OLCIS eNews – April 2025

Tuesday 22 April 2025

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.

The Secretary of State for Transport has announced the appointment of Kevin Rooney as the new Senior Traffic Commissioner, effective from 1 June 2025

In his role as Senior Traffic Commissioner, Kevin Rooney will oversee the work of the Traffic Commissioners, who are responsible for regulating the road transport industry across the UK, with specific oversight of public service vehicles (such as buses and coaches), freight operators, and drivers.

Kevin Rooney takes on the role of Senior Traffic Commissioner from his current position as Traffic Commissioner for the West of England.

New QR code service launched to make sharing driving licence information easier

Drivers who have signed up for a Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency ‘Driver and vehicles account’ can now use a QR code to share their driving licence information quicker and easier than before.

Once they have signed up for an account, it will be possible to generate a QR code and instantly share driving licence information safely and securely with third parties, such as car hire and insurance companies. This new service is only available to ‘Driver and vehicles account’ users.

Drivers can use the new service by setting up or signing in to their ‘Driver and vehicles’ account here.

One month to go before the end of the grace period for TfL’s Direct Vision Standard

The grace period, which operators had to apply for before the date of entry into force of the Direct Vision Standard, comes to an end in one month’s time, on 4 May 2025. This period gave members time to arrange the fitting of safety equipment that was not possible before the new standard came into force, due to supply and/or workshop constraints. From 5 May all vehicles over 12 tonnes must have a valid permit to operate in London otherwise risk a penalty charge notice, with vehicles rated zero, one, or two stars fitted with the Progressive Safe System.

For more information on the Direct Vision Standard, please view the Logistics UK briefing note here, or contact the Member Advice Centre for further queries.

Top questions this month at the Member Advice Centre     

Q – Do I have to keep track of my vehicle inspections on a year planner?

A – Not necessarily. Year planners, a card system or flowcharts are acceptable and computer-based records are also adequate. The key part is that you have a system in place that makes sure they happen.

DVSA’s Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness states:

A maintenance scheduling system, planner or wall chart should be used to identify inspection dates at least six months for manual systems or can be dynamic for electronic systems.

Q – What are the new requirements from 1 April 2025 on laden brake testing?

A – DVSA’s Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness has the bulk of the detail regarding the changes to laden brake testing, the link to which is here.

Essentially at every safety inspection you need to assess your braking system using a roller brake test, decelerometer with temperature readings or you have an electronic brake performance monitoring system (EBPMS).

If you don’t use EBPMS to monitor continuously you would be required to undertake four laden brake tests across the year this would include the annual test.

From April 2025, if a laden brake test is not carried out you will be required to have a risk assessment with the vehicle when presented at your maintenance providers as to why the vehicle will not be tested laden. The risk assessment would need to be completed by a competent person who understands the braking system, components and work the vehicle does. This would need to be completed for every vehicle but can be the same detail on the risk assessment as long as the work carried out is the same. The risk assessment will last for 12 months.

Compliance news: around the courts

Background

An operator holds a standard national goods operator’s licence authorising 12 vehicles and six trailers. There are two directors of the operating company, and one is also the nominated transport manager.

The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) investigated the operator’s systems for complying with maintenance requirements. The DVSA report highlighted failings in the operator’s maintenance systems. It underlined shortcomings in several areas which included the following:

• Legal entity incorrect due to directors having resigned and a new director showing at Companies House but not listed on the licence.
• Safety inspection records not properly completed with no method of brake performance test recorded and instances of driver reportable defects picked up at inspection but not recorded by drivers and instances of extended safety inspection intervals.
• Driver defect report sheets inadequate with no section for signature, date and endorsement of rectification of defects.
• No system in place to monitor AdBlue usage.
• Ineffective load security arrangements.
• Prohibitions issued at fleet inspection which should have been picked up by the driver.

Assurances were given by the operator and transport manager in response to the failings identified by the DVSA vehicle examiner. The DVSA examiner recommended that there should be a further investigation to assess compliance in six months’ time when they anticipated that the operator would be able to show a significant improvement from the unsatisfactory outcome of their investigation as the operator has assured them of this. A follow up desk based assessment was conducted by the DVSA to examine the areas that were found unsatisfactory. From this assessment, it was also found to be unsatisfactory with the same failures found then that were found during the previous maintenance investigation (inspection sheets not conforming to best practice guidance, as advised on the previous visit, brake test performance not recorded at inspections, inspection intervals not managed, with some late inspections, driver reportable defects found at inspections, driver defect report sheets not completed correctly and defects found with no evidence of rectification).

