Decision

Decision for Chesterfield Transporters Ltd

Published 8 March 2024

0.1 IN THE NORTH WEST OF ENGLAND TRAFFIC AREA

1. CHESTERFIELD TRANSPORTERS LTD OC2060378

2. CONFIRMATION OF ORAL DECISION OF THE DEPUTY TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER

2.1 In the matter of the Goods Vehicle (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995

3. Public Inquiry held at Golborne on 21 February 2023

3.1 THIS DECISION CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION. THE RELEVANT SECTIONS INDICATED IN BOLD AND BETWEEN SQUARE BRACKETS ARE NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF THE PRESIDING COMMISSIONER

4. Introduction

Chesterfield Transporters Ltd (“the applicant company”) submitted an application on 12 October 2022 for a new standard international goods vehicle licence authorising the use of 3 large goods vehicles, 1 trailer and 3 light goods vehicles.

The sole director of the applicant company is Ross Andrew Brusby.

The application was initially referred to me as a previous application by the applicant company with Mr Brusby as director was considered at a public inquiry in 2017. [REDACTED.] The presiding Traffic Commissioner refused the application as he did not consider Mr Brusby had [REDACTED] established his good repute at that time.

When the current application weas brought to my attention in 2023, I determined that the position had moved on. [REDACTED].

[REDACTED,] I was concerned to learn about a DVSA encounter in 2019 with one of the Operator’s recovery vehicles in 2019. The vehicle was overloaded and had mechanical defects. The driver was not qualified to drive a vehicle of that type.

The applicant company was asked to give an account about the encounter. Mr Brusby responded by conceding the company had been prosecuted for offences arising from the encounter. That prosecution was not disclosed on the application. Mr Brusby said that following the incident he had introduced regular driving licence checks and improved monitoring of driver walk around checks as well as training on safe loading.

I had some reservations about the applicant’s ability to operate compliantly given this encounter and determined that an interim licence should be granted to allow the applicant to demonstrated it could be trusted before full grant was considered.   An interim licence for the fixed period of 6 months came into force on 23 February 2023. It was subject to two conditions to be satisfied before the expiry date, namely that a full 3 months of financial evidence would be submitted together with a full independent compliance audit report.

The financial evidence was submitted as required and was satisfactory.

The audit was conducted by the RHA on 1 August 2023 but was not submitted to my office until 31 August 2023. The applicant company blamed this on a delay by the RHA.

Of more concern the audit recorded several issues with the management of the interim licence including:

• The use of self-employed drivers.

• PMIs not audited for driver detectable defects.

• PMIs did not include tyre depth or brake testing.

In response, the applicant company indicated that all drivers will be moved over to PAYE within a month. It also said the other issues had been addressed or would be resolved shortly.

I found the audit indicted that the most basic of systems were absent or had only belatedly been introduced. Consequently, I did not consider that I could trust the applicant company to be compliant and found good repute had not been shown nor had the specific requirements of the Act relating to maintenance and driver management arrangements been demonstrated.

I proposed to refuse the application and the applicant company requested that this public inquiry be held to further consider the matter. The interim licence was not extended.

In advance of the hearing, the applicant company nominated Jonathan Thrower as its transport manager in place of the individual appointed during the interim licence period.

4.1 The Call to Public Inquiry

The applicant company was called up to public inquiry by letter dated 8 January 2024.

The call up letter gave notice that the specific requirements of Sections 13A(2)(b), 13A(2)(c) and 13A(3) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (“the Act”) were to be considered together with the other provisions in Sections 13A, 13C and 13D of the Act.

5. The Public Inquiry

The Public Inquiry was heard at Golborne today. The applicant company was represented by its director Mr Brusby and proposed Transport Manager, Mr Thrower.  Also present was Peter Thrower of Logico Consultants.

5.1 Evidence

In advance of the hearing, I was provided with recent financial evidence on behalf of the applicant company. This showed financial standing for the authority sought. Whilst the evidence was satisfactory for that purpose, I note there were entries indicative that drivers were still engaged on a self-employed basis.

Some limited evidence was provided of vehicle maintenance and driver management. This was also satisfactory in general although I would have been more reassured by a wider range of evidence. As the applicant company has been continuing to operate vehicles for recovery purposes, I would have expected it to have been able to provide more evidence of these matters.

Mr Brusby gave evidence today and I was impressed by his approach. He explained that he had studied for the Transport Manager CPC qualification himself last year (when he met Mr Thrower). Although he was ultimately unsuccessful at examination, the fact he had sought that professional development is to his credit. Mr Brusby also reassured me that going forward he would prefer to rely on another person to undertake TM duties.

Mr Brusby also assured me that all his drivers were now engaged on an employed basis. He explained this had taken some time to achieve as he had struggled to find enough drivers to work on that basis. He will ensure his drivers remain as employees forward.

Although Mr Thrower is newly qualified as a Transport Manager, he was able to give evidence of extensive relevant experience in the transport industry over 15 years. His answers to my questions satisfied me that he would be able to exercise effective and continuous management of the licence if granted.

Mr Peter Thrower explained that he had been engaged following the audit report last year and had found Mr Brusby very willing to accept advice and make changes where required. Mr Brusby has entered a rolling contract for the consultancy to continue to provide him with support for at least the next 12 months.

Finally, I noted Mr Brusby’s willingness to offer the undertakings above and that gives me further reassurance about the prospects of future compliance.

The decision of the Upper Tribunal in the case of Aspey Trucks Ltd (2010/49) makes clear the role of the Traffic Commissioner as the “gatekeeper” to the haulage industry, when considering new applications. Those who are allowed entry must satisfy the Traffic Commissioner of their good repute.  The test is whether I am so satisfied in respect of this application in the light of my findings that this company and its director have shown the requisite fitness. 

I am satisfied that Mr Brusby and the applicant company have done enough to persuade me that this is an applicant I can trust and allow entry into the industry.

For the reasons given above, I am satisfied that the applicant company and Mr Brusby as its sole director have demonstrated their good repute. Accordingly, I grant the licence with immediate effect but subject to a formal warning. If for any reason my confidence today in the applicant’s future compliance was shown to have been misplaced, then Mr Brusby can expect to be swiftly called back to public inquiry for regulatory action to be considered.

Gerallt Evans

Deputy Traffic Commissioner

21 February 2024