Stricter van regulations, such as new rules on MOTs, drivers hours and tachographs, could leave fleet operators exposed to legal challenges if they do not adopt tighter compliance practices, leasing specialist Arval warned this week.
Eddie Parker, Arval LCV consultant, said: “Businesses which have historically treated vans as lower-risk fleet assets could now face growing legal and operational exposure.
“For many, the issue is not simply compliance with individual rule changes. Rather it is whether their existing fleet governance, policies and procedures have kept pace with how regulators and enforcement authorities are increasingly viewing van operations.”
The company said that among the vehicles affected are the 4.25 tonne electric vans that many fleets are adopting to replace existing 3.5 tonne diesel models.
While recent changes in the UK mean these will no longer be covered by tachograph or year one MOT test rules, they will need to comply with new DVSA heavy vehicle testing changes introduced during January and February of 2026.
Applying to all vehicles over 3.5 tonnes, these will include ADAS visual inspection checks, digital PG10 prohibition clearance notices, revised plating certificate processes and – for those used as passenger service vehicles – compliance with door safety testing equipment.
Also, for all vehicles over 2.5 tonnes, newly registered goods vehicles used internationally for hire and reward will require smart tachograph equipment under the final phase of the EU Mobility Package that takes effect this month.
Parker said this greater regulatory interest had been prompted by the road safety risk that LCVs represented, with recent International Road Union research revealing that commercial vehicles were involved in almost one in five road incidents and one in three fatalities.
“We’re seeing a broader trend towards increased data capture, standardisation and evidential scrutiny across all commercial vehicle operations. Because of this, the distinction between ‘van fleet’ and a truck-style ‘regulated transport operation’ is becoming increasingly blurred,” Parker said.
The greatest exposure for many businesses may not come from the regulations themselves, but from how van fleets were managed internally, Parker commented.
“HGVs operate within compliance structures that include transport managers, maintenance controls, fatigue management, driver training records and formal incident procedures. Vans often don’t, which can create an evidential problem if a serious incident occurs.”
Van fleets may have policies covering fatigue, mobile phone use or vehicle checks, but may struggle to prove how these were enforced, how training was delivered, if drivers understood the requirements, and how managers intervened when issues were found, Parker explained.
“Those issues become critical once police, enforcement authorities or the Health and Safety Executive begin investigations into not just the collision itself, but the wider corporate systems surrounding it.
“There is a risk that internal governance has not evolved at the same pace as the new regulatory expectations. In the most serious cases, directors and senior managers could face personal scrutiny and can be found legally liable.“
For many businesses, the key question was no longer whether vans carry compliance risk, Parker said, but if internal processes have kept pace with changing expectations.
Operators should consider whether incident procedures are tested and understood, management responsibilities are clearly defined and compliance systems could withstand external scrutiny, he suggested.
“The regulatory direction of travel is becoming clear,” Parker said. “Although van fleets are unlikely to face the same oversight as HGV operators in the immediate future, the gap between the two is narrowing.
“At Arval, we are finding ourselves involved in more and more conversations about this shift and are advising many fleets on how to adapt to an evolving situation.”
