1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208 
This week's answers have been supplied by a team of lawyers from Barker Gatelee, based in Ipswich, Suffolk.
Page 40
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Test aborted
I noid an LG'v' Class 2 licence and recently paid £1,500 for a Class 1 (C+E) LGV course. This included five days of training and a test on the Monday following the weekend. However, after the test began the DSA examiner aborted it because the truck supplied by the training firm had faulty brake lights.
I was offered an alternative date the following week which I could not accept. In any case, I believe the offer should come with further training, since the lapse in time between training and the test will hamper my chances of passing -there is a great deal to remember on the day. I have since learned that the truck I took the test in was reported the Friday before my test by one of the training firm's own instructors who had noticed the faulty lights.
The company has now offered me a second alternative test date but no further training. I believe I should have a week's further training. at the company's expense, before retaking the test. What are my rights?
Ken McCoy Buckinghamshire As you are aware, you have to provide a vehicle for the driving test that is in proper working order.
You paid the course provider a fee, part of which was tor the test itself. If we assume that it was an implied condition that you were provided with a fully functioning vehicle for the test. then the course provider would appear to be in breach of that. It certainly seems that the course is marketed on the basis that there is concentrated tuition followed by a pre-booked test very soon after the teaching.
The question here is whether a court would regard il as reasonable for the course provider to have to provide the tuition all over again. This is probably unlikely. Over and above the new test date being provided, it is unlikely that you could successfully argue for more than a brief refresher. In other words. it would not be advisable to pursue this as a court case -there must be only a low likelihood of success.