Decision

Decision for Sunbeam Coaches

Published 30 June 2021

0.1 IN THE EASTERN TRAFFIC AREA

1. SUNBEAM LUXURY COACHES LTD – PF0000097

1.1 AND

2. GARY JOHN COLDHAM – TRANSPORT MANAGER

3. TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER’S WRITTEN DECISION

4. Background

Sunbeam Luxury Coaches Ltd holds a Standard International Public Service Vehicle Operator’s Licence authorising 7 vehicles. The Directors are Gerald Malcolm Coldham and Gary John Coldham. Recent correspondence suggests that Gary Coldham believed that it was for the company accountants to notify of that appointment. Gary Coldham is also the Transport Manager and has acted in that capacity since 17 November 2011.

There is one Operating Centre: Westgate Street, Hevingham, Norwich NR10 5NH. The licensing record indicates that Gary John Coldham undertakes the Preventative Maintenance Inspections of vehicles at 6-weekly intervals. Correspondence from the operator indicates that inspections are now undertaken by a full-time mechanic, with previous experience at a Scania main dealer.

The licence commenced in August 1993. The operator’s representations indicate that the operator was incorporated in 1966 with Gerard Coldham and John Cole as the founding directors. On 3 June 2020, the operator lodged a variation application to increase authority to 9 vehicles. The operator supplied photographs of the yard, on 8 June 2020. Those were not sufficient to demonstrate how the operator would comply with the requirements of the licence, if the variation were granted as from the photos, it was unclear how 9 vehicles would be able to park in the area, further information was requested. This was supplied in an email dated 11 June 2020 with further images.

During the processing of the variation application, it was also noted that Mr Gary Coldham has been a director on the licence since 2014 but not registered on the licence. Mr Coldham signed the licence continuation from in July 2018 without being specified on the licence. Correspondence was sent to Mr Coldham to address this to which he responded and stated that in January 2014 his father had experienced a period of ill-health in January 2014.

Due to the above, the operator was called to a preliminary hearing on 13 April 2021. The call-up letter was sent on 9 March 2021. On 12 March 2021, an email was received from Mr Gary Coldham, in which he indicated that he was due to undergo a medical procedure, following which he would be unable to drive for 10-14 days and would not be able to lodge the requested evidence. No explanation was given as to why the other named Director or other employee(s) could not assist. I, therefore, reviewed the decision to call to a Preliminary Hearing and determined that a full Public Inquiry would be required, thereby protecting the rights of the operator, and allowing further time for it to prepare.

Subsequent correspondence received from the operator dated 30 March 2021 has confirmed the need to consider matters within the requirements of a Public Inquiry. This confirmed that Gerald Coldham first suffered health issues approximately 10 years ago which prevented him from working. I was not notified of those changes at the time. He then returned to work until 3 or 4 years ago when a serious episode resulted in what Gary Coldham terms ‘wholesale changes in the structure of the company’. Gary Coldham records that the operator employed some-one to take over all his father’s duties, whilst Gary Coldham concentrated on maintenance and records. According to Gary Coldham, that did not prove to be effective and 2 years ago he took on all the management and Transport Manager duties. It is now clear that in renewing the licence, he failed to distinguish himself from his father. I am told that a consultant is now involved, prompting again questions as to what the operator was unable to prepare for the hearing. I was also unclear why a qualified Transport Manager would not understand my concern at the number of changes which have not been notified.

5. Hearing

The Public Inquiry was originally listed for today, 27 April 2021, in Tribunal Room 1 of the Office of the Traffic Commissioner in Cambridge. The operator was present via video link in the form of Gary Coldham, Director and Transport Manager, represented by Murray Oliver of Oliver Legal Solicitors Ltd.

6. Issues

The public inquiry was called for me to consider whether there were grounds for me to intervene in respect of this licence and specifically by reference to the following sections of the Public Passenger Vehicle Act 1981:

• 17(3)(a) – statement of intent relating to safety inspections at 6-week intervals.

• 17(3)(aa) – undertaking, namely that vehicles would be kept in a fit and serviceable condition; to employ an effective written driver defect reporting system, to maintain and retain maintenance records.

• 17(3)(b) – contravention of a condition on the licence.

• 17(3)(c) – a prohibition on a vehicle owned or operated by the operator.

• 17(3)(e) – material change in the circumstances to hold a licence:

• 17(1)(a) – To consider whether the operator continues to meet the requirement to be of good repute, appropriate financial standing, and professional competence by reference to 17(1)(b) – TM repute and Article 4.

• Section 28 – Disqualification to be considered – operator and director.

For the application to increase authority, the onus was on the applicant to satisfy me that the statutory criteria are met and in particular by reference to the following sections

• 14ZA(2)(b) – repute

• 14ZA(2)(c) – financial standing

• 14ZA(20(d) – professional competence by reference to 14ZA(3)(a) and Article 4

• 14ZC(1)(a) - facilities/arrangements for compliance.

While processing the application financial evidence was seen to support the operation of 9 vehicles. As indicated above the operator was given extended period and until 13 April 2021 to lodge evidence in support. His email of 30 March 2021 confirmed his return to work. Copies of financial evidence were received, and the operator’s representative notified on 24 April 2021 that originals or verified copies would be required.

  ## Summary of Evidence

DVSA had carried out a desk-based assessment on 13 July 2020. The Examiner, William Penny, marked the outcome of the assessment as ‘unsatisfactory’ and noted the following shortcomings:

• None of the Preventative Maintenance Inspection records showed any brake performance tests.

• PMI Intervals had been regularly exceeded.

• PMI records were found to be incomplete.

• Driver detectable defects were being recorded at PMI with no equivalent deriver report.

• Driver defect reports were not being fully completed including a failure to sign by driver, defects not signed off, no mileage, date etc.

Mr Penny was not required to consider the application to increase authority. While processing the application it was noted that large payments were being made under council contracts. I noted the “Unsatisfactory” marking with no brake tests being recorded, PMIs regularly exceeding declared intervals, incomplete PMIs, incomplete and weak DDRS, no retorque, and a failure to report an incident.

Gary Coldham’s email refers to the level of engagement with Mr Penny’s inquiries. I am unclear why the operator would think that DVSA was only seeking a month of records. That does not appear likely and would not have been sufficient for the purposes of considering the application to increase authority. It was not repeated in the subsequent representations. Mr Penny referred to an incident involving YX54 BHF, which should have been reported. I heard a fuller explanation in evidence, which I accepted.

I was concerned to note that Gary Coldham had also been acting as mechanic and supervisor. In his correspondence he refers to attendance on a Mechanical and Production Engineering course, subsequently joining the Army in 1984, which he left in 1991. He returned to Norfolk in 1993, working for a Honda garage until joining this operator in 1995. He then worked alongside a mechanic of 30 years. He was then left with sole responsibility. However, the letter refers to outside assistances and reliance on mobile mechanics and main dealers, which did not appear to have been notified.

The Examiner was critical of the TM/Director and suggested that he might effectively act alone. These were described by the operator as misunderstandings. An undertaking was given for Gary Coldham to attend a 2-day CPC refresher before 8 April 2021. The email of 30 March 2021 indicated that he had already completed that training. In recent correspondence Gary Coldham attributed most of the shortcomings to vehicles being off-road. He also indicated that he had carried out inspections, without signing the declaration of roadworthiness. In the response to the Examiner, it was claimed that brake tests had been performed and referred to a new roller brake tester. He also referred to calibration of a heavy-duty torque wrench. The PMI intervals were then amended to 6 weeks. However, the detail on the DDRS was not as clear.

It was suggested that Mr Penny’s report had omitted the operator’s response and the explanation. Gary Coldham recently confirmed that he has the assistance of a transport consultant. I was therefore interested to examine the relevant documentation. Mr Oliver lodged copies of Preventative Maintenance Inspection and driver defect reports for the following vehicles: YX54 BHF, Y40 SUN, L29 SUN, M29 SUN, and some random PMI scans with decelorometer print outs obscuring the pages.

A dip sample of the inspection records for YX54 BHF revealed:

• 4 March 2021 (15+ weeks since the last PMI), inspection with decelorometer brake check resulting in 40% and 24% average readings, noted front lights and bonnet support broken but no rectification noted or driver report.

• 13 November 2020, inspection with decelorometer brake check resulting in ‘57%’ and ‘28%’ but no print-out attached.

• 9 November 2020, inspection with decelorometer brake check resulting in 37% and 25% but recorded on the form as 54% and 32%, work on brakes, noted windscreen and air leak but no driver report.

• 1 October 2020, inspection but no brake check, noted bolt loose.

• 4 September 2020, inspection but no brake check, noted lights but no apparent driver report.

A dip sample of the inspection records for Y40 SUN revealed:

• 4 March 2021 (16+ weeks since the last PMI), inspection with decelorometer brake check resulting in ‘59%’ and ‘32%’ but no print-out attached, noted screen wash, mirrors, chips in windscreen, exit door switch broken but no driver report.

• 10 November 2020, inspection with decelorometer brake check resulting, service brake efficiency not shown and parking at 19%, recorded as peaks - 67% and 25%, noted ‘various’ bulbs, wipers, exit door display, reading light, but no driver report.

• 13 October 2020, inspection with decelorometer brake check resulting in 47% and 24%, recorded peaks ‘65%’ and ‘30%’, wiper blade not clearing, ‘various’ dash bulbs inoperative, entrance steps adrift again, reading lights again, fog lamp inoperative, but driver report for 12 October 2020 only referred to coolant.

• 2 September 2020, inspection, but no brake check, noted tachograph calibration due, entrance steps adrift, reading lights, tyres, near side front indicator etc but no driver report.

In evidence and subsequently, I have clarified that readings from a Bowmonk meter record both peak brake performance as well as brake efficiency, but it is the peak brake performance, which should be relied upon. That does illustrate the limitations of sole reliance on a decelorometer type test, which I compare with the starting point advocated in the DVSA Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness. He very frankly admitted that whilst he kept records on his computer, he did not notice the brake readings. The call up to Public Inquiry had apparently prompted the operator to consider its systems. I was referred to three recent tests. I was also told about the contract with Drury’s to provide these tests. That apart, I was told that the operator has the facilities to inspect the vehicles at the site, relying on an external pit and trolley jacks, which sounded far from ideal. It was not known whether the fitter was IRTEC qualified, but I was told that he had spent time working with Scania.

I received a Case Summary from Mr Oliver on the day before that hearing. The Case Summary persists with the impression that the operator considers itself above scrutiny even though home to school transport is described as part of the core business. It is accepted that Gary Coldham’s appointment as Director, was not notified until an application was lodged on 23 November 2020. The operator refers to the unsatisfactory desk-based assessment and points to the independent review of its compliance systems. Mr Oliver refers to improvements since Mr Penny’s assessment including Gary Coldham’s CPC, gained in 2004 and recent attendance at a 2-day Transport Manager refresher course on 8 January 2021.

Mr Oliver suggested that Mr Penny was acting under the mistaken impression that PMIs should be conducted at 5 weeks rather than the 6 weeks recorded on the licence. However, I was then told that the operator plans inspection intervals at 5 weeks to ensure compliance with the statement of intent set at 6 weeks. It accepts that there have been occasions when the fleet of vehicles has been taken off the road because of the Covid pandemic. It relies on the audit to confirm that “the majority of the inspections were carried out in compliance with the 6-week interval”. Mr Oliver refers to the age of the prohibitions. They did not prompt a review. The operator relies on the use of a tyre probe to identify the tyre defect. The operator has apparently conducted a review of its systems and made several improvements. Nil defect reports have been collated into folders. It is accepted that drivers were not identifying the vehicles with full registration numbers. I am referred to a new defect form with toolbox training given to the drivers. PMI sheets are apparently used to audit the defect reporting. The diary, used to record rectification work, has been reviewed and updated to ensure a proper record in individual vehicle files. I am also referred to a covered maintenance area and pit for routine maintenance and inspections. A regime of regular roller brake testing has apparently been established.

I refer to the audit report lodged on behalf of the operator and completed by Brian Lafferty of Brian Lafferty Training & Consultancy Ltd, dated 31 March 2021. Mr Lafferty describes the maintenance inspection as largely working. He confirms that there have been occasions in the last 15 months where vehicles have been presented late but suggests that no vehicle has exceeded a 42-day average. The annexes to the audit show that N27SUN went for 49 days between inspections, M29SUN went 56 days, Y40SUN 69 days, YN07VGB 65 days, YX54BHF 93 days, and L29SUN 51 and 75 days. He also confirms that the PMIS are recording driver detectable defects. The audit also suggests that Mr Coldham had not been carrying out periodic checks of driver activities including driver vehicle checks. Mr Lafferty highlights deficiencies with an absence in policies to deal with tachograph and drivers’ hours issues and discipline. Mr Lafferty queries Mr Penny’s findings that no brake tests are recorded (although concedes that these may not be recorded on the PMI) and that PMI intervals are not at 5 weeks but 6 and that decelorometer tests are used.

Mr Lafferty’s audit also included a copy of the wall chart and calibration certificates, sample PCV maintenance form prepared by Tachopak, a defect rectification report from the same supplier, a walk round check ‘flow chart’, and the following apparently obtained from Mr Lafferty: Nil Defect System Audit Sheet, Wheel Nut Log, Tyre Change Log, and Ad-blue Log, blank PPE issue log, driver call log, driver training record, Proof of attendance at training: CPC refresher course for Mr Coldham on 11/12 February 2021, but also OLAT on 11 February 2021; drivers’ hours training for Gary Hipperson, Heidi Crittenden, Ian Wright, and Shayne Hipperson dated 31 March 2021.

It was accepted that the operator had not reviewed its processes in the past. Mr Coldham gave evidence that there were aspects of his operation which Mr Lafferty told him needed to be addressed straight away. He acknowledged the need to implement effective VOR and to improve his monitoring of performance. He referred to new systems for Adblue recording and for the management of fuel usage, the ability to monitors tyres and the impact of excessive braking, which had not featured as part of the maintenance inspections. He accepted that the records did not show the vehicles as having been kept in a roadworthy condition.

I heard much evidence about Mr Coldham’s history in the regulated industry and his experience before that. He bought into the business in around 2000 and further shares from a Mr Coles in 2009. Mr Coles disposed of his interest by 2013, but there was no notification. Mr Coldham gave evidence about his father’s various periods of ill-health, but Mr Coldham Snr continued with the running of bookings and wages. 7 years later Mr Coldham Snr suffered a life-changing episode, so Mr Coldham employed someone else to lessen the load on his father. Mr Coldham Snr still liked to oversee things and ran everything from his computer but seven years later he has gradually withdrawn. Mr Coldham admitted that it was his father who managed the drivers’ hours, even though Mr Coldham Jnr was the Transport Manager. This was apparently because Mr Coldham Snr operated the computer. The operator had relied on analogue charts until 3 to 4 years ago, when a digital vehicle was introduced. The operator had relied on a wheel to analyse the analogue records. Missing mileage reports have only been introduced in the last few years. It appeared that Mr Coldham’s father had taken responsibility for the reporting and driver discipline, but I was assured that infringement reports had been generated and the information was passed to Mr Coldham Jnr and conveyed to the drivers.

Mr Coldham told me that the recent refresher course had provided a big wake up call. He now understands what is expected with regards to drivers’ duties. He described how in the last 3 to 4 years he has been getting a grip in things and laboured on the correct paperwork. It was only the recent training which had alerted Mr Coldham to the method of conducting effective driver licence checks. He explained that he had been “on the maintenance and not seeing it until the last 2 to 2.5 years”. However, even the maintenance systems were not that well managed. Previously all the driver defect reports were collated in a folder. Mr Coldham has only recently moved to a different system since the end of March 2021, where the defect reports now form part of the maintenance record and can be audited in that way. Mr Coldham sought to assure me that he had disciplined drivers who failed in these duties and referred to an incident last year. Mr Coldham only got round to speaking to the drivers in approximately March 2021. He very frankly admitted that he had not been checking.

Even in re-examination Mr Coldham confirmed that he had only prioritised the Transport Manager role in the last 4 years. His evidence was that he had assumed more control rather than just being the mechanic. He assured me that he was now jumping on any shortcomings. He thinks the drivers know his approach. He will tackle them and correct them and may even raise his voice. He referred to his experience in the Army and felt that he can get his point across to people. That was not my impression of Mr Coldham during the proceedings, even allowing for a degree of nervousness. Nevertheless, he likes to think that the drivers are aware that, following the audit, he is not going to take any more. Mr Coldham asserted that no-one had been endangered by the vehicles and attributed this to the operator’s routine checks. However, he had to accept my concerns at the driver detectable defects identified at preventative maintenance inspections, which had not featured on any driver report. His own evidence was that it took Mr Lafferty’s audit to realise that he needed to properly file documentation which was previously kept on a personal computer but without him actually looking at them. He was asked if he could have done more as the Transport Manager, to which he replied: “it seems that way now”.

In representation, Mr Oliver identified the need to satisfy me that the Operating Centre and maintenance arrangements are suitable, for the increase from 7 to 9 vehicles. I am referred to a plan and photograph with allocation for 9 vehicles to be parked. I note that inspection areas must be at least 2m wider than the vehicles to be tested, to ensure that there is at least 1m free space on either side of the vehicle when the vehicle is being inspected, although minor intrusions are permitted. The photographic evidence provided pages 101 to 108), gave cause for concerns to whether the site can be used for 9 vehicles. It was demonstrated how the vehicles might be parked and I was provided with more accurate measurements. I was informed that the operator has 4 smaller vehicles consisting of 3 mini-coaches and 1 minibus. The parking is pre-arranged for the end of each day, based on the schedule for the next day, determining which vehicle is brought into the parking area first. Mr Coldham acknowledged that it requires instruction of the drivers and relies on an accredited banks person.

It was explained to me that that there had been very limited operation during 2020. There was no operation from this January to March as the only income was from schoolwork. Mr Coldham described how it had been very difficult to survive, but no vehicle off road records were produced, with one statutory off-road notice.

7. Determination

The operator has been issued with 4 prohibitions in the past 5 years