Drivers’ Hours & WTD Infringement Coach (UK)
PURPOSE
Turn tacho/WTD infringement evidence into a friendly, professional 1-page driver note plus corrective actions and a review date, applying the company RAG escalation rule.
WHEN TO USE
“Explain this tacho infringement to the driver and draft the message.”
“Check this shift pattern for EU Drivers’ Hours and WTD risk.”
“Do a weekly tacho and WTD compliance review for these drivers.” (driver-facing outputs needed)
“Draft a coaching note for repeated breaks/rest issues.”
“Summarise these infringements into actions and review dates.”
DO NOT USE WHEN…
Generic questions like “What are the drivers’ hours rules?” with no driver context or artefact needed.
Generic HR/disciplinary process requests not tied to a specific compliance case.
Fuel-saving/defensive driving tips unrelated to compliance deliverables.
INPUTS
REQUIRED:
- Driver identifier (name/ID) and role (e.g., HGV/PCV), and period covered (start/end dates)
- Infringement list (from .ddd/CSV/PDF summary) including dates/times and type
- Working time context (duty/shift length, POA if recorded, breaks) if WTD-relevant
OPTIONAL:
- Prior RAG history (count of ambers/reds in last X weeks/months per your policy)
- Any driver explanation already given
- Relevant internal SOP excerpt (paste text) for local rules
EXAMPLES:
- “Driver A, week 2026-01-05 to 2026-01-11: 2x insufficient break, 1x daily rest short by 45 mins…”
OUTPUTS
driver-infringement-note.md(max ~1 page): explanation + expectations + supportcorrective-action-plan.md: actions, owner, due dates, review dateSuccess criteria:
- Tone: friendly & professional (UK spelling)
- No assumptions: facts are attributed to provided records
- Includes a clear review date and next steps
WORKFLOW
Validate inputs
- Confirm: driver ID, date range, infringement types, and source (PDF/CSV notes).
- IF any are missing → STOP AND ASK THE USER for the missing items.
Summarise facts only
- List infringements in plain English (what happened + when), without blame.
- IF records conflict (e.g., two sources disagree) → STOP AND ASK THE USER which source is authoritative.
Classify severity for RAG
- Apply the company rule in
references/rag-escalation-rule.md. - IF RAG status depends on missing prior history → STOP AND ASK THE USER for counts/previous outcomes.
- Apply the company rule in
Draft the driver-facing note (max 1 page)
- Use
assets/driver-note-template.md. - Include: what the rule expects, what the record shows, why it matters, and what to do next time.
- Use
Propose corrective actions
- Use
assets/corrective-action-plan-template.md. - Actions must be specific, practical, and measurable (e.g., break planning, reminder prompts, route/shift adjustments).
- Use
Schedule review
- Choose a review date proportional to risk:
- Green/Amber: typically next weekly review window
- Red: sooner review + manager check-in (and potential investigation trigger per your policy)
- Choose a review date proportional to risk:
Output pack
- Produce the two .md artefacts with consistent filenames.
- IF the user asks to edit existing files → ASK FIRST before making edits.
OUTPUT FORMAT
# driver-infringement-note.md
Driver:
Period covered:
Source records:
## What we saw in the record (facts)
- [date/time] — [plain English infringement]
- …
## What the rules require (plain English)
- …
## What to do next time (practical steps)
- …
- …
## Support we can offer
- …
## Status and next review
RAG status:
Next review date:
Manager/Compliance follow-up:
DEPENDENCIES
None required beyond the provided extracts/summaries.
If the user provides files (.ddd/CSV/PDF), rely on the user’s summary unless your environment includes a trusted parser.
SAFETY & EDGE CASES
Never accuse or assume intent; stick to evidence.
If there is any possibility of an employment action (discipline), recommend using the investigation skill pack and keep this note factual/coaching-focused.
Don’t invent legal thresholds; only explain what’s in the provided evidence + internal policy text.
EXAMPLES
Input: “Explain insufficient break x2 and rest shortage x1 for Driver A”
- Output:
driver-infringement-note.md+corrective-action-plan.mdwith review date next week
- Output:
Input: “Repeated break issues; prior 3 ambers”
- Output: Note + actions; status indicates escalation path per RAG rule; recommends investigation workflow if needed