OLCIS eNews – November 2025

Tuesday 25 November 2025

Welcome to the November 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.

News round-up

Updated Statutory Document on Vocational Driver Conduct released

The Traffic Commissioners for Great Britain consulted on changes to the Statutory Document on vocational driver conduct from 17 April – 29 May 2025, with the aim of:

• Achieving consistent regulatory outcomes for drivers by considering the risk they pose to other road users.
• The referral and starting points for regulatory action against drivers.
• The delegation of matters to staff acting on behalf of Traffic Commissioners.
• The use of case studies in the document.

Logistics UK replied to the consultation, and the outcome was published on 7 November alongside a summary of responses and an updated Statutory Document.

Members can find the consultation outcome here, and the full range of Statutory documents can be found here.

New Road Transport Operator Licensing System launched in Republic of Ireland

The Road Transport Operator Licensing Division of the Department of Transport launched the new RTOL online system on 10 November 2025 at www.rtol.ie. This modern platform replaces the previous licensing system and website, offering a secure, efficient and fully online experience for road transport operator licensing.

Neither paper application forms nor cheques are longer accepted.

DVSA Chief Executive steps down

It was announced on 11 November that DVSA Chief Executive, Loveday Ryder, stepped down. The announcement was made by DVSA’s Chair, Nick Bitel. Department for Transport Director General, Nick Joyce, has advised that further announcements regarding leadership will be made as soon as possible.

DVLA’s Assessing fitness to drive updated

The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) has updated ‘Assessing fitness to drive: a guide for medical professionals’.

As part of this update, the Diabetes mellitus chapter incorporates the law change which allows Group 2 drivers to use Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems (CGMS) whilst driving.

Updates have also been made to several other chapters, such as neurological disorders, cardiovascular disorders psychiatric disorders and drug or alcohol misuse or dependence.

Top questions this month at the Member Advice Centre

Q. Do we need to inform the Traffic Commissioner when a driver receives a notification to attend a speed awareness course?

A. The Office of the Traffic Commissioner’s statutory guidance on driver conduct says that there are occasions when drivers are offered awareness courses as an alternative to prosecution, conviction and endorsements. Whilst this is most common for speeding offences, it may also be offered for other offences. In the normal course of events, the Traffic Commissioner will not be aware of the offer of an awareness course, but to ensure a consistent and fair approach, they are of the belief that the attendance of an awareness course should be treated as an offence and should therefore be notified within 28 days.

Q. We are in the process of changing the livery on the vehicles. We are looking at having the vehicle vinal wrapped with an image. Do we need to change the vehicles logbook and if so, what colour should we record.

You should always inform the DVLA of any changes to the vehicle including its colour. The guidance on changing vehicle details on a V5 registration certificate explains when you should inform the DVLA of any changes. In regards of images and full coverage of the vehicle, the DVLA would accept the colour that appears most in the design to appear on the vehicle’s logbook.

Q. I have been asked by a member of staff as to the reason for the missing mileage register and what is the minimum distance that must be recorded?

A. Unfortunately, there is nothing written in law for missing mileage, however in an Upper Tribunal case, the Traffic Commissioner has referred to the failure of the operator to manage the missing mileage as a reason for a decision.

It also is sited in Statutory document 1: Good repute and fitness. Similarly, where the Traffic Commissioner finds that the operator had no knowledge of the breaches, they will also give serious consideration as to whether the operator can continue to satisfy the repute requirement as the operator should have been complying with the relevant undertaking. Missing mileage and a failure to retain or keep full records can often result in the remaining records being false as they may not show the true position.

There is no mention of the minimum distance that needs to be recorded, however, the enforcement officers would use their discretion on the amount of movement a vehicle would do when being shunted around in an operating centre.

Compliance news: around the courts

Background

An application was made for a restricted goods vehicle operator’s licence to authorise one vehicle and two trailers.

The application attracted a significant number of representations to the Traffic Commissioners office from local residents, as well as an objection from the Council as a statutory objector.

All representations were deemed to be duly made from the papers and were treated as valid representations on environmental grounds.

Due to the interest in the application, the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) were asked by the Traffic Commissioners office to undertake a report into the suitability of the proposed operating centre. Two Traffic Examiners (TE) undertook an investigation into the proposed operating centre. They determined that the operating centre would be suitable for a 7.5t to be allowed to operate from this yard, with recommendations of where the vehicles should enter and exit the site.

