My IAM Experience

[Strangely Brown]

SK425 said:

Doesn't it? I thought it made all the difference. If the tuition is not on the road, they don't have to be an ADI do they?

Yes. Apparently they do.

More here http://adiforum.co.uk/forum/discussion/9937/legali...

Edited by Strangely Brown on Friday 27th June 16:16

[Strangely Brown]

R0G said:

An ADI gets paid but an observer does not - that means the law has been complied with in full so no grey area

Most who bring this up are ADIs - are you?

No, I am not.

Yes, I accept that the individual observers do not get paid, but the organisation/group does. The end customer is still paying for driving tuition. The DSA accept it on the basis that the payment is for membership only, not for the tuition. But, that doesn't really fit with "buying a skill for life course".

IAM website said:

Best of all, just £139 covers all your costs. From your observed runs, to the ‘How to be a better driver’ handbook, the advanced test fee and one year’s free membership, it’s all paid up front.

That says quite clearly that you are paying for the observed runs. i.e. You are paying for tuition. In fact, the first year's membership is FREE, so the idea that payment is for membership is a nonsense.

As I said, it's greyer than a grey thing and the IAM/RoSPA "get away" with it because the DSA choose to ignore it.

Just for the record: I have no particular feeling as to whether it's a good thing or a bad thing. I am just pointing out that it's not as clear cut as many think.

Edited by Strangely Brown on Friday 27th June 16:23

[SVS]

Glosphil said:

There seems to be moves within the IAM to expect the group volunteers to act more and more as if they are paid IAM staff.

A genuine question: what moves are these?

Do you mean the National Obsever requirements or something else entirely?

[R0G]

Strangely Brown said:

That says quite clearly that you are paying for the observed runs. i.e. You are paying for tuition. In fact, the first year's membership is FREE, so the idea that payment is for membership is a nonsense.

As I said, it's greyer than a grey thing and the IAM/RoSPA "get away" with it because the DSA choose to ignore it.

Just for the record: I have no particular feeling as to whether it's a good thing or a bad thing. I am just pointing out that it's not as clear cut as many think.

Edited by Strangely Brown on Friday 27th June 16:23

The law states that a PERSON getting paid for giving driving tuition must be an ADI for A and B categories

It does not say that a someone paying must have an ADI teaching them

Its quite clear not grey

I could pay for my daughter to have a SFL so she is not paying but I am which is why the law is written that way

[trashbat]

SVS said:

A genuine question: what moves are these?

Do you mean the National Obsever requirements or something else entirely?

Compulsory T-shirt, anyone? (I think )

[Strangely Brown]

R0G said:

The law states that a PERSON getting paid for giving driving tuition must be an ADI for A and B categories

What about C, C+E, D1, or D? Do they NOT need to be an ADI?

R0G said:

It does not say that a someone paying must have an ADI teaching them

https://www.gov.uk/driving-lessons-who-can-teach-y...

"Anyone you pay to teach you to drive must be an approved driving instructor (ADI) or trainee driving instructor."

It follows therefore, that if a company (or charity) takes money for tuition then the people giving the tuition must be ADIs. It cannot be any other way. If money changes hands then there must be an ADI.

R0G said:

Its quite clear not grey

Still looks pretty grey to me.

R0G said:

I could pay for my daughter to have a SFL so she is not paying but I am which is why the law is written that way.

As I said, the DSA turn a blind eye to it on the premise that the money is for the test, membership and the book. But that doesn't match the concept of selling a course of tuition.

Also, as I said, I really don't care. If people want to believe that it is a black and white thing then that's fine by me. I only hope it doesn't bite them in the arse one day.

ETA: Actually, you're right. It is quite clear. Unless this has been superseded, it's quite illegal.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/sectio...

It doesn't appear to matter who actually receives the money or whether it is paid for by someone else on behalf of the tutee. It only matters that it is paid for.

ETA2: It is actually superseded but it says the same thing:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/49/schedu...

Edited by Strangely Brown on Friday 27th June 18:40

[vonhosen]

Strangely Brown said:

R0G said:

The law states that a PERSON getting paid for giving driving tuition must be an ADI for A and B categories

What about C, C+E, D1, or D? Do they NOT need to be an ADI?

Nope, the register is only voluntary, not compulsory.
They just have to satisfy certain criteria such as how long they've held that relevant category.

[R0G]

I did state for A and B categories

B+E and all the C and D categories do not require the trainer to be an ADI because they are teaching drivers doing upgrades

Being a basic learner is very different from a qualified driver doing an upgrade which is the main reason why the law is different but why they ever included fleet training etc is beyond me

There is no legal requirement for teaching and being paid for artic training so why there should be for the fleet training of cars to 3.5 vans seems stupid

The law needs changing slightly to make it clear that being paid to teach basic learners needs an ADI and nothing else

[Strangely Brown]

vonhosen said:

Nope, the register is only voluntary, not compulsory.
They just have to satisfy certain criteria such as how long they've held that relevant category.

Are you sure? The legislation linked above says "motor car" RTA1988 but is amended to "motor vehicle" in RSA2006. Does that not cover HGVs and PCVs?

