Catriona Patel ruling

W1

MatHammond wrote:

W1 wrote:

ooermissus wrote:

The driver had:

20 previous disqualifications, three drink drive convictions and three previous convictions for reckless driving.

http://bit.ly/aYAhdV

That is truly incredible - how anyone thought fit to employ him to drive a truck is beyond me.

Would be nice if they could slap a massive fine on the employer, might make people think twice in future. Although, how the guy could be allowed to legally drive after all that I don't know. I mean, you fiddle with a kid once, you aren't gonna teach again. You get pissed and go driving, you shouldn't be getting behind the wheel again. Its a privilege not a right.

I wondr if there could be a claim against the employer?

I'm still truly gobsmacked that he was even insurable with three drink driving convictions.

ooermissus

The lorry was operated by Thames Materials - described as having "an appalling record of breaking safety regulations and poor maintenance of its vehicles."

http://www.lcc.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=2138

(Added) Here's the company's track record over a two year period.

(ii) On 3rd March 1999 the Appellant was called to a Public Inquiry to consider unsatisfactory maintenance and convictions. The licence was curtailed by 3 vehicles.

(iii) On 29th October 1999 the Appellant was called to a Public Inquiry as a result of concerns following examination of the company’s tachograph sheets. The licence was suspended for a period of two weeks.

(iv) On 10th October 2000 and 7th November 2001 there were unsatisfactory fleet inspections. It was said by the Deputy Traffic Commissioner that the first of these inspections resulted in prohibitions one of which was ‘S’ marked. We shall return to that in due course. The second inspection was unsatisfactory because of a delayed prohibition and failure to record brake performance results.

(v) Both the Appellant and two of its drivers incurred further convictions in the period after the 1999 Public Inquiry. The Traffic Commissioner was not notified of the conviction of the Appellant company and a driver on 3rd April 2001.

(vi) On 11th May 2001 and 5th June 2001 a vehicle being used by the Appellant company was stopped by the Police at a time when it was not specified on the licence.

mybreakfastconsisted

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/ ... n-years.do

Family of dead cyclist speak out as lorry driver with 'the most God-awful hangover' is jailed for seven years

Judge Roger Chapple sentenced Putz to seven years and disqualified him from driving for life, saying: "Since your first disqualification 34 years ago you have shown a consistent disregard for road traffic legislation and the law." He added that Putz had made an "extraordinarily irresponsible decision to climb into the cab of a HGV with, let's be frank, the most God-awful hangover".

End quote.

Does anyone know if a FOI request would yield from Thames Waste their procedures on checking drivers? God knows who else they employ...

spen666

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23899191-family-of-dead-cyclist-speak-out-as-lorry-driver-with-the-most-god-awful-hangover-is-jailed-for-seven-years.do

Family of dead cyclist speak out as lorry driver with 'the most God-awful hangover' is jailed for seven years

Judge Roger Chapple sentenced Putz to seven years and disqualified him from driving for life, saying: "Since your first disqualification 34 years ago you have shown a consistent disregard for road traffic legislation and the law." He added that Putz had made an "extraordinarily irresponsible decision to climb into the cab of a HGV with, let's be frank, the most God-awful hangover".

End quote.

Does anyone know if a FOI request would yield from Thames Waste their procedures on checking drivers? God knows who else they employ...

Not sure private company have to respond to FOI requests at all

W1

spen666 wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23899191-family-of-dead-cyclist-speak-out-as-lorry-driver-with-the-most-god-awful-hangover-is-jailed-for-seven-years.do

Family of dead cyclist speak out as lorry driver with 'the most God-awful hangover' is jailed for seven years

Judge Roger Chapple sentenced Putz to seven years and disqualified him from driving for life, saying: "Since your first disqualification 34 years ago you have shown a consistent disregard for road traffic legislation and the law." He added that Putz had made an "extraordinarily irresponsible decision to climb into the cab of a HGV with, let's be frank, the most God-awful hangover".

