OLCIS eNews – July 2026

July 2026

Tuesday 28 July 2026

Welcome to the July 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. Please contact Customer Services with any feedback..

News round-up

ATF changes

DVSA increased the maximum service charge that Authorised Testing Facilities (ATFs) can apply to heavy vehicle MOT tests from 6 July 2026. The new maximum charges will be £90 for buses and coaches, £70 for HGVs and £50 for trailers. ATFs will continue to set their own prices up to these limits, so charges may vary.

DVSA says the increase, the first since 2010, is intended to help maintain a stable and reliable testing network.

Opting out of National Driver CPC training

Drivers who want to maintain the option to drive professionally in both the UK and Europe should ensure their Driver CPC periodic training is made up only of international courses.

DVSA guidance allows qualified drivers who have completed National Driver CPC training to opt out of those hours counting towards their overall total using the check your Driver CPC periodic training hours service.

If National training is included when a Driver Qualification Card (DQC) is generated, the driver will receive a National Driver CPC only. This means they will not be able to drive professionally in Europe and cannot reuse international hours to generate a new International DQC.

Reminder: changes to vehicle excise duty rate for HGVs from 1 July

Following the government’s announcement of a temporary support package for the transport sector, eligible Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) will be subject to a nominal vehicle excise duty (VED) rate of just £1 for a 12-month period starting from 1 July 2026.

The temporary £1 nominal rate applies to vehicles exceeding 3.5t within the following specific Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) tax classes:

• Class 1 – HGV.
• Class 2 – Trailer HGV.
• Class 16 – Small Island.
• Class 23 – Combined Transport.
• Class 57 – Special Types.

The £1 rate applies to 12-month licences taken out on or after 1 July 2026 and up to 30 June 2027. The reduced £1 rate will apply when the vehicle is next due for re-taxing during the qualifying 12-month window. This structured rollout ensures all eligible vehicles benefit from the VED reduction for one full 12-month licensing cycle.

The HGV road user levy remains separate, so members should note that if a vehicle is liable for that, it will continue to be charged at its existing rate.

An updated V149/1 tax rate document reflecting these changes can be found here.

Top questions this month at the Member Advice Centre 

Q) We have recently purchased an 18t gully sucker. Do these types of vehicles need to go onto our operator licence? I am looking at Logistics UK’s 2026 Yearbook of Road Transport Law (page 18, definition 3) “vehicles fitted with machine, appliance, apparatus etc.”, section “d”. This is where our road sweepers come under, so am I right that the gully suckers fall under the same exemption?

A) It’s possible that the exemption may have applied previously, but once the regulations were amended in 2018, gully suckers did not meet the exemption requirements detailed in section 15 of Schedule 3 of The Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Regulations 1995, and are therefore in scope of operator licensing when used on the road to transport goods.

Gully suckers remove sludge/detritus by suction vacuum from culverts, drains, underground cavities etc, and transport what they have removed away. In principle, they are not much different to a milk tanker collecting milk from dairy farms – a tanker, fitted with a suction pump. They transport the sludge etc away on the road, and because of this, they are in scope of operator licensing.

Q) We have had someone apply for a driving job with our company. The applicant passed their category C test three months ago. On checking the licence, it states, ‘C unclaimed test pass’. What does this mean? Can they drive with this on their record?

A) An ‘unclaimed test pass’ is where the driver has passed in the category the claim is against but has not yet sent off the certificate for this to be added to their licence. This should be done as soon as possible after the test. The driver has two years to claim the entitlement. If this does not happen, the entitlement will be lost and the driver would have to retake the theory and practical tests to obtain it.

If they have the test pass certificate, they can drive using the test pass certificate as evidence of a pass, but it may be worth taking a photocopy of this when they claim the entitlement and have it added to their licence, so you have a record to produce if stopped by enforcement.

Compliance news: around the courts

Background

This matter concerned a standard international goods vehicle operator’s licence consisting of two vehicles and two trailers. The inquiry considered alleged breaches of the operator’s licence and the repute and professional competence of the appointed transport manager.

Neither the operator nor the transport manager attended the public inquiry. The sole director had been aware of the hearing and had corresponded with the Office of the Traffic Commissioner shortly before the hearing, stating that they would not be able to attend and asking for time to wind down operations if regulatory action was taken.

The operator’s business was understood to be road haulage. The case followed earlier regulatory action, including a formal warning after a previous public inquiry and subsequent unsatisfactory DVSA findings.

The concerns leading to the inquiry included vehicle maintenance standards, alleged operation of vehicles not specified on the licence, failure to provide records, failure to cooperate with DVSA investigations, concerns about the operating centre, possible lack of financial standing, and lack of evidence that the transport manager exercised continuous and effective control.

Evidence

The evidence included recent DVSA prohibition notices, DVSA investigation reports, correspondence between the operator and the regulator, and the operator’s previous compliance history.

A vehicle displaying a licence disc issued to the operator was stopped by DVSA. The vehicle was not specified on the operator licence, and the vehicle authorisation was already in use. DVSA also found significant tachograph download failures, including a late vehicle unit download and a driver card that had not been downloaded for a prolonged period. Delayed roadworthiness prohibitions were issued in relation to emissions equipment and trailer braking defects.

DVSA requested information from the operator under statutory powers, including information about whether a vehicle had been hired to a third party, but no response was received. Further requests were made for maintenance records and systems information ahead of planned investigations, but the requested documents were not provided and the operator did not attend arranged meetings.

An S-marked prohibition was issued to another vehicle for a loose wheel nut and an engine oil leak. The vehicle was not specified on the operator’s licence at that time. The defect findings added to earlier prohibitions and supported concerns about inadequate maintenance control and risk to road safety.

The maintenance investigation recorded multiple areas requiring reports to the Traffic Commissioner and further areas marked as unsatisfactory. Concerns included failure to use the stated operating centre, failure to provide inspection and maintenance records, lack of driver defect reporting documents, unsatisfactory inspection and maintenance arrangements, issues with emissions control systems, absence of wheel and tyre management and load security documentation, and unfulfilled undertakings.

The evidence also indicated that the operator had not been using the licensed operating centre. The site owner reported that the operator’s vehicles had not been present for several months and that parking payments had lapsed. This supported a finding that the operator was not operating from the authorised establishment.

The operator failed to provide current financial evidence in accordance with the inquiry directions. As a result, it was not possible to be satisfied that the operator had sufficient financial resources to maintain vehicles under the licence.

There was no meaningful engagement from the appointed transport manager. The absence of involvement, combined with the lack of operational records and the operator’s failure to cooperate with investigations, supported a finding that there was no continuous and effective management of the transport operation.

Summing up

The evidence established serious and repeated compliance failings. The operator had been subject to prohibition notices within the previous five years, had failed to demonstrate that vehicles were kept fit and serviceable, had failed to produce records showing effective systems for maintenance, drivers’ hours, tachographs and defect reporting, and had failed to notify material changes in its operation, including the apparent non-use of the authorised operating centre.

The operator’s repeated failure to respond to correspondence, provide documents, attend DVSA meetings, or attend the public inquiry demonstrated a disregard for the regulatory regime. The absence of evidence of functioning compliance systems meant there was no basis for confidence that the operator would comply in future.

Positive features were limited. The operator had eventually corresponded with the regulator shortly before the inquiry and implicitly accepted that retention of the licence in its current form was unlikely. However, those matters carried limited weight when balanced against the seriousness, duration and breadth of the failings.

Applying the relevant statutory provisions and the guidance in Senior Traffic Commissioner Statutory Document 10, the case was assessed as severe. The operator could not be trusted to comply with the operator licensing regime in the future, and the conduct was such that the operator ought to be put out of business. The operator therefore lost its good repute, making revocation of the licence mandatory.

The licence was revoked, allowing a short period for the transport operation to be wound down. That period was granted on the strict basis that no vehicle would be operated unlawfully or in breach of the licence conditions.

The appointed transport manager also lost their good repute because there was no evidence of continuous and effective management of the transport operation. The absence of engagement and oversight meant the transport manager shared responsibility for the operator’s compliance failures.

Given the loss of good repute and the need to protect road safety and fair competition, disqualification was considered necessary. The operator, its director and the transport manager were each disqualified for three years. The period of disqualification was intended to allow time for reflection, remediation and any future reconsideration of how compliant goods vehicle operations should be managed.