Decision

Decision for Monica Jarvis & Stephen Wayne Jarvis T/A Globe Coaches (PG0006010) & Transport Manager, Stephen Wayne Jarvis

Published 16 November 2022

0.1 In the Welsh Traffic Area

1. Written Decision of the Traffic Commissioner

1.1 Monica Jarvis & Stephen Wayne Jarvis T/A Globe Coaches (PG0006010) & Transport Manager, Stephen Wayne Jarvis

2. Background

Monica Jarvis and Stephen Wayne Jarvis T/A Globe Coaches hold a standard national PSV licence PG0006010, granted in 1993. Mr Jarvis is also the nominated transport manager on the licence. The operator’s compliance history includes a public inquiry hearing on 22 September 2003, a public inquiry hearing on 12 June 2012 and a public inquiry hearing on 1 September 2019. At the most recent public inquiry the vehicle authorisation was reduced from 21 to 18 vehicles and the good repute and professional competence of the operator was found to be tarnished but retained. Mr Jarvis retained his repute as transport manager albeit it was severely tarnished. He was warned that a further PI was likely to result in loss of repute.

The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (“DVSA”) conducted an announced maintenance investigation on 15 March 2021. The results of the investigation were unsatisfactory and found that:

• Safety inspection records were not properly completed, specifically in relation to brake performance assessment and inspection intervals were exceeded;
• An undertaking given at a previous public inquiry that a rolling brake test be carried out at every other inspection was not adhered to;
• Driver defect reports recorded defects but there was no evidence of action being taken to rectify those or sign off vehicle as fit for use;
• Maintenance facilities were found to be unsatisfactory and the nominated maintenance provider stated on the licence no longer being used;
• A prohibition was issued at fleet check for a vehicle door not being able to open from outside and an insecure seat belt receiver was also found which attracted a prohibition. The vehicle had been used that morning but was marked as VOR and used on service without a safety inspection:
• MOT test history fail rate significantly higher than the national average;
• Mechanical prohibition rate significantly higher than the national average.

The DVSA had also conducted a bus compliance monitoring exercise between 7 November 2020 and 13 March 2021 over 6 days. They found that of the 40 journeys seen, 9 were more than a minute early and 2 were more than 5 minutes late, representing an overall non- compliance rate of 27%.

3. Public Inquiry

The partnership operator Monica Jarvis & Stephen Wayne Jarvis T/A Globe Coaches was called to a public inquiry at Pontypridd on 29 September 2021 by a call-up letter dated 23 August 2021. Stephen Wayne Jarvis was called to the same public inquiry in his capacity as transport manager by a call-up letter of the same date.

The day before the hearing, my office received a letter from Mr Jarvis (attached to an email sent at 13:42 hours on 28 September 2021). Mr Jarvis stated that he would not be attending the hearing on behalf of himself or Globe coaches. He indicated that he intends to surrender the licence on 1st November 2021 when the fleet insurance is due for renewal and the business will close from that date. As for his personal repute as transport manager, he stated “it is really irrelevant as it will not be required in retirement.” In view of Mr Jarvis’ letter, the DVSA Vehicle Examiner, Mr Cooke, was advised not to attend the hearing as his evidence would not be contested.

The call-up letter directed the operator to provide evidence of its financial standing seven days in advance of the hearing. It failed to produce any evidence of finances. It was also asked to provide original maintenance records for all vehicles for the last 6 months, its maintenance contract, Forward Planner, evidence of systems for managing its drivers and anything else to show it is a compliant operator or is taking steps to address the failings identified. It failed to provide any evidence in advance of the hearing. Mr Jarvis, as transport manager, was asked to provide his own evidence including the documents referred to above, and anything else which would show he is a compliant transport manager. He failed to do so.

On the day of the inquiry, Mr Anthony Richardson, Senior Transport Officer from Rhondda Cynon Taf Local Authority (“RCT”) attended. Shortly before the public inquiry was due to start Mr Stephen Jarvis arrived, although without any of the evidence that had been called for. Monica Jarvis, the other partner in the business, is Stephen Jarvis’ mother, aged 85. She did not attend or make any representations.

When I asked Mr Jarvis why he had attended, given his letter sent the previous day advising that he would not be present, he stated that he had received an “out of office” message from the intended recipient in my office and so was unsure that it had been received. He stated that he did not intend to defend the case against him and had not provided evidence of financial standing or ongoing maintenance operator/transport manager compliance because he did not intend to continue in operation and would be quite happy not to operate from tomorrow if that was to be my decision. The Local Authority had apparently encouraged him to attend the hearing during a conversation yesterday.

