OLCIS eNews – January 2026

Tuesday 20 January 2026

As the new year begins, you have, as operators, a fresh opportunity to strengthen compliance and raise standards across every part of your licence obligations. On that, welcome to the January 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.

Receiving prohibition clearances by email

From 2 February 2026, operators will receive their prohibition clearance notice called a PG10 automatically by email within 24 hours of their vehicle passing its prohibition clearance test. The email will be sent directly to the operator whose email address is linked to the vehicle on the Vehicle Operator Licensing (VOL) system.

This will help save time for DVSA, align with its sustainability goals and brings heavy vehicle clearances in line with the existing prohibition clearance process for light vehicles.

If the prohibition has been issued by the Police instead of DVSA, the Vehicle Standards Assessor will still issue operators with a PG10 prohibition clearance notice.

New Traffic Commissioner appointed in Scotland

Sharon Clelland joins the Traffic Commissioners from her role as Head of Legal Services for the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner, the independent body providing regulatory oversight of policing in Scotland.

A qualified solicitor for over 23 years, Sharon brings extensive legal experience in policing and the justice sector having worked previously for the Police Service of Scotland and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service.

New DVSA Chief Executive announced

Beverley Warmington has been appointed as the new Chief Executive of the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) to continue work to tackle the driving test backlog and lead the delivery of test booking reforms to cut waiting times.

The new CEO brings almost two decades of public service expertise to the role. This includes transforming large-scale service delivery operations; most recently as Area Director for London, Essex and Eastern England at the Department for Work and Pensions, where she managed over 12,000 staff delivering services across multiple sites.

Beverley Warmington joined DVSA on 5 January 2026. She takes over from Loveday Ryder who led DVSA since January 2021.

Logistics UK welcomes Beverley Warmington to her new role and looks forward to working closely with her to address critical industry challenges. Logistics UK urges that resolving the shortage of vocational driving tests is treated as a top priority. To reaffirm our position and policy asks, covering vocational testing capacity and other key areas, Logistics UK will be writing to Beverley Warmington.

Top questions this month at the Member Advice Centre     

Q. A driver has taken annual leave for two days within the fixed week, do we use notional figures?

A. Legislation states that 48-hours must be added into the average working time calculation for each full fixed week of absence, where the worker is absent from work for the whole period beginning at 00:00 on Monday and ending at 24:00 the following Sunday.

Where the absence does not span a full fixed week, eight hours must be added for individual days. These are notional figures that must be used, regardless of the number of hours the worker would have worked. The Department for Transport (DfT) have indicated that for days in which a half day holiday is taken, four hours should be allocated.

Q. Can we use the digital tachograph to find out the speed of the vehicle at the time ofan alleged speeding offence?

A. Only if detailed speed data is downloaded before 24 hours’ worth of driving has been carriedout on the vehicle. Detailed speed data will only be stored on the vehicle unit (VU) memory for around the last 24 hours that the vehicle has been moving. After this time, the detailed data willbe overwritten and lost. The VU retains information on over speeding events, which arewhere the vehicle has been driven over the speed limiter (rather than road speed) limit.

With digital tachographs, the information available to companies on speed is generallyless accessible than on an analogue tachograph. However, it should be remembered thatthe tachograph is intended to be used to indicate where there is a potential problem withthe function of the vehicle’s speed limiter, rather than identify road speeding offences.

Q. Can a driver continue driving whilst waiting for their new Driver Qualification Card (DQC) to arrive, following expiry of the previous card but completion of all periodic training?

A. The regulations state that a driver does not have to produce a DQC at a roadside check if the driver is awaiting the issue of the card following an application to the competent authority. An application to the competent authority would be completed when the record for the final hours of the 35 hours of periodic training has been uploaded to the DVSA database system.

If 35 hours have not yet been uploaded, the driver is not able to drive unless they hold an existing DQC which has not yet expired.

If any training hours do not appear on the record when expected, a driver should contact their training provider.