Given the number of rightfully made representations and the contents of the report received from the TE’s, the Traffic Commissioner initially proposed several conditions to try and reach an amicable resolution. These included:

• A maximum vehicle size of 7.5t.
• The requirement for vehicles authorised under the licence to enter and exit the site in specific places.
• Time restrictions on the operation within the operating centre.

The proposed undertakings were accepted by the applicant but were refused by a range of representors when their consideration was requested. A public inquiry was arranged with invitations issued to the applicant, the statutory objector and all valid representors.

Ahead of the hearing, the Traffic Commissioner undertook a site visit. When the Traffic Commissioner arrived at the location of the operating centre they observed 18 pedestrians, 56 cars/vans, one cyclist and a refuse collection vehicle passing the site three times on its rounds. The Traffic Commissioner also familiarised themself with the locations of the valid representors as well as the surrounding area and road network.

Before the Public Inquiry, the Traffic Commissioner received copies of reports the applicant had prepared in advance. These included a noise impact assessment, a site risk assessment and a swept path analysis showing how vehicles would enter and exit using the existing entrance and a newly built exit further along the property boundary.

Evidence

The Public Inquiry was attended by its sole director, and the representors of the Council were in attendance with legal representation. Additionally, the two TE’s were also in attendance, as were nine of the valid representors.

The Traffic Commissioner commenced by setting out, for the benefit of all in attendance, the limitation of their jurisdiction, highlighting what powers they have. The Traffic Commissioner also set out what the statutory objector and the valid representors could, lawfully, raise as concerns.

The Traffic Commissioner first heard from the applicant, then the DVSA, followed by the Council and then they gave time for each representor in attendance to provide their evidence. The applicant was then afforded a right of response.

The Traffic Commissioner commented that all applicants bear the legal burden of proof throughout the application process to satisfy the Traffic Commissioner that the application meets the minimum statutory requirements for it to be granted. The standard of proof is the civil law standard, the balance of probabilities, in fewer words what is more likely than not to have occurred or would occur.

The DVSA also have the same burden and standard of proof to prove any allegations that they have made.

The statutory objector and the valid representors must also satisfy the same burden and standard of proof. Representors therefore are required to prove that any of the issues they raised would be capable of prejudicially affecting the use or enjoyment of their land.

The Traffic Commissioner explained the idea of an “operating centre” and what that is. The definition of an operating centre is the place where vehicles specified on the operator’s licence will normally be kept when not in use. The term “normally” means for most of the time. Therefore an “operating centre” is the area defined on the plan submitted to a Traffic Commissioner where vehicles will be parked up, for most of the time, when not in use.

The Traffic Commissioner was only concerned with the actual operating centre itself and where any entry and exit/exit to or from the operating centre first joins the public road. When considering this application, which representors argued would cause damage to the road with the proposed number of goods vehicles being driven on it, the Traffic Commissioner stated that once an application is approved, vehicles on a public road (a road that is maintained at public expense) falls outside of the Traffic Commissioners jurisdiction and into the jurisdiction of the local authority responsible for maintaining that road.

The Traffic Commissioner also has jurisdiction in relation to the operation of the vehicles that are normally kept at the operating centre for activities within, or directly linked to, the operating centre which includes loading, unloading, maintenance, washing, lighting, noise generation, dust produced, fumes generated and vibration caused by the operation of those vehicles.

The operating centre had been visited three times by DVSA Traffic Examiners. On only the first occasion, before the site was developed, was it considered to be suitable. Since then, both assessments concluded that it was not. The Traffic Commissioner continued that the proposed site created a road safety risk.

Summing up

The Traffic Commissioner was not satisfied that the proposed conditions/undertakings, or any other conditions/undertakings available to them, including the use of banksman, would provide necessary confidence of effective mitigation to allow the nominated site to be granted. Having found that the proposed operating centre was unsuitable, the Traffic Commissioner, having further found there were not suitable conditions/undertakings that they could attach to the granting of the operator’s licence to sufficiently mitigate the reasons for their findings.

Therefore, this application for a restricted goods vehicle operator licence was refused under Section 13(5) of the Act, which makes it a mandatory requirement that the Traffic Commissioner must refuse an application.