OLCIS eNews – May 2026

May 2026

Tuesday 26 May 2026

Welcome to the May edition of Logistics UK’s Operator Licensing Compliance Information Service (OLCIS) enews update. This document is a monthly round-up of transport news items sent out as part of your OLCIS subscription. Its objective is to keep you up to date with news affecting your commercial vehicle operation. To view previous editions and access your other subscription benefits, visit the dedicated OLCIS hub.

We welcome any comments and suggestions for new topics you would like to see included within OLCIS enews. Contact Customer Services with any feedback.

News round-up

Traffic Commissioners release Statutory Document Summaries

The Traffic Commissioners have announced the publication of the Statutory Document Summaries. These do not replace the full documents but are designed to help operator licence holders, transport managers, applicants and vocational drivers to more easily understand the requirements of operator licensing and driver conduct.

The Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Documents explain the legal basis and way in which Traffic Commissioners will approach the exercise of their statutory functions. They explain how the Senior Commissioner believes Traffic Commissioners should interpret the law relating to the application of the statutory documents.

It is hoped that the summaries, found here, will provide a readily digestible guide to what the Senior Traffic Commissioner expects of someone in the industry, whether they are an operator licence holder, transport manager, applicant or professional driver. They should be read in conjunction with the full Statutory Guidance and Directions, which can be accessed here.

Zero emission vehicles – regulatory flexibility granted

Following Logistics UK’s submission to the December 2024 consultation on regulatory flexibility for zero emission vehicles up to 4.25t, the Department for Transport confirmed, on 12 May 2026, that the necessary legislation has been agreed and will enter into force on 1 June 2026.

This legislation will mean that battery electric vans, greater than 3.5t up to 4.25t, will be classed the same as their ICE equivalent in terms of vehicle testing at MOT, their drivers will need to use GB domestic hours instead of assimilated ‘EU’ hours, and the vehicle will not be required to fit a tachograph.

This is a significant policy win for Logistics UK members transitioning to zero emission vehicles as part of their decarbonisation journey as it will reduce the administrative costs of running such vehicles, which has acted as a barrier to procurement until now.

Contact the Member Advice Centre for our briefing note that covers the upcoming changes for these vehicles.

HGV Vehicle Excise Duty holiday: support for haulage

Following sustained engagement between the government and the logistics sector over the cost pressures brought by the Middle East conflict, it was announced on 20 May that the planned increase in fuel duty, due in September, will now be deferred until 31 December.

Recognising the key role the road haulage sector plays in transporting goods across the UK and its disproportionate exposure to fuel costs, the government is also introducing a 12-month holiday from Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) for the majority of heavy goods vehicles (HGVs).

This means when hauliers renew their HGV VED they will pay just £1, saving a typical HGV £600, in addition to savings from fuel duty.

Fuel costs make up a substantial proportion of HGV operating costs, and it is hoped that this action will help prevent cost pressures from the conflict in the Middle East spreading across the economy.

The tax classes in scope of this are: HGV (tax class 01); Class 23; Class 57; HGV trailers (tax class 02); and Small island vehicles (class 16).

Top questions this month at the Member Advice Centre     

Q – What do I do when a new employee joins us in the middle of a reference period?

A – First, you need to find out if your new recruit worked as an in-scope mobile worker for their previous employer in the road transport sector during the reference period in question.

If they did, then you must ask them, in writing, for an account of time spent working for that employer during the reference period. Their previous employer is legally required to provide the worker with their working time records on request. You must then include all time worked for the previous employer and you in the working time calculation.

If they did not work as an in-scope mobile worker for their previous employer, for example if they worked in a bar or in a warehouse for another company, then you need to count the time worked from the moment they started work for your company in the calculation.

Q – What is the position if one of my drivers is pulled over whilst using a vehicle which we’ve hired temporarily from a hire company and the vehicle is found to be mechanically defective.

A – The company using the vehicle is always responsible for its roadworthiness, as is the driver. The Traffic Commissioner will be advised of any prohibition notice issued by the authorities or of any conviction, so you would be required to notify the Traffic Commissioner as per Statutory Document 1 – Good repute and fitness.

Compliance news: around the courts

Background

An operator had a restricted operator’s licence authorising up to 10 vehicles following a recent application to vary the licence. The licence required standard undertakings, together with additional requirements for laden brake testing at every preventative maintenance inspection and the engagement of a transport compliance consultant for a minimum of four hours per month.

However, this was followed by multiple regulatory interventions:

• A public inquiry was triggered by an unsatisfactory maintenance investigation report. The licence was curtailed for three months, permitting the operation of seven vehicles, and additional undertakings were agreed.
• Issues at the operating centre led to a period of grace being granted due to site availability problems. A new operating centre was authorised.

The Office of the Traffic Commissioner received complaints from residents regarding environmental and safety concerns at the operating centre, including noise, dust, pollution, and risks associated with vehicle movements on a narrow road. The operator was asked to outline mitigation measures.

A Traffic Examiner visited the site. A formal review of the operating centre was initiated, and proposed licence conditions were issued. The operator did not respond, despite two reminders.

The director at this time resigned and another director was added. The operator was asked by the Traffic Commissioner to explain the late notification of this change, provide financial evidence, demonstrate compliance with undertakings, and clarify how the current director who lived overseas, would ensure effective control. A partial response was received, but no financial or compliance evidence followed.

The Traffic Commissioner then scheduled a public inquiry which was adjourned a further few months. Prior to the hearing, residents reported that the operator no longer appeared to be trading from the site. The Traffic Commissioner attempted to contact the operator but was unsuccessful.

Evidence

The Traffic Commissioner reviewed the following matters as evidence within the public inquiry:

• Failure to respond to proposed operating centre conditions.
• Failure to provide financial standing evidence, despite repeated requests.
• Failure to demonstrate compliance with undertakings.
• Late notification of directorship changes.
• Lack of engagement with the regulator.
• Absence from the public inquiry despite proper notice.
• Material changes in operational control arising from the new director living abroad.

Summing up

The Traffic Commissioner noted that although concerns remained regarding the suitability of the operating centre, no findings were made on this point due to the absence of both residents and the operator.

However, the Traffic Commissioner went on to state that the operator’s failure to provide financial evidence, failure to demonstrate compliance, and failure to engage with the regulatory process left no alternative but to revoke the licence with immediate effect. Despite this, no disqualification was imposed, as the primary issue appeared to be poor communication rather than deliberate non‑compliance affecting road safety or fair competition.

A direction was issued that any future applications involving either director must be referred to a Traffic Commissioner for scrutiny.