Mr Jarvis did not contest any of the written evidence included in the public inquiry brief but did ask me to take into consideration the reason why some of the inspection report periods were exceeded. He explained that this was because inspections are carried out monthly (rather than 4 weekly, as stated on the licence), which meant that some of those were technically due in the next ISO period and so recorded as late. He accepted that he had failed to comply with the undertaking regarding roller brake testing frequency given in July 2019 but, in mitigation, stated that during the Covid lockdown, it had been difficult to arrange for tests and he had apparently now installed his own brake testing equipment (though no evidence of purchase was provided). In relation to MOT test history, Mr Jarvis was unable to explain why his initial and final rates were 5 times the national average, and with a high number of fails for brake operation and performance issues (15 between April 2016 and August 2021) and for door/emergency exit issues (9 during that period). Mr Jarvis stated that vehicles put forward for MOT since the date of the report in the PI Brief (i.e since 25 August 2021) had passed but, again, he presented no evidence to substantiate that assertion.

Mr Anthony Richardson, Senior Transport Officer from RCT confirmed that the operator currently operates 6 school contracts for RCT and 1 service for children with Special Educational Needs. These services carry more than 300 children from home to school every day. In addition, the operator is contracted to provide 2 local registered services and a registered service run on behalf of a Health Board – a shuttle bus which runs between a train station and the local hospital. This requires an absolute minimum of 10 vehicles. When asked what contingency arrangements RCT had made should my decision be to revoke the licence held by Monica and Stephen Jarvis, T/A Globe Coaches, Mr Richardson replied that none had been made. When I asked why not, he stated that RCT were not sure that the public inquiry would go ahead because of Covid problems and that they were hoping Mr Jarvis would change his mind about his decision “not to defend the charges.” Mr Richardson’s evidence was that RCT would face huge difficulties if the operator’s licence were to be revoked with immediate effect. RCT was already aware of the operator’s intention to cease operating from 1 November 2021 but had hoped that it would carry on until the end of the calendar or financial year. It would take RCT some time to put in place alternative arrangements to service the school contracts and 2 registered local service contracts, which were not considered attractive to operators and served isolated areas and communities.

In the absence of any evidence to demonstrate that the operator is currently operating its vehicles to the required safety standards and that the 10 vehicles being used to service these contracts are all within the required 4 week safety inspection period, I indicated to Mr Jarvis that I would be prepared to adjourn the morning hearing until later that afternoon to allow him to provide me with that documentary evidence (i.e. PMI reports for the 10 vehicles he requires to run the RCT services). I indicated that I’d be content for him to arrange for someone else to bring those to him at the public inquiry venue, or to give him 3 or 4 hours to go to the operating centre and get the documentation himself (the operator is based some 10 miles away at Aberdare). However, Mr Jarvis stated that he was not prepared to do that and invited me to revoke the licence, given that he “didn’t come here to defend it”.

4. Findings

The operator has failed to produce any evidence of finances. I am therefore unable to conclude that it has the required level of financial standing, which is a mandatory ground for licence revocation (section 17(1)(a) of the Act refers).

It is clear that inspection records were not properly completed as to brake performance, with key data missing and some recorded percentages on inspections sheets differing significantly from those on brake printout records. This is concerning as brake issues have been highlighted as a concern at previous public inquiries, and brake issues have been the cause of a high number of the operator’s MOT failures. Inspection intervals were exceeded on several occasions, although I do not have evidence from DVSA to show how often or by how long. I do accept the evidence of Mr Jarvis in that regard that this was because he planned by calendar month and not four weekly. Accordingly, I find that section 17(3)(a) of the Act is made out.

The evidence is clear, and accepted by Mr Jarvis, that he failed to comply with the undertaking imposed by the traffic commissioner at public inquiry in July 2019 which required rolling road brake tests to be conducted, as a minimum, at every other safety inspection. The operator also failed to comply with the undertaking on the licence to operate an effective driver defect reporting system and to keep proper records as there were some records which showed defects but no corresponding evidence to show that those defects had been rectified or vehicles signed off as fit for use. I find that section 17(3)(aa) of the Act is made out.

The maintenance facilities at the time of inspection were unsatisfactory and the nominated maintenance provider specified on the operator’s licence was no longer being used, in breach of the licence conditions. A prohibition was issued by the DVSA during its inspection when the examiner found a vehicle door that could not open and an insecure seatbelt receiver. That vehicle had been used that morning, whilst marked as VOR and without a safety inspection prior to use. The operator’s MOT final test failure history is significantly higher than the national average at 44.44% (cf 8.27%) as is its Mechanical Prohibition rate – 43.75% (cf 16.35%). On further analysis of the reasons for the failures and prohibitions, I find it particularly concerning that an operator who carries school children and members of the public should have so many test failures and prohibitions due to brake issues and door defects. The operator has contravened the conditions of its licence to keep vehicles fit and serviceable and I find that section 17(3)(b) of the Act is made out.

