OLCIS eNews – October 2025

Tuesday 21 October 2025

Welcome to the October 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.

DVLA extends vehicle management service times

The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) have extended the times of its Vehicle Management services. Services will now be Monday to Friday 07:00-21:00, Saturday and Sunday 07:00-20:00.

The change was implemented from 24 September 2025 for these services:

• Change your address on your vehicle log book (V5C): Change your address.
• Get a vehicle log book (V5C): Get a replacement log book (V5C).
• Tell DVLA you’ve sold, transferred or bought a vehicle.

Traffic Commissioners publish vehicle operator licence application processing times

On 13 October, the Traffic Commissioners for Great Britain published their updated processing times for goods and public service vehicle operator licence applications. The data shows the average number of working days it takes the Traffic Commissioners from receipt of an application to its determination.

Goods vehicle applications that do not need a public inquiry have consistently taken around 31/32 working days in recent years, whereas the contrast could not be clearer for goods applications that require a public inquiry, which have, in the last 12 months, taken an average of 150 working days to process.

If you need any help with an application or variation, contact the Member Advice Centre on 0370 605 0000 to speak with the team who can help with the process.

DVSA seeking feedback on proposals to increase ATF maximum service charges

The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) has published a consultation on proposals to increase the maximum service charges that authorised testing facilities (ATFs), which provide MOT services for HGVs, buses, coaches, and trailers, can charge customers.

DVSA proposes raising the maximum HGV test service charge by £15. The consultation notes that ATF service charges have remain unchanged since 2010, despite an increase since then in running costs, inflation and cost of equipment.

Logistics UK would welcome members sharing their views on these changes by email to Maddi Solloway-Price. In particular, please share if you agree with an increase, if you agree with the proposed increase, and how this change would impact operations.

Top questions this month at the Member Advice Centre

Q. How many TMCPC qualified staff do I need?

There is no ‘ratio of vehicles/operating centres per transport manager’ in legislation, however Annex 1 of Senior Traffic Commissioner Statutory Document 3: Transport Managers makes suggestions as to how many hours of work that a transport manager should dedicate in comparison with a certain number of vehicles.

Q. How many vehicles can I have on the margin of my operator licence?

The margin is the number of vehicles authorised on the licence minus the number of vehicles in possession. For example, if your licence specifies the use of five vehicles and five trailers, but there are three vehicles and three trailers specified on the licence, the margin is therefore two vehicles and two trailers.

You will need to show sufficient financial standing and that you have enough space at your proposed operating centre for all authorised vehicles and trailers. The Senior Traffic Commissioner guidance is that any vehicle in an operator’s ‘lawful possession’ is deemed to be in use and should be listed on the operator licence, although if a vehicle is SORN, this does not need to be listed on the operator licence.

Q. We are a relatively new operator, but our Operator Compliance Risk Score (OCRS) has just gone into the red band following a DVSA roadside check where a defect was found. How can we improve this?

The colour status of your score will tell you whether you are more likely to be targeted by DVSA at roadside. Green operators are less likely, with operators in the red band more likely to be targeted.

If you are targeted by DVSA, further vehicle defects found will increase your score, whereas positive encounters at roadside with no defects, or clear annual test passes will improve it.

Putting an effective maintenance system in place, ensuring driver defect checks are carried out properly, vehicles receive regular safety inspections, and defects are rectified with proper records kept will help improve your score, as will ensuring drivers’ hours and tachograph rules are complied with.

Logistics UK have a compliance guide on understanding your OCRS, which can be found here, and includes further detailed guidance on understanding how scores are calculated, as well as detailed guidance on how to improve your score.

Compliance news: around the courts

Background

This operator licence was granted at Public Inquiry on the condition that undertakings offered by the operator were abided by. Less than a year later, the licence was subject to a “proposal to revoke” notice due to the lack of finances. The licence was, as a result, curtailed with further undertakings being added.

One of those undertakings the Traffic Commissioner imposed was the requirement to produce evidence that finances were in place to support the maintenance of vehicles. The evidence was provided late and was only provided by the operator following a reminder issued by the Traffic Commissioner’s office.

The other undertaking was for an independent audit to be conducted. An audit report was provided to the Traffic Commissioner’s office, but again, was produced after the agreed timeframe. The audit highlighted several failings with the systems required to ensure compliance. This resulted in a warning issued to the operator, subject to further undertakings being added to the licence.

The operator also received an immediate prohibition on a vehicle due to multiple failings which should have been detected at a driver walk round check:

• A missing direction indicator, meaning the indicator could not be used to clearly show the driver’s intention.
• Missing wheel nut washers.

As a result of this, the operator received an unannounced visit from the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA). The result of the maintenance investigation visit report was scored as “unsatisfactory”, with just three of the 13 inspected areas scoring “satisfactory”, and three areas marked as “Report to the Office of the Traffic Commissioner”.

Following the DVSA visit, the final report was issued to the operator for their comments. In this instance, the operator failed to provide any response to the DVSA. The visiting officer sent a further notice to the operator, asking for a response, but no response was provided.

Evidence

The Public Inquiry took place despite the operator failing to attend. In the absence of any further evidence or representations, the Traffic Commissioner could only make the determination based on the best available evidence given to them.

The Traffic Commissioner looked through the independent audit where the following issues were identified from that report:

• There was no evidence of a driver induction.
• Driver CPC days were said to be monitored, but no records were kept.
• Driver licence checks were said to be undertaken, but no records were kept.
• Periodic maintenance inspection (PMI) timescales were not consistent with the recommendations within DVSA’s Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness, considering the age of the fleet.
• There were inconsistencies in the operator’s responses regarding the use of agency drivers.
• There were issues with the driver defect reporting system.

Some of the issues raised at the previously mentioned maintenance investigation report that were of significant concern included:

• The nominated and approved operating centre had not been used for 12 months.
• PMIs were incomplete. There was an absence of brake testing, driver detectable defects were identified at PMI and the declaration of roadworthiness had not been signed off.
• There was no forward planning system, no VOR system and no systems for safety defects/recalls.
• There was no evidence of any driver defect reporting system in place, and no evidence available for the required sample period of 15 months.
• There were no rolling road brake facilities, nor arrangements in place to access one.
• There was no evidence of an effective wheel security system or tyre management systems.
• There was no wheel torquing undertaken and no tyre pressure monitoring.
• There was no evidence of training on load security.
• The Director gave a statement confirming unlawful parking at an unapproved operating centre.
• There was no evidence of ongoing training or continuous professional development on the part of the Director.
• DVSA’s examiners identified unlawful use of an unspecified heavy goods vehicle, which had no road tax. The driver of the vehicle was the Director of the company.

Summing up

The Traffic Commissioner concluded that the failure to attend the Public Inquiry was a deliberate attempt to avoid the scrutiny of the Traffic Commissioner.

The Traffic Commissioner continued with the findings of the audit, and with the absence of any evidence to challenge those findings, they believed that this was an operator that could not be trusted to comply with the conditions and undertakings of an operator’s licence.

On consideration of the guidance provided by the Senior Traffic Commissioner on starting points for regulatory action, as set out at Annex 4 of Statutory Document 10, the Traffic Commissioner placed this case within the category of “severe”, as there were clear and deliberate acts designed to give the operator a commercial advantage and which compromised road safety.

The Traffic Commissioner had no choice but to revoke the licence with immediate effect and concluded that the licence holding company and director were to be disqualified from holding or obtaining an operator’s licence for a period of seven years.