How DAVIS Can Help You Out with Your Grey Fleet

 courier jobs in the express freight exchange industry. Numerous transport exchange businesses are networked together on their website, trading jobs and capacity through what is now the fastest growing Freight Exchange in the UK. ">Ever wondered what a grey fleet is? If you’re an owner driver or manager, there’s a chance you may already know (or even be a part of one!), even if you weren’t aware there was a name for it. The terminology refers to companies with employees who are using vehicles not owned by the business. They can either be purchased via said company as an incentive for staff, rented or privately owned by the workers.

Read on for more information about grey fleets and how owner drivers can manage them.

Who’s at Fault?

When an employee uses a private vehicle, it’s easy to assume that they are taking on the responsibilities of an owner driver – meaning that if something unexpected happens (such as an accident or if the vehicle is found to be unfit or unsafe), it’s commonly thought that the worker will be culpable for any legal obligations or actions. However, this is not the case at all. The law states that it’s actually the company that will have to take responsibility in the event of one of the aforementioned occurrences.

This is why it’s important to make sure you stay on top of things and remain aware of what’s going on with your employees and their vehicles (even if you don’t technically own them) if you’re in a managerial position.

Introducing DAVIS

It can be difficult to make sure your staff are complying with all the aspects of courier industry legislation and other legalities (not to mention your own company policies). Luckily, a business called License Check has come up with what they call ‘Driver and Vehicle Information Solution’ or DAVIS for short. The purpose of this software service was to make managing grey fleets much easier for owner drivers.

So How Does it Work?

DAVIS works by allowing managers to choose exactly which rules they need their employees to follow. Once they’ve done this, the personalised system checks to see if the workers and their vehicles are up to scratch and informs employers of the results. This is an easy and efficient way to stay up to date on how your fleet is doing, as well as nip potential issues (such as impending expirations) in the bud and fix them before they become problems.

Whether you’re an owner driver, fleet manager or other courier businessperson in a managerial position, it’s important to make sure you are well aware of just what exactly is going on with your employees and their vehicles – especially if you have a grey fleet of your own. It’s easy to reap the benefits that come with allowing workers to drive their own vehicles without having to worry excessively about potential consequences with the help of DAVIS. Keeping up with your couriers has never been so easy.

Every Care Taken But No Responsibility

 When is a scam not a scam?

When it is a bank that operates it, and the government supports it.

Do you know what a scam is? In the Cambridge English Dictionary, a scam is defined as "an illegal plan for making money, especially one that involves tricking people".

Do you know that the government is protecting the banks legally in operating a scam where the banks assign all the risks, accountability and responsibilities to the consumer but not themselves?

We all do Internet banking. When we pay someone and transfer money into their account, we have to provide the following details: the name of the Account, BSB number and the Account number. There is a warning given to ensure the details are correct, and the bank will not be liable for any mistake made by the consumer. Despite this warning, we all believe that the bank will transfer the money into the correct account name; otherwise, why should they ask for an account's name?

If the customer made a mistake, then one would agree the bank should not be liable as they have given you a warning. But what happens when the customer is not at fault but the internal transfer system between banks is at fault? Who is liable?

Let me give you an example of a recent case where a consumer receives a fraudulent email from her financial advisor where to transfer funds. In it, the fraudster changed only the banking details. Everything, including the transfer name, remained the same. Unwittingly, the transfer of funds took place. The following day the financial advisor rings to tell her that the money was transferred into the wrong account and a different bank. Her bank was immediately alerted about this fraudulent transaction, and eventually, 80% of the funds were recovered. She incurred a loss of 20%.

It is a case where the customer is a victim who was unaware of a change in banking details. What the customer did or did not do, did not influence the outcome of the case. The fraudster knew that the banks do not match account names and exploited the internal system of funds transfer between banks. Is the bank responsible for this loss? Is it negligent not protecting the consumer's interest by not having proper security measures installed? The bank knew about this weakness in their security system, which is the reason for their warning. The bank denies all liability, and the matter is taken to AFCA (Australian Financial Complaints Authority) for resolution.

After months of deliberation, AFCA ruled in the bank's favour. It said that the bank had no legal obligation to match accounts and check where the money goes. Thus we have a situation where the banks cannot be held legally liable for any internal transfer of funds between banks. If that is the case, the question arises, who is? Are the laws meant to protect the consumers or the banks?

This case exposes a hole in the bank's security system where the fraudsters, money launderers etc., are having a field day. There is no protection for the consumer. The banks are safe in just warning their customers about this hole. They are not legally required to put barriers around the hole, so some unfortunate unwary customer like the one above does not fall in it. They are saying we take every care, but no responsibility and the government supports their stance.

Clearly, the government is giving preferential treatment to the banking industry when it comes to consumer protection. The same treatment does not apply to other sectors such as the medical profession, where doctors are often being held responsible for matters beyond their control. How would you feel if the surgeon, with the backing of the government, warns you about your operation by saying, "I will take every care, but no responsibility for any swab left behind"? Wouldn't you treat the consumer laws protecting you as a big joke?

So the question arises that if the bank is not legally liable for any internal transfer of funds between banks, who is? How is the consumer protected? It seems no one is interested in plugging this hole in the security system because everyone, except the hapless consumer, is complicit in making money out of it.