End quote.

Does anyone know if a FOI request would yield from Thames Waste their procedures on checking drivers? God knows who else they employ...

Not sure private company have to respond to FOI requests at all

Indeed.

Clarion

No. If, however, they contracted for a public body, such as Lambeth Council, for example (I don't think they do, but it was just an example), then you could pursue them for any evidence of due diligence tests.

dilemna

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23899191-family-of-dead-cyclist-speak-out-as-lorry-driver-with-the-most-god-awful-hangover-is-jailed-for-seven-years.do

Family of dead cyclist speak out as lorry driver with 'the most God-awful hangover' is jailed for seven years

Judge Roger Chapple sentenced Putz to seven years and disqualified him from driving for life, saying: "Since your first disqualification 34 years ago you have shown a consistent disregard for road traffic legislation and the law." He added that Putz had made an "extraordinarily irresponsible decision to climb into the cab of a HGV with, let's be frank, the most God-awful hangover".

End quote.

Does anyone know if a FOI request would yield from Thames Waste their procedures on checking drivers? God knows who else they employ...

AFAIK private companies do not fall under the jurisdiction of FOI legislation, however public institutions such as local authorities and the police do, maybe VOSA do as well.

Maybe the HSE should consider their position if they have not yet or do not intend to prosecute Thames Materials for breaches in health and safety of which there would seem to be many by this company. Maybe they can shut them down and disqualify the owners/directors from EVER setting up/running a company again.

W1

dilemna wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23899191-family-of-dead-cyclist-speak-out-as-lorry-driver-with-the-most-god-awful-hangover-is-jailed-for-seven-years.do

Family of dead cyclist speak out as lorry driver with 'the most God-awful hangover' is jailed for seven years

Judge Roger Chapple sentenced Putz to seven years and disqualified him from driving for life, saying: "Since your first disqualification 34 years ago you have shown a consistent disregard for road traffic legislation and the law." He added that Putz had made an "extraordinarily irresponsible decision to climb into the cab of a HGV with, let's be frank, the most God-awful hangover".

End quote.

Does anyone know if a FOI request would yield from Thames Waste their procedures on checking drivers? God knows who else they employ...

AFAIK private companies do not fall under the jurisdiction of FOI legislation, however public institutions such as local authorities and the police do, maybe VOSA do as well.

Maybe the HSE should consider their position if they have not yet or do not intend to prosecute Thames Waste for breaches in health and safety of which there would seem to be many by this company. Maybe they can shut them down and disqualify the owners/directors from EVER setting up/running a company again.

The company is called Thames Materials - be very careful in pointing the finger at the correct people.

dilemna

Clarion wrote:

No. If, however, they contracted for a public body, such as Lambeth Council, for example (I don't think they do, but it was just an example), then you could pursue them for any evidence of due diligence tests.

One way to go I would guess. Have the local council done evrything they should have in the circumstances? Did they make adequate enquiry of the compnay or checks that it was complying with it's fundamental duties? The local council will claim they did or that it was not their responsibility so might be a little tricky?

Does Thames Materials have public liability insurance or any insurance? The next thing that might happen is that the owners wind it up. So if there is no insurance in place to cover the liability and no company the claimant's spouse has no one to sue in a civil case and no money. Could be very unsatisfactory.

dilemna

W1 wrote:

dilemna wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23899191-family-of-dead-cyclist-speak-out-as-lorry-driver-with-the-most-god-awful-hangover-is-jailed-for-seven-years.do

Family of dead cyclist speak out as lorry driver with 'the most God-awful hangover' is jailed for seven years

Judge Roger Chapple sentenced Putz to seven years and disqualified him from driving for life, saying: "Since your first disqualification 34 years ago you have shown a consistent disregard for road traffic legislation and the law." He added that Putz had made an "extraordinarily irresponsible decision to climb into the cab of a HGV with, let's be frank, the most God-awful hangover".

