright by an employee. As they are driven in order to serve the company’s business interests, they become the responsibility of the employer (at least during working hours), and this makes managing a grey fleet quite a complex task. Often companies get into the basics of operating a grey fleet without realising they are fully responsible for the vehicles’ commercial usage and often without guidance on how to protect their business by meeting their legal obligations.

In this short guide you will find information on the points you need to consider when approaching grey fleet management and the implementation of a grey fleet policy—what are the main points to grasp if your employees are using vehicles not provided by your company?

#1 Analyse your grey fleet. When and why do employees use their own vehicles in order to work? Which type of journeys do grey fleet employees do? Is the use of the grey fleet justified and convenient for the company or are there any better alternatives? This is probably the first step to take before establishing a grey fleet policy. Analyse the current conditions the grey fleet vehicles will operate in and which type of activities they will be expected to carry out—doing this exercise might actually help change something in the current setup, maybe even in favour of different solutions.

#2 Once you have the analysis, check the possible alternatives. As we said, only if you have full control of what is currently done by your grey fleet team can you decide upon approving it or opting for a different solution. Rentals might be seen as more preferable than employee-owned vehicles as these are increasingly used for grey fleet purposes and vehicle information is more readily available. Rentals aimed toward business use usually come from fleet management companies that are real experts in this area.

#3 Make sure you have vehicles checked. One of the most difficult aspects of managing a grey fleet is to keep tabs on vehicles. As these might be employee-owned, they generally are older than the usual company vehicles and it is more difficult to ensure walkaround checks are carried out diligently or that they have suitable safety equipment. A grey fleet policy can help in establishing duties and the need for employee drivers to perform safety and legal checks.

#4 Basically, employees have to be seen as company drivers. And exactly like company drivers, they need to provide evidence of their licence, have their eyesight tested on a regular basis and so on. In addition, they will need to provide details of insurance and breakdown assistance cover as they in some cases own the vehicles. And like company staff they should be properly inducted into the fleet safety policies and practices of the organisation, and their risk level assessed and managed.