| Background
A standard international operator came under investigation after enforcement officers repeatedly observed a vehicle being used on public roads despite claims that it was only being moved for testing purposes.
An unannounced roadside fleet inspection subsequently revealed serious vehicle and trailer defects, with most of the vehicles examined receiving prohibitions. Investigators found evidence that some defects had previously been identified during maintenance inspections but had not been rectified before vehicles were returned to service.
Further enquiries highlighted significant weaknesses in the operator’s maintenance systems, record keeping and compliance controls. Analysis of tachograph records revealed substantial unexplained mileage, possible falsified records and potential drivers’ hours infringements. Evidence also suggested that driver cards had been removed during journeys to conceal driving time and working time offences.
Given the seriousness of the concerns identified, the operator and transport manager were called to a PI, while several drivers were summoned to separate driver conduct hearings.
The operator subsequently attempted to surrender its licence. However, the application was refused because regulatory action was already under consideration by the Traffic Commissioner.
Evidence
Although several vehicles remained specified on the operator’s licence, evidence suggested that the transport operation had largely ceased trading by the time of the hearing. No substantive representations, supporting evidence or explanations were submitted on behalf of the operator before the inquiry.
The investigation uncovered widespread failings in relation to drivers’ hours and tachograph compliance. Numerous infringements were identified, including driver card offences, missing mileage and falsified records. The operator admitted that missing mileage reports were not being reviewed, and investigators later discovered that vehicle unit data had not been downloaded. The Traffic Commissioner described this as a fundamental failure of compliance management.
Maintenance controls were found to be equally poor. Brake performance testing was rarely undertaken, and many preventative maintenance inspections (PMIs) were completed late, in some cases by several months. Inspection records frequently identified defects that should have been reported by drivers, but no corresponding driver defect reports existed.
In a number of cases, safety-critical defects had been identified during maintenance inspections, yet vehicles were signed off as roadworthy before repairs had been completed. Many of the defects subsequently resulted in prohibitions when vehicles were examined by enforcement officers.
The Traffic Commissioner found that maintenance records were consistently substandard and that defects reported by drivers were not always acted upon. Overall, the operation was found to have descended into serious disorder, with little evidence of effective management or compliance control.
The investigation also revealed that a vehicle had been used repeatedly without a valid MOT and that another vehicle had operated for several months without valid vehicle excise duty.
Summing up
Separate driver conduct hearings formed part of the wider case. While some drivers attended, others were considered on the documentary evidence alone.
The Traffic Commissioner imposed a range of sanctions reflecting the seriousness of the offences involved and the level of engagement shown by individual drivers. One driver received a short suspension after driving without a driver card, making a false manual entry and committing multiple drivers’ hours infringements. Credit was given for cooperation with the investigation and attendance at the hearing.
Another driver received the most severe sanction, with their vocational entitlement revoked and a lengthy period of disqualification issued after using another driver’s card as well as driving without a card. A company director who occasionally undertook driving duties also received a substantial suspension for driving without a card. Several other drivers received suspensions of varying lengths.
The Traffic Commissioner noted that one driver’s failure to engage with the investigation prevented any mitigation from being considered. By contrast, another driver received a shorter suspension after evidence showed that he was new to the industry, had received limited training and support, and had raised concerns about the schedules he was expected to meet.
The conduct of the transport manager was also examined. Written representations were submitted, although the transport manager did not attend the inquiry. It was explained that the business had expanded rapidly and that requests for additional support had not been provided.
While some credit was given for recognising that the operation had become increasingly difficult to manage, the Traffic Commissioner concluded that this did not excuse the extensive compliance failures. In particular, the transport manager had failed to identify serious tachograph irregularities, ensure vehicles were properly maintained or prevent inaccurate information being provided during the investigation.
The Traffic Commissioner concluded that the transport manager had lost good repute and determined that any future return to the role should be supported by practical experience working alongside a competent transport manager.
Turning to the operator, the Traffic Commissioner found that the failings were not isolated incidents but reflected a pattern of deliberate or knowingly permitted non-compliance. The case involved significant shortcomings in drivers’ hours management, tachograph controls, vehicle maintenance and roadworthiness, together with misleading information provided during the investigation.
Although the business had already begun winding down, this was one of the few mitigating factors identified. The Traffic Commissioner concluded that the operator could not be trusted to run a compliant transport operation in future and that the risks posed to road safety and fair competition justified the strongest regulatory response.
The operator’s licence was revoked with immediate effect on multiple grounds, including loss of good repute, loss of professional competence, failures relating to drivers’ hours and vehicle maintenance, lack of effective management control and loss of financial standing. The transport manager was disqualified from acting in that capacity for a period of time and required to demonstrate practical learning before returning to the role.
The company and its director were also disqualified indefinitely from holding or obtaining a goods vehicle operator’s licence, although an application may be made in future for the disqualification to be reviewed. |