End quote.

Does anyone know if a FOI request would yield from Thames Waste their procedures on checking drivers? God knows who else they employ...

AFAIK private companies do not fall under the jurisdiction of FOI legislation, however public institutions such as local authorities and the police do, maybe VOSA do as well.

Maybe the HSE should consider their position if they have not yet or do not intend to prosecute Thames Waste for breaches in health and safety of which there would seem to be many by this company. Maybe they can shut them down and disqualify the owners/directors from EVER setting up/running a company again.

The company is called Thames Materials - be very careful in pointing the finger at the correct people.

Duly noted and amended, but I think mybreakfastconsisted suggested Thames Waste.

mybreakfastconsisted

Thames Materials, apologies.

Presumably, since Putz was employed by them, they would be aware of his convictions and would pay the commensurate insurance, expensive for someone with such a record.

Unless they didn't know?

dilemna

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Thames Materials, apologies.

Presumably, since Putz was employed by them, they would be aware of his convictions and would pay the commensurate insurance, expensive for someone with such a record.

Unless they didn't know?

Or possibly 'turned a blind eye' to them or failed to check?

mybreakfastconsisted

The insurance company would invalidate the insurance if undisclosed bans came to light, and they always do.

So, either the insurance was extremely expensive for someone with such a record, so Thames Materials knew the calibre of driver they employed, or something else happened.

This is all conjecture, I don't know the answer, I feel impotent and just raging that someone like Putz can blithely trundle around London with his record.

tailwindhome

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

This is all conjecture

Quite

mybreakfastconsisted

It's conjecture because I don't know which of the two options apply. Either the convictions were disclosed, in which case Thames Materials knew Putz's record, or, somehow, they didn't know. Either option reflects badly on the company.

rf6

The company do have some responsibility in my opinion. I once spoke to a bus driver in my locacl. At the bus station they have a breath test machine, and they do a test at the start of every shift. They have a drink drive limit which is about a third of the statuatory drink drive limit (he said it was in line with the lower limits imposed on sea captains, pilots and train drivers). If you fail, you get sent home without pay, if it becomes a regular thing you get disciplined. As a consequence he only drank when he had a day off the next day.

I'm guessing that this is probably a voluntary thing, but perhaps it would be a good idea for the lower drink drive limit to be made law for bus and lorry drivers. I'm not a big fan of legislating for every situation, but this seems a common sense option. It would not effect the responsible drivers, who I'm sure are the overwhelming majority, but might catch out those who do not care.

DonDaddyD

Has the thread started to demand its own extra pound of flesh yet?

greg66_tri_v2.0

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Thames Materials, apologies.

Presumably, since Putz was employed by them, they would be aware of his convictions and would pay the commensurate insurance, expensive for someone with such a record.

Unless they didn't know?

I don't know for sure, but I would not be at all surprised to learn that the employer has a block policy for all its drivers to drive all of its vehicles. Nor that, although disclosures have to be made to the insurer (a) they are of the "last x years" variety (as they are for private car insurance); and (b) the impact of a record like Putz's over that period of x years on the overall premium is not nearly so bad as it would be for a private individual insuring a private car.

Anyway, I suspect it is all off the point. Had his insurance been voided, this would have been worked out by the cops after the incident, and he would (I suspect) have faced an additional charge.

So we can most likely assume that vehicle insurance was in place.

ooermissus

DonDaddyD wrote:

Has the thread started to demand its own extra pound of flesh yet?

Not that I noticed. But we did have a brief outbreak of 'blame-the-cyclist'.

mybreakfastconsisted

rf6 wrote:

The company do have some responsibility in my opinion. I once spoke to a bus driver in my locacl. At the bus station they have a breath test machine, and they do a test at the start of every shift. They have a drink drive limit which is about a third of the statuatory drink drive limit (he said it was in line with the lower limits imposed on sea captains, pilots and train drivers). If you fail, you get sent home without pay, if it becomes a regular thing you get disciplined. As a consequence he only drank when he had a day off the next day.