By failing to provide financial evidence and maintenance records in advance of the public inquiry, as required, the operator has shown that it is not fit to hold an operating licence. Even when given the opportunity to return later in the day with the current safety inspection records pertaining to 10 of its vehicles, Mr Jarvis showed no inclination to co-operate and this also goes to the question of repute as an operator and transport manager. I find that there has been a material change in the circumstances of the licence holder, namely that the operator no longer remains of the required fitness and repute nor does it have the requisite financial standing. I find that section 17(3)(e) of the Act is made out and that the operator has lost its repute and no longer satisfies the requirements of section 14ZA(2) of the Act.

In light of the above findings, it is clear that Mr Jarvis as transport manager was completely failing to exercise the required continuous and effective management. He was warned at the last public inquiry that a further public inquiry would likely result in loss of his repute and, in evidence, he stated that was why he wasn’t going to come to this inquiry. In the absence of any documentary evidence to show how he was demonstrating compliance with his transport manager duties, Mr Jarvis was invited to give oral evidence to explain how he was doing so. Other than referring to a refresher course that he attended and a course on the working time directive requirements (which was an undertaking imposed at a previous public inquiry), Mr Jarvis did not put forward any evidence. The loss of his good repute as a transport manager is inevitable and I find that he no longer satisfies the requirements of section 14ZA(3) of the Act.

5. Considerations and Decisions

The operator lacks financial standing and (now) lacks professional competence, since I have found that the transport manager lacks good repute and so must be disqualified. Revocation of the licence under section 17(1)(a) and under section 17(1)(b) is therefore mandatory.

In considering when the revocation should take effect, I have taken into account the effect of such action on RCT and have had regard to Mr Richardson’s representations about that. RCT contacted my office during the first week of September 2021 to register an interest in this case and indicate that they would like to attend. I was therefore very surprised to hear from Mr Richardson that RCT had made no contingency arrangements to cover the school services or the two local registered services currently run by this operator. They had known about this inquiry, and the inevitable possibility that I would revoke this licence, for some weeks. There was no suggestion that the hearing would not proceed because of “Covid problems”. Indeed, officials at RCT had been in contact with my office regarding the hearing date and who would be in attendance from RCT, and we have been conducting face to face hearings in Pontypridd since mid March when the new Hearing venue opened.

This has placed me in a difficult position as I must balance the risk of allowing this operator to continue operating 7 school contracts, a hospital shuttle bus and 2 registered local services, against the effects of immediate revocation. I am told by RCT that, if I were to revoke the licence with immediate effect, that would mean the services simply could not run. This would inevitably result in serious disruption for children, parents, schools, patients and the travelling public in the Rhondda Cynon Taf local authority area. I was asked to allow the operator to continue operating until the date on which he has already decided to cease trading, i.e until 1 November 2021.

As the operator failed to provide any current safety inspection reports, I cannot be satisfied that the 10 vehicles required to run these services meet the required standards. That is why I invited Mr Jarvis to produce these, following an adjournment for that purpose, on the day of the inquiry. He was not prepared to do so. To address my concerns about road safety I will ask DVSA to do a fleet inspection of this operator’s vehicles as a matter of urgency. Should there be any serious safety concerns about any vehicle they will be able to prohibit its use pending rectification. It is proportionate to curtail the licence from 18 vehicles down to 10 and I do so with effect from 23:45 hours tomorrow, 1 October 2021.

I will allow a period of running down to allow RCT to make alternative arrangements for the school transport services and local registered services. I revoke the licence with effect from 23:45 hours on 22 October, which is the last day of school before half term.

In view of my findings, I have concluded that the operator deserves to be disqualified under section 28 of the Transport Act 1985 from holding an operator’s licence in the future. In deciding upon the length of the disqualification, I have taken account of paragraph 100 of the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document 10. This suggests a starting point of between one and three years for a first public inquiry. This is the operator’s fourth public inquiry and it failed to heed the warning of the traffic commissioner in 2019 who was prepared to allow the operator an opportunity to demonstrate that it could run a compliant operator’s licence for a reduced number of vehicles. The operator has failed to do so and I found this to be a serious case involving a breach of trust which goes to the heart of the licensing regime.

Taking account of all the circumstances, I consider disqualification to be necessary to meet the objectives of the operator licensing regime and have decided to disqualify Monica Jarvis and Stephen Wayne Jarvis from holding an operator’s licence for a period of five years.

That period is proportionate, appropriate, and in line with the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s guidelines.

Having concluded that Mr Jarvis’ good repute as transport manager is lost I must also disqualify him under paragraph 7B of Schedule 3 to the Act from being a transport manager on any licence. For the same reasons which have led me to conclude that a five year disqualification from holding a licence is appropriate, I am disqualifying him from acting as a transport manager for the period of five years.

As a rehabilitation measure, I also set the requirement for Mr Jarvis to re-sit the Transport Manager CPC qualification. Should Mr Jarvis wish to be appointed as a transport manager in the future, he will require to appear before a traffic commissioner to determine whether his repute should be restored.

Victoria Davies

Traffic Commissioner for Wales

30 September 2021