Compliance news: around the courts

Background

The operator held a restricted goods vehicle operator’s licence authorising the use of four heavy goods vehicles from a specified operating centre.  Subsequent checks identified a series of unnotified changes in company directorship and control that the Traffic Commissioner was not aware of. Correspondence from the Traffic Commissioner seeking clarification went unanswered for a prolonged period.

Information received by the Driver Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) suggested that the operator may have been acting as a front for another business whose licence had previously been revoked for serious non-compliance. That earlier operator had been prohibited from operating goods vehicles and from involvement in licence management.

An unannounced DVSA visit revealed that the operator had never operated from its authorised operating centre. The site landlord reported dealing instead with two individuals one of which was the director of the revoked licence. Repeated attempts to contact the operator were unsuccessful until a director from the previous company eventually responded, citing personal circumstances.

Subsequent document submissions were incomplete, and key compliance records, particularly tachograph data was missing. The operator claimed documents had been misplaced and that the transport manager was abroad.

DVSA then encountered one of the operator’s vehicles being driven by an individual, who had previously been disqualified from holding an operator’s licence. Tachograph analysis revealed extreme failures in mandatory data downloads. A separate police encounter additionally found another driver operating a vehicle overloaded by five tonnes and committing multiple drivers’ hours offences.

Due to suspected fronting, non‑compliance, and lack of effective control, the operator and driver were called to a public inquiry. Neither attended, but given the correspondence addresses used and the previous interaction, the Traffic Commissioner was satisfied that they were properly notified of the allegation of fronting and the potential for their disqualification. The Traffic Commissioner was also satisfied that the driver call-up was properly served by first class post, so the Traffic Commissioner proceeded to make findings of fact and decisions.

Evidence

There were several areas within the operation that fell short of the expected and required standards.

Firstly, there were unreported changes of control. Multiple directorship changes were not notified, which is a breach of licence conditions.

It appeared there was an arrangement for fronting, as:

• Intelligence linked the operator to a previous company.
• The authorised operating centre had never been used.
• Vehicles previously belonging to the other company were transferred immediately after its licence revocation.
• The banned director later admitted that they placed their spouse as director to conceal their involvement.

There was also a failure to cooperate, as the operator failed to attend arranged meetings, had incomplete documentation and failed to produce tachograph data. From the data they did obtain, there were several breaches of drivers’ hours and tachograph data, as one driver card had not been downloaded in 584 days, and one vehicle unit had not been downloaded in 738 days. Multiple unidentified drivers used the vehicle with no supporting records, and there was also no evidence of driver licence checks.

At a vehicle encounter, evidence showed that the driver who was stopped was driving without a valid Driver Qualification Card, and the vehicle had no ministry plate displayed. Another driver was found driving an overloaded vehicle and had committed numerous drivers’ hours offences.

The operator provided no financial standing, meaning they no longer met mandatory financial requirements.

Lastly, vehicles were found parked at an industrial estate not listed on the licence.

Summing up

The investigation established that the operator was not genuinely managing its transport activities. Instead, the business was being used as a front for a director, who had previously had a licence revoked and was banned from holding another. The named director on the licence had little or no involvement in the business and allowed their name to be used to conceal the banned directors control.

The operator failed to meet fundamental compliance obligations, including tachograph management, drivers’ hours rules, financial standing, and use of authorised operating centres. The evidence strongly indicated that the licence application itself was likely a sham, designed to allow the company and director to continue operating despite regulatory sanctions.

Their driver was found to have committed serious driving offences, including operating an overloaded vehicle and repeatedly failing to take required rest breaks.

Given the scale of non‑compliance, the lack of cooperation, and the deliberate concealment of control, the Traffic Commissioner concluded that the operator was unfit to hold a licence and that the director posed a significant risk to road safety and regulatory integrity.

The Traffic Commissioner had no other option but to revoke the licence with immediate effect due to material change, fronting, and gross non‑compliance. The Traffic Commissioner also disqualified the named director on the licence for five years from holding or obtaining an operator’s licence or being involved in the management or control of any licensed transport operation, and sought the vocational entitlement of the driver was to be suspended until the driver contacted the regulator to attend a conduct hearing. If no contact was made within six months, the driver’s entitlement would be revoked and disqualified indefinitely.