I'm guessing that this is probably a voluntary thing, but perhaps it would be a good idea for the lower drink drive limit to be made law for bus and lorry drivers. I'm not a big fan of legislating for every situation, but this seems a common sense option. It would not effect the responsible drivers, who I'm sure are the overwhelming majority, but might catch out those who do not care.

Exactly. Since the danger posed by HGVs is so much greater it makes sense to follow the Scottish example and introduce instant bans fro HGV drivers caught on mobiles.

hfidgen

ooermissus wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Has the thread started to demand its own extra pound of flesh yet?

Not that I noticed. But we did have a brief outbreak of 'blame-the-cyclist'.

If that was at me I never said she was to blame in this case.

My point was that currently it's not hard to find cyclists queuing up to find out what the underside of lorries look like. Perhaps cases like this might drum a bit of sense in.

W1

Greg66 wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Thames Materials, apologies.

Presumably, since Putz was employed by them, they would be aware of his convictions and would pay the commensurate insurance, expensive for someone with such a record.

Unless they didn't know?

I don't know for sure, but I would not be at all surprised to learn that the employer has a block policy for all its drivers to drive all of its vehicles. Nor that, although disclosures have to be made to the insurer (a) they are of the "last x years" variety (as they are for private car insurance); and (b) the impact of a record like Putz's over that period of x years on the overall premium is not nearly so bad as it would be for a private individual insuring a private car.

Anyway, I suspect it is all off the point. Had his insurance been voided, this would have been worked out by the cops after the incident, and he would (I suspect) have faced an additional charge.

So we can most likely assume that vehicle insurance was in place.

Indeed. Which means either the employer didn't ask; they did ask and he told them the truth yet they still employed him; or they asked and he lied, and the company didn't or couldn't check for themselves. None of those options reflect particularly well.

OldSkoolKona

hfidgen wrote:

My point was that currently it's not hard to find cyclists queuing up to find out what the underside of lorries look like. Perhaps cases like this might drum a bit of sense in.

Sorry, but that comment is completely out of line and doesn't belong in this thread. While cyclist awareness is important, it had nothing to do with here and you shouldn't be linking it to this case - you'll find the driver's partner did a similar effort over on LFGSS.

Pretty clear where to direct the blame in this case:
http://www.transporttribunal.gov.uk/jud ... erials.doc

W1

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

I feel impotent and just raging that someone like Putz can blithely trundle around London with his record.

For certainly the first time, and probably the last time ever - I couldn't agree more with you.

I do hope that someone looks into how this guy came to be behind the wheel of that truck and appropriate action is taken.

DonDaddyD

hfidgen wrote:

ooermissus wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Has the thread started to demand its own extra pound of flesh yet?

Not that I noticed. But we did have a brief outbreak of 'blame-the-cyclist'.

If that was at me I never said she was to blame in this case.

My point was that currently it's not hard to find cyclists queuing up to find out what the underside of lorries look like. Perhaps cases like this might drum a bit of sense in.

Have you ridden up to, stopped at the lights and ridden past the Oval traffic lights in the morning?

Or ridden on the opposite side on the way back from home?

Just curious.

W1

OldSkoolKona wrote:

hfidgen wrote:

My point was that currently it's not hard to find cyclists queuing up to find out what the underside of lorries look like. Perhaps cases like this might drum a bit of sense in.

Sorry, but that comment is completely out of line and doesn't belong in this thread. While cyclist awareness is important, it had nothing to do with here and you shouldn't be linking it to this case - you'll find the driver's partner did a similar effort over on LFGSS.

