OLCIS eNews – February 2025

Tuesday 25 February 2025

Welcome to the February edition of Logistics UK’s Operator Licensing Compliance Information Service (OLCIS) e-news 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 E-news.

Digital driving licence

The UK government is launching a GOV.UK Wallet and App to simplify access to services and documents like digital driver’s licences. You will be given the option to use a digital version of your drivers’ licence from your phone which will prove your right to drive and verify your age if purchasing age restricted products.

DVSA make body worn cameras mandatory for examiners

Body worn cameras are now mandatory for traffic examiners, vehicle examiners, enforcement support officers and enforcement managers engaging in:

• Roadside checks.
• Operator visits.
• MOT scheme visits.
• Any other enforcement activity where safety could be at risk.

Body worn cameras are not new to roadside enforcement examiners as they have already been worn for several years, however, the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) has taken the decision to make the cameras a mandatory part of uniform for examiners’ safety.  The cameras will only be switched on to capture inappropriate behaviour or if the examiner feels threatened.

The footage, where appropriate, will be used to prosecute offenders if abuse occurs.

More information is available in the Data Protection Impact Assessment.

Smart Tachograph 2 retrofit

A reminder to all Logistics UK members that EU Member States have reached a consensus granting a two-month grace period (from 1 January 2025 to 28 February 2025) for the enforcement of the smart tachograph retrofitting obligation.

This measure aims to help operators and manufacturers address the retrofit backlog and minimise disruptions to cross-border transport operations and EU supply chains.

During this grace period, transport operators that have not yet retrofitted their vehicles should not face sanctions. Instead, inspectors should raise transport operators’ awareness of the retrofitting requirement.

Changes from 1 April 2025 – Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness

From 1 April there will be an expectation that every safety inspection includes a check of the brakes. This can be using a roller brake tester, an electronic brake performance monitoring system (EPBMS) or a decelerometer. If EPBMS is not used there needs to be at least four laden brake tests per year.

If a laden brake test is not completed on every inspection, there will be a mandatory requirement to undertake a risk assessment which needs to be completed by a competent person.

Each vehicle would require their own risk assessment which will last for 12 months. For further details, see Section 5.3 of DVSA’s Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness, or contact the Member Advice Centre.

Top questions this month at the Members Advice Centre     

Q – I have booked my drivers on to complete DCPC modules. When booking I have noticed that they have already sat the same one, can they still attend?

A – A range of different subjects should be covered over the 35 hours periodic training. Courses should only be repeated if there is evidence that the driver needs specific remedial training. Your course trainer would also be able to advise this before attending the course. Repeated hours could be removed by DVSA.

Q – A vehicle maintenance contractor, who daily delivers vehicles passenger and goods, to/from various sites to their maintenance depot, have questioned whether their employee can drive a Category D passenger carrying vehicle on their goods licence entitlement, as long as there are no passengers on board at the time of driving. Is this correct?

A – There has previously been a concession for holders of a category C licence to be able to drive a category D (passenger carrying) vehicle, provided the entitlement had been held for at least two years and that the vehicle was either defective or damaged and being driven to a place of repair or on a road test following a repair or inspection provided no passengers were carried that were unconnected with such work. The Third EU Driving Licence Directive removed this concession completely.

A consultation has been sought to reinstate this concession which would allow for a driver holding category C entitlement for two years to drive PCVs for maintenance and repair purposes, the conclusion of which is yet to be published.

Q – We recently interviewed a professional driver whose Category C+E was showing on ‘Check someone’s driving licence information’ on GOV.UK as ‘C+E – unclaimed test pass’. Does the driver have the entitlement to drive in this category?

A – Once you have passed your test you must exchange your pass test certificate as soon as possible. Until this action has been undertaken, ‘unclaimed test pass’ will be showing under the relevant category. You will be able to drive a vehicle of the passed category holding your pass test certificate, before sending to DVLA we would advise you have a photocopy of the certificate to evidence the test pass.