[Strangely Brown]

R0G said:

I did state for A and B categories

B+E and all the C and D categories do not require the trainer to be an ADI because they are teaching drivers doing upgrades

Being a basic learner is very different from a qualified driver doing an upgrade which is the main reason why the law is different but why they ever included fleet training etc is beyond me

There is no legal requirement for teaching and being paid for artic training so why there should be for the fleet training of cars to 3.5 vans seems stupid

The law needs changing slightly to make it clear that being paid to teach basic learners needs an ADI and nothing else

Last time I looked an artic was a "motor vehicle" and now appears to be covered by the 2006 legislation. According the the legislation, "paid instruction" is instruction that is paid for. It makes no mention of full vs provisional licence holders nor initial training vs "upgrades". Paid instruction needs an ADI.

I agree that a basic is learner is different from a qualified driver and that the law should probably be changed to apply to learners only.

[trashbat]

They can probably argue it's not instruction either, but merely guidance, since there is no delegation of authority or control. Anyway it's been something of an unnecessary derail - can we move on?

[vonhosen]

Strangely Brown said:

vonhosen said:

Nope, the register is only voluntary, not compulsory.
They just have to satisfy certain criteria such as how long they've held that relevant category.

Are you sure? The legislation linked above says "motor car" RTA1988 but is amended to "motor vehicle" in RSA2006. Does that not cover HGVs and PCVs?

RSA 2006 quoted outlines prospective changes to RTA 1988, not the current state of affairs.

[Strangely Brown]

trashbat said:

They can probably argue it's not instruction either, but merely guidance, since there is no delegation of authority or control. Anyway it's been something of an unnecessary derail - can we move on?

If you read the thread that I linked on the ADI forum earlier, you would see that there is a statement from the DSA which clearly states
"Instruction is the process or act of imparting knowledge". That pretty much covers all of instructing, coaching, teaching, guidance, tutoring and observing (in the IAM sense). So they could try the "it's not instruction" argument but it probably wouldn't work.

Also, I don't think it was that much of a derailment. A slight tangent maybe but still pertinent to the discussion. The OP paid for driving instruction. I can only assume that he got that on his fast-track from an HQ based ADI.

Anyway. Unless someone can show otherwise, I will stick with the, now confirmed, knowledge that the IAM/RoSPA model is not strictly legal and that it only continues by virtue of the fact that nobody is interested in stopping it.

As you were...

[Strangely Brown]

vonhosen said:

RSA 2006 quoted outlines prospective changes to RTA 1988, not the current state of affairs.

Was it not brought into force by The Road Safety Act 2006 (Commencement No. 8) Order 2012?

[vonhosen]

Strangely Brown said:

vonhosen said:

RSA 2006 quoted outlines prospective changes to RTA 1988, not the current state of affairs.

Was it not brought into force by The Road Safety Act 2006 (Commencement No. 8) Order 2012?

Not in it's entirety.

Only

(a)section 42 (driving instruction) insofar as it relates to paragraphs 1 and 24 of Schedule 6 (amendments to the Road Traffic Act 1988);

(b)paragraph 1 of Schedule 6 insofar as it relates to paragraph 24 of Schedule 6; and

(c)paragraph 24 of Schedule 6.

[Strangely Brown]

vonhosen said:

Not in it's entirety.

Only

(a)section 42 (driving instruction) insofar as it relates to paragraphs 1 and 24 of Schedule 6 (amendments to the Road Traffic Act 1988);

(b)paragraph 1 of Schedule 6 insofar as it relates to paragraph 24 of Schedule 6; and

(c)paragraph 24 of Schedule 6.

OK. Fair enough. That would suggest that motorcycle instruction is not yet covered either as RTA1988 only refers to "motor car". The IAM/RoSPA debate is unchanged though.

[SVS]

Motorcycle instruction isn't covered, which the DVSA itself recognises. It has one (mandatory) register for teaching learners and another (voluntary) register for post-test motorcycle trainers. You can get on the post-test training register directly (e.g. via a RoSPA Diploma) without being qualified to teach learners. It's not perfect. Though it does make sense that, say, a RoSPA Diploma holder can charge for advanced instruction.

Edited by SVS on Friday 27th June 21:27

[vonhosen]

Strangely Brown said:

vonhosen said:

Not in it's entirety.

Only

(a)section 42 (driving instruction) insofar as it relates to paragraphs 1 and 24 of Schedule 6 (amendments to the Road Traffic Act 1988);

(b)paragraph 1 of Schedule 6 insofar as it relates to paragraph 24 of Schedule 6; and

(c)paragraph 24 of Schedule 6.

OK. Fair enough. That would suggest that motorcycle instruction is not yet covered either as RTA1988 only refers to "motor car". The IAM/RoSPA debate is unchanged though.

AMIs are required for the CBT & DAS etc.

Edited by vonhosen on Friday 27th June 21:31

[Strangely Brown]

SVS said:

Though it does make sense that, say, a RoSPA Diploma holder can charge for advanced instruction.

I agree. It would make sense if the same applied to car Diploma holders too.

[SVS]

The interesting thing is that someone with a RoSPA Diploma in Advanced Car Instruction can't charge money for advanced car lessons, unless he or she is also an ADI.

Whereas an ADI can charge money for advanced lessons, even if the ADI possesses no advanced qualifications! (I accept that an ADI knows a good deal about driving, having passed the DIAmond test myself, but being an ADI is a far cry from possessing a RoSPA Diploma in advanced instruction.)

The law's an ass.