Pretty clear where to direct the blame in this case:
http://www.transporttribunal.gov.uk/jud ... erials.doc

I think an allowed appeal from 8 years ago is equally misplaced here to be honest.

ooermissus

W1 wrote:

OldSkoolKona wrote:

Pretty clear where to direct the blame in this case:
http://www.transporttribunal.gov.uk/jud ... erials.doc

I think an allowed appeal from 8 years ago is equally misplaced here to be honest.

I think that's quite wrong. A list of damning material facts was not disputed at the appeal (apart from whether or not one of the inspections referred to in point iv was S-marked or not).

In a two-year period, the company had a whole series of infringements relating to driving convictions (for the company and its drivers), not having licences, a dodgy tachograph reading, and its fleet not being in a fit state for the road.

This demonstrated a pretty cavalier attitude to rules and regs - albeit from 8 years ago. Maybe the company has changed substantially since that time, but its record with Mr Putz gives a strong reason to think not.

W1

ooermissus wrote:

W1 wrote:

OldSkoolKona wrote:

Pretty clear where to direct the blame in this case:
http://www.transporttribunal.gov.uk/jud ... erials.doc

I think an allowed appeal from 8 years ago is equally misplaced here to be honest.

I think that's quite wrong. A list of damning material facts was not disputed at the appeal (apart from whether or not one of the inspections referred to in point iv was S-marked or not).

In a two-year period, the company had a whole series of infringements relating to driving convictions (for the company and its drivers), not having licences, a dodgy tachograph reading, and its fleet not being in a fit state for the road.

This demonstrated a pretty cavalier attitude to rules and regs - albeit from 8 years ago. Maybe the company has changed substantially since that time, but its record with Mr Putz gives a strong reason to think not.

Presumption is a dangerous game. In this case - to date - the company has been shown to have done nothing wrong. It certainly is not "pretty clear" where the blame lies in this case - at least, not yet. If and when that position changes then by all means take previous issues into account and go mad about it. Until then the facts of the case in hand need to be considered in an objective light, and not blinded by factors from years ago. It's the same as not convicting someone for an offence just because they already have a record.

8 years is quite a long time.

ooermissus

W1 wrote:

It certainly is not "pretty clear" where the blame lies in this case - at least, not yet. If and when that position changes then by all means take previous issues into account and go mad about it. Until then the facts of the case in hand need to be considered in an objective light, and not blinded by factors from years ago. It's the same as not convicting someone for an offence just because they already have a record.

8 years is quite a long time.

I am not making any presumptions. Nor I am convicting anyone.

But the company's very poor record - albeit from 8 years ago - increases my desire for them to be investigated very thoroughly - both through a criminal and a regulatory route, with a prosecution brought if there is a realistic chance of prosecution, and the company's license removed if at all possible (and assuming some new facts don't come to light).

And I certainly don't think it's wrong for us to refer to, or link to, the little information on the safety records of haulage companies that is in the public domain. Ideally, there would be a database where all relevant information was readily accessible.

Specialized Needs

ooermissus wrote:

spen666 wrote:

I am not sure the driver had 20 seperate previous convictions. That sounds too many given length of time each ban usually is

The Guardian:

Putz has a series of criminal convictions for offences including drink-driving and has been caught 20 times driving an HGV while disqualified. He said the night before the accident he had drunk almost a gallon of Guinness...

Sentencing him today, judge Roger Chapple told Putz: "Since your first disqualification 34 years ago you have shown a consistent disregard for road traffic legislation and the law.

"Prison sentences in the past have not persuaded you to mend your ways. Plainly you should never be allowed behind the wheel of an HGV again. The risk to the public is just too great."

The judge said Putz had made an "extraordinarily irresponsible decision to climb into to the cab of a heavy goods vehicle with, let's be frank, the most godawful hangover, knowing full well he should not have been driving at all."

http://bit.ly/dzd1sI

The bit I have emboldened above frightens me. I have no sense that once this man is out of prison he will do anything other than go straight back onto the road. Presumably if he was caught 20 times driving an HGV while disqualified he must have been using the HGV for something? Someone will employ him and pay him :?