It is worth noting that the exchange must be made within two years of the pass, or the entitlement gained will be lost, and a further practical and theory test must then be taken.

Compliance news: around the courts

Background

An operator holds a standard international goods vehicle operator licence for four vehicles and four trailers. There are two directors of the company, however the Traffic Commissioner was unaware of one of the appointments. One of the Directors is also the nominated transport manager on the licence.

A public inquiry was called, after a report had been received from DVSA to the effect that:

– A vehicle belonging to the company had been stopped by police and found to be using false registration plates, was untaxed and out of MOT.

– Preventative maintenance inspections (PMI) were not being carried out at the stated six-week intervals.

– The company were parking their vehicles at an unauthorised operating centre.

– The company had failed to provide to DVSA the requested data concerning drivers’ hours and tachographs.

The Director and transport manager attended the inquiry. They stated that the reason their driver had attached false plates to a vehicle was that a vehicle which was due to be used on another contract had broken down, so another vehicle was fitted with the plates of a vehicle specified on the licence. They were asked why the vehicle could not have been taxed online and sent out onto the road legally, they responded that the vehicle could not be taxed because it had no MOT.

The company had hit financial difficulties after a client had failed to pay what they were owed, and that company had since gone into liquidation. This was the reason that PMIs had not been done every six weeks after that date. The Director and transport manager were asked why the operator had not produced evidence of PMIs before a certain date, the Director who was also the transport manager stated that the maintenance contractor had refused to provide them. Only two PMIs were available to the Traffic Commissioner.

The operator accepted that the company used an unauthorised operating centre as they could not pay the costs to vary the licence.

DVSA had asked for tachograph data, but the operator was unable to produce any driver infringement reports or missing mileage reports for the inquiry. The software used was not sufficient to enable such reports to be produced.

The Director who was also the transport manager accepted that the company had done wrong and said that there was no excuse for it and was prepared to take full responsibility. The company ceased trading and was about to enter liquidation.

Evidence

The Traffic Commissioner had considered the written and oral evidence, and made the following findings:

– The company has operated from an unauthorised operating centre.

– The company lacked the required financial standing and failed to inform the Traffic Commissioner of this material change in circumstances.

– The company failed to fulfil its undertaking to ensure the lawful driving and operation of vehicles. A vehicle was knowingly operated out of tax and MOT. The driver and director claimed in interview with DVSA that this was a one-off event, but a police report suggested otherwise. The reason the police had a marker on the vehicle and stopped it was because they had intelligence that it was running under false plates. It was clearly not a one-off incident.

– The company failed to fulfil its undertaking to ensure the observance of rules relating to drivers’ hours and tachographs. No analysis of drivers’ hours or identification of infringements took place.

The company had failed to undertake safety inspections every six weeks in accordance to their licence. There was no evidence that vehicles were given anything other than sporadic inspections right from the start of the licence. Given the above findings, it was clear that the Director and transport manager were entirely failing to exercise the required continuous and effective management of the transport aspects of the business. As the company encountered financial difficulties, more and more corners were cut, including maintenance, vehicle tax, and the need to apply for a new operating centre. A vehicle was knowingly and deliberately used on the road with false number plates to give the outward impression that it was taxed and had a valid MOT, when the reality was that it was untaxed and out of MOT. This was not just a one-off event, in these circumstances neither the good repute of the company nor the good repute of the transport manager could possibly survive.

Summing up

The company lacked financial standing and lacked a transport manager of good repute. Revocation of the licence was therefore mandatory. As the company’s operations had already ceased ahead of the inquiry, the revocation took effect immediately.

The Traffic Commissioner considered whether to disqualify the company and its directors from holding or obtaining an operator licence in the future. When considering the seriousness of the failure to operate lawfully and comply with undertakings, the Traffic Commissioner decided to do so with a disqualification period of five years.