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 + support corrective-action-plan.md: actions, owner, due dates, review date Success 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. 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. 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). 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) 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.md with review date next week Input: “Repeated break issues; prior 3 ambers” Output: Note + actions; status indicates escalation path per RAG rule; recommends investigation workflow if needed