OLCIS eNews – October 2026

October 2026

Tuesday 27 October 2026

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.

New Logistics UK Compliance Report 2026

Earlier this month, Logistics UK launched The Compliance Report 2026, which provides in-depth analysis of the latest road regulation compliance performance trends across the UK logistics sector. Drawing on data from the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA), Department for Transport (DfT), Department for Infrastructure (DfI) and the Office of the Traffic Commissioner (OTC), the report also includes analysis from Logistics UK’s latest Logistics Performance Tracker. The report covers key themes such as operator licensing trends, tests and inspections, public inquiry outcomes as well as HGV drivers and vocational entitlement.

Overall, findings show that despite facing persistent cost pressures and ongoing economic uncertainty, logistics operators have continued to demonstrate exceptional levels of compliance and safety, with higher MOT pass rates, more HGVs assessed as ‘low risk’ on DVSA’s compliance rating, and fewer collisions involving HGVs than in the previous 12 months.

Members can read the report in full here.

DVLA strategic ambition 2026 – 2030 published

DVLA are the UK government organisation responsible for maintaining accurate records for more than 53 million drivers in Great Britain and 48 million vehicles across the United Kingdom. They issue driving licences, collect vehicle tax (more than £9 billion in 2025-2026), and register vehicles.

Last week (19 October), DVLA published their strategic ambition which sets out how they will focus on delivering an excellent customer service experience, maximise value of their data and create a workforce in which everyone can thrive.

Their publication can be found here.

The latest updates on DVLA’s services can also be found here, which provide details of DVLA’s most popular services, such as turnaround times for driver licence applications, driving whilst applications are with DVLA, and more.

Employment Rights Act Changes from October 2026

The next phase of the Employment Rights Act 2025 will come into effect in October 2026, introducing a range of significant changes for employers.

From 1 October 2026, the time limit for most Employment Tribunal claims increased from three months to six months, extending the period during which workplace disputes can be brought forward.

From 30 October 2026, employers will be subject to enhanced obligations to prevent workplace sexual harassment, requiring them to take all reasonable steps to protect employees, including from harassment by third parties such as customers, clients and suppliers. Further reforms relating to trade unions will also be implemented, including new workplace access rights for union representatives and additional requirements to inform workers of their right to join a trade union.

Top questions this month at the Member Advice Centre

Q – Can a driver continue driving whilst waiting for their Driver Qualification Card (DQC) to arrive, even after the deadline date, assuming all training was completed before the stated date?

A – The regulations state that a driver does not have to produce a DQC at a roadside check if the driver is awaiting their card being issued following an application to DVSA. 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.

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

Q – We carry out regular drug and alcohol testing, but we have had a driver disclose to us before he took the test that he takes cannabis oil, prescribed by the GP. He then took the test, where it was picked up. What should we do?

A – If the cannabis oil has been prescribed by a GP, then the GP has a responsibility to advise the driver about any potential side effects that could impair driving. The driver should also inform the DVLA as the medication could affect their fitness to drive. They should also inform the employer, as per company policy, about any medication that may impact their ability to operate vehicles or machinery.

As an employer, you should conduct a risk assessment to determine if the driver is fit to continue their driving duties, and if impairment is suspected, then the driver should not be allowed to drive.

In all cases, DVLA’s Assessing fitness to drive: a guide for medical professionals should be referred to when looking at medical conditions as well as drug taking. Drivers can still be prosecuted if they are found to be impaired by prescribed drugs.

Q – Our driver had their vocational licence removed by DVLA, but they still have a C1 entitlement through acquired rights. Can they drive vehicles up to 7.5t?

A – The driver legally holds a C1 entitlement through acquired rights, suggesting they passed their Category B car test before 1 January 1997. From a legal perspective, they can therefore drive vehicles up to 7.5t.

However, drivers who passed their Category B test after this date were not granted acquired rights, so in these circumstances, would not have a valid C1 entitlement and would not be able to drive these vehicles.

The question perhaps comes down to whether you determine the driver fit and suitable to drive these vehicles. The only reason they have the entitlement is by virtue of the date they passed their car test, so a robust risk assessment should take place, and perhaps a recognition that you would be happy to justify your case if required in the event of an incident.

Compliance news: around the courts

Background

A standard national goods vehicle operator held an operator’s licence authorising a fleet of vehicles and trailers. The company was managed by three directors and had changed transport managers during the period relevant to the investigation.

The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) commenced an investigation following a roadside encounter involving a vehicle displaying the operator’s licence disc. During that investigation concerns emerged regarding:

• The possible use of vehicles by another business that did not hold an operator’s licence.
• The relationship between the licence holder and a separate transport business whose applications for an operator’s licence had been refused.
• The extent to which the licence holder co-operated with the DVSA investigation.