The operator and transport manager were called to a public inquiry to explore these shortcomings and to consider whether the transport manger was continuing to exercise continuous and effective management of the company’s transport activities. The letter sent to the operator added that the Traffic Commissioner was also concerned that the company may not be of the appropriate financial standing to hold an operator’s licence for the number of vehicles authorised. The company was directed to produce evidence of its financial standing showing access to the required amount for the twelve vehicles authorised over the previous three months. The financial evidence submitted in advance of the inquiry hearing demonstrated that the operator fell short of the required amount. In addition to financial evidence, the company and the transport manager were asked to send updated maintenance documentation to the DVSA prior to the public inquiry hearing. The vehicle examiner who had conducted the desk-based assessment, assessed the updated documents provided to them and produced a supplementary report for the public inquiry which was sent to the operator as well prior to the hearing.

The operator’s solicitors wrote to the Office of the Traffic Commissioner to advise that it was accepted that the operator did not meet the financial standing requirement and that it wished to surrender its licence. That request was referred to the Traffic Commissioner which the Traffic Commissioner refused. The public inquiry hearing went ahead as scheduled. The operating company were represented by one of the directors, who also appeared in their capacity as transport manager, along with representation.

Evidence

The Traffic Commissioner made the following findings based on the evidence provided to them and on the balance of probabilities:

• The operator breached a condition of its licence by failing to notify an additional director.
• The operator’s vehicles have been issued with prohibition notices by the DVSA in the past five years.
• The operator made statements when applying for the licence which were false or have not been fulfilled.
• The operator had failed to fulfill the undertakings signed up to when the licence was applied for.
• The Transport Manager was not exercising continuous and effective management of the company’s transport activities, as required by the legislation. They no longer satisfied the requirements to be of good repute.
• The operator no longer met the requirements of financial standing.

The Traffic Commissioner found the transport manager and the operator no longer met the requirements of professional competence.

The Traffic Commissioner was satisfied on the evidence and on the balance of probabilities that the transport manager had failed to exercise continuous and effective control of the operator’s transport operations. The response to the DVSA’s findings was completely inadequate and even when they were given an opportunity to get things right, the vast improvement that was promised did not materialise by the time of the desk-based assessment and the same compliance failings were still present as at the date of the public inquiry.  Some of those were serious, particularly as regards brake testing not being carried out at each inspection. Concerningly, the transport manager admitted in their evidence that they had not realised that it was a requirement that a brake test be carried out at each safety inspection. They had qualified as a transport manager some 10-12 years ago and had never completed any refresher training.  When asked why they had not implemented the necessary changes identified by the DVSA, the response was that they had been too busy in their role as director managing other aspects of the business.  However, the role of transport manager is a key one which they had failed to perform effectively and continuously resulting in the compliance failures found. Those failures presented a clear risk to road safety.

Summing up

The Traffic Commissioner considered from adverse findings to the way in which the operator had operated their vehicles. Late safety inspections, lack of adequate brake testing and defects found on vehicles at inspection which should have been picked up before then were compliance failings which could well be due to a lack of finances. There was evidence during the inquiry that the company was in financial difficulties, and the operator made the decision before the public inquiry had been taken that they couldn’t carry on for that reason and the business was winding down with a view to stopping operations later in the month. The Traffic Commissioner concluded that the licence must be revoked.

The Traffic Commissioner continued to state that aside of financial requirements not being met that this was a serious case where there had been persistent operator licence failings with an inadequate response from the operator. The failures identified in the DVSA report previously were still present at the time of a desk-based assessment months after and again at the time of this public inquiry. The Traffic Commissioner continued to state there was no evidence of improvement following the assessment, and the operator had not addressed any of the shortcomings previously identified. There was ineffective management control and insufficient procedures in place to prevent operator licence compliance failings. There was ineffective or insufficient driver training with insufficient or ineffective monitoring procedures in place, particularly regarding driver walkaround checking and defect reporting. Insufficient changes had been made to ensure compliance, despite the operator been given an opportunity to get things right, not once but twice before these shortcomings were referred to the Office of the Traffic Commissioner.

In considering whether the good repute of the transport manager was lost, rather than merely tarnished, the Traffic Commissioner found the transport managers repute had to be lost as they no longer satisfied the requirements.

The traffic commissioner having concluded that their good repute was lost, they were also obliged to disqualify them from acting as a transport manager for 12 months on an operator’s licence. The traffic commissioner also indicated that they would be well advised to complete refresher training and work with an experienced CPC holding transport manager if they were to seek to persuade that they were capable of meeting the statutory requirements in the future.