OLCIS eNews – April 2026

Tuesday 28 April 2026

Welcome to the April 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.

Statutory Document Summaries

Last week, on 21 April, the Traffic Commissioners published Statutory Document Summaries. These do not replace the full documents, but they are to help operator licence holders, transport managers, applicants, and vocational drivers to understand the requirements of operator licensing and driver conduct more easily.

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

It is hoped that the summaries 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 found here, on this page.

Toolbox talks

Is your medicine driving you off course?

When we think about driving safely, most of us picture things like checking mirrors, watching our speed, or carrying out our walkaround checks. But one factor often overlooked is the medication we take, whether prescribed by a doctor, bought over the counter, or even taken for everyday aches and pains.

Why medication matters

Certain medicines can cause side effects such as:

• Drowsiness or fatigue – reducing alertness and slowing reaction times.
• Blurred or double vision – making it harder to judge distances and road conditions.
• Dizziness or faintness – increasing the risk of losing control.
• Slower coordination – impacting the ability to steer, brake, and change gears safely.

For professional drivers, these side effects can be just as dangerous as driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

Everyday medicines that can affect driving

It’s not just strong painkillers or sleeping tablets that can impact driving. Common examples include:

• Antihistamines for hay fever.
• Cold and flu remedies.
• Strong painkillers (including some prescribed after injuries or dental work).
• Anti-depressants or anxiety medication.

Even medication that seems harmless may cause issues when combined with other prescriptions, or if taken at the wrong time of day.

What drivers should do

• Always check the label – Look for warnings such as “may cause drowsiness” or “do not drive or operate machinery.”
• Ask your GP or pharmacist – Let them know you drive for a living. They can often suggest an alternative that has fewer side effects.
• Plan your doses – Taking medication before bed instead of before a shift can sometimes make all the difference.
• Never mix with alcohol – The combination can make side effects far worse.

Legal responsibilities

Driving while impaired by medication is a criminal offence. The law treats it in the same way as driving under the influence of alcohol or illegal drugs. If you’re unsure whether a medicine is safe, it’s your responsibility to check before getting behind the wheel.

Your licence, your job, and most importantly, your safety and the safety of others, depend on being fit to drive. Taking a moment to think about the medication you’re on, and asking the right questions, can prevent accidents and save lives.

Top questions this month at the Member Advice Centre     

Q. We are operating as contractors using someone else’s vehicles to fulfil our contract. Who needs the operator licence?

A. The ‘user’ of the vehicle requires the operator licence. In the case of an operator hiring short-term rental vehicles and using agency drivers for example, it is that operator who needs to hold the operator licence and have a ‘margin’ on the licence for its use.

Q. Do the working time rules replace or take precedence over tachograph rules?

A. Neither; you must ensure that you comply fully with both sets of rules. However, you may find that breaks from driving under drivers’ hours rules also satisfy the working time breaks. In short, a break is required after a maximum of 4.5 hours driving in scope of assimilated drivers’ hours rules, or six hours’ working time, whichever comes first.

Q. Much of our work within recreational parks is horticultural, however, in some legislation it states that aspects such as maintaining sports fields and recreational areas are not listed as horticultural work. Therefore, we are uncertain on what driving licence entitlement is required for our tractor drivers?

A. Effectively, if you are using the tractor for agriculture, horticulture or forestry, then the tractor can be driven on a Category F driving licence entitlement. If you are not using the tractor for agriculture, horticulture or forestry, then you would require the relevant category of licence in relation to the size of the tractor, for example if the tractor is above 3.5t and up to 7.5t then you would require a Category C1 entitlement.

To simplify, if you do not meet any of the exemptions then treat the tractor like a goods vehicle.

Compliance news: around the courts

Background

The operator holds a standard goods vehicle licence consisting of two operating centres authorising 35 vehicles and 36 trailers at one site, and six vehicles and six trailers at the other. The organisation has a long history of compliance issues, including a previous public inquiry, prohibitions, and warnings relating to maintenance, drivers’ hours, and trailer management. The Director, who also acted as a Transport Manager, previously lost professional repute and later regained it.

The operator uses several external maintenance contractors. A previous investigation identified failures in inspection frequency, record keeping, brake testing, and wheel security checks. Subsequent DVSA investigations continued to highlight high prohibition rates, poor oversight of third‑party trailers, and gaps in maintenance documentation.

A Public Inquiry was scheduled by the Traffic Commissioner following concerns about maintenance, prohibitions, undertakings, financial standing, and the Transport Manager’s repute. The Traffic Commissioner had requested evidence in advance, but financial documentation was incomplete and inconsistent. A shortfall in financial standing was identified, though a period of grace was considered possible.

Evidence

Prohibitions and roadside encounters resulted in multiple vehicles and trailers being issued with immediate or delayed prohibitions for:

• Tyres with exposed cords.
• Engine malfunction warnings.
• Brake system faults.
• Oil leaks.
• Insecure or defective braking components.
• Missing or inadequate trailer maintenance records.

The traffic examiner noted that a more robust tyre management system and access to trailer maintenance records could have prevented several prohibitions.

Across 46 inspection records, the below issues were identified:

• Nearly half were non‑compliant.
• Missing tyre pressure and brake wear measurements.
• Repeated defects recorded without rectification.
• Incorrect or missing inspection manual references.
• Decelerometer brake tests were done without recording brake temperatures.
• Dangerous defects marked “monitor”, with no follow‑up.
• No records for third‑party trailers.

One vehicle was signed off as roadworthy despite a brake disc not being fitted to the hub, and it was then driven back to the operating centre.

Several driver-related issues were also detected:

• Half of the records showed driver‑related defects with no corresponding defect reports.
• There were numerous infringements of daily rest, driving limits, and working time rules.
• There were missing mileage incidents, including thousands of kilometres unaccounted for.
• The driver disciplinary processes were weak and inconsistent.
• Explanations for infringements were often missing or inadequate. For example, one driver received two “final warnings” within months for similar issues.

As for the management of their trailers, it was found that:

• There was no systematic access to third‑party trailer maintenance records.
• There was a reliance on driver walkaround checks and occasional online portal access.
• There was a lack of evidence that non‑UK trailers were roadworthy before use.
• DVSA guidance on third‑party trailers was not being followed.

The operator later gained limited access to online maintenance planners and began circulating lists of trailers due for inspection.

The operator claimed that improvements were being made, and that:

• A consultant now assisted with auditing maintenance records.
• Tyre checks increased from monthly to fortnightly.
• Staff roles had been clarified. Additional internal checks and toolbox talks were in place.
• A new section had been added to inspection forms to confirm rectification of previous defects.

The operator acknowledged past errors, including driving an unroadworthy vehicle from a contractor’s site. However, many improvements were implemented only shortly before the Public Inquiry.

Summary

The Traffic Commissioner said evidence presented showed long‑standing and repeated failures in maintenance systems, trailer oversight, driver management, and record keeping. Prohibitions were issued for serious safety‑critical defects, many of which should have been identified through proper inspections or driver checks. Maintenance records were inconsistent, incomplete, or inaccurate, and dangerous defects were left unrectified across multiple inspections. Drivers’ hours compliance was weak, with numerous infringements and insufficient management review, with missing mileage and tachograph issues poorly explained. Trailer management, particularly for third‑party and non‑UK trailers, was inadequate and failed to meet regulatory expectations.

The Traffic Commissioner noted that although the operator had recently taken steps to improve compliance such as hiring a consultant, increasing tyre checks, and updating processes, these actions appeared reactive and late in the timeline. The Transport Manager accepted responsibility for several serious errors, including allowing an unroadworthy vehicle to be driven.

Overall, the evidence indicated systemic compliance failures, insufficient oversight, and a pattern of issues that raised concerns about the operator’s ability to meet licence obligations and the Transport Manager’s professional competence.

The Traffic Commissioner therefore curtailed the authorisation by two vehicles on one licence and by two vehicles on the other. Additionally, the Traffic Commissioner issued a warning to the Transport Manager that their repute and that of the operator had been tarnished by these events but not lost.