The Office of the Traffic Commissioner initially proposed revocation of the operator’s licence due to alleged failures to engage with the DVSA investigation. The operator requested a public inquiry and asserted that any compliance concerns related to the actions of a former transport manager who had subsequently left the business. The operator also claimed that compliance systems had since been strengthened, although no supporting evidence was provided.

Prior to the inquiry, the operator and both transport managers were given formal notice of the hearing and were directed to provide financial evidence, maintenance records, driver records and confirmation of attendance. None of these directions were complied with.

On the day before the inquiry, one director requested an adjournment on medical grounds. The Traffic Commissioner refused the application, noting that the company had three directors, had failed to comply with any case management directions and had ample opportunity to prepare for the hearing.

Neither the operator nor either transport manager attended the public inquiry.

Evidence

DVSA identified several vehicles specified on the operator’s licence that were allegedly being operated by a separate company.

Evidence obtained during the investigation included:

• Invoices linking transport work undertaken by the separate company to vehicles specified on the operator’s licence.
• Records showing that drivers using the vehicles were employed by the separate company rather than the licence holder.
• Vehicle and tachograph records provided by the separate company in response to DVSA requests.
• Vehicle ownership and leasing arrangements connecting the vehicles to individuals and businesses associated with the separate company.

The investigation also identified links between:

• The separate company.
• Previously revoked operator licences.
• Previously refused operator licence applications.
• Common directors, transport managers and associated businesses.

DVSA concluded that the separate company was conducting transport operations using vehicles authorised under the operator’s licence of the licence holder.

DVSA documented repeated attempts to communicate with the licence holder during the investigation.

According to the evidence:

• Interview requests were postponed and never rearranged.
• Telephone contact attempts were unsuccessful.
• Responses to emails were frequently delayed.
• A written statement requested by DVSA was never supplied.

At the conclusion of the investigation, no substantive response had been received from the operator.

The Traffic Commissioner found that the operator:

• Failed to provide financial standing evidence.
• Failed to provide maintenance records.
• Failed to provide driver records.
• Failed to confirm attendance.
• Failed to submit any written representations.

The Traffic Commissioner regarded this as a significant failure to engage with the regulatory process.

The evidence demonstrated that the alleged licence lending arrangements occurred while the former transport manager was responsible for transport compliance.

The Traffic Commissioner found that either:

• The transport manager knew about the arrangement and failed to prevent it.
• The transport manager did not know about it and therefore failed to exercise continuous and effective management.
• The former transport manager was also associated with licence applications made by the separate company that had previously been refused.
• The former transport manager did not attend the inquiry.

Although the current transport manager had not been in post when the original conduct occurred, concerns remained because:

• The vehicles identified during the investigation continued to be specified on the licence.
• No explanation was provided regarding the arrangements.
• No evidence was presented demonstrating continuous and effective management.
• The transport manager failed to attend the inquiry.

Summing up

The Traffic Commissioner found that licence lending had occurred, with vehicles authorised under one operator’s licence being operated by another company that did not hold the necessary operator licence. The Traffic Commissioner regards licence lending as a particularly serious breach because it undermines the operator licensing system and allows transport operations to take place outside the approved regulatory framework.

The Traffic Commissioner was also critical of the operator’s conduct throughout the investigation and inquiry process. The operator failed to engage adequately with the DVSA investigation, did not comply with directions issued before the public inquiry, failed to provide evidence of corrective action, and did not attend the hearing. In the absence of any meaningful engagement, there was no evidence to demonstrate that the issues identified had been addressed or that future compliance could be relied upon.

As a result, the Traffic Commissioner concluded that the operator had lost its good repute and could no longer be trusted to comply with the requirements of the operator licensing regime. The seriousness of the conduct was such that removal from the industry was considered justified.

The operator’s licence was therefore revoked, and the company was disqualified from holding or obtaining an operator’s licence for a specified period.

The Traffic Commissioner also found that both the former and current transport managers had lost their good repute. In each case, this was due to a failure to demonstrate continuous and effective management of the transport operation, a failure to comply with directions issued by the Traffic Commissioner, and a failure to attend the public inquiry when their good repute was under consideration. Both transport managers were consequently disqualified from acting as transport managers, subject to the statutory process for restoration of good repute.

Although the directors were criticised for their lack of engagement with the investigation and inquiry process, no personal disqualification orders were made against them. However, the Traffic Commissioner noted that the findings in the case would be relevant to the assessment of any future operator licence applications involving those individuals.

Overall, the case was determined by the finding that the operator had permitted another business to operate vehicles under its licence, together with its failure to engage with both the DVSA investigation and the public inquiry process. These factors led to the revocation of the operator’s licence, the company’s disqualification, and the loss of good repute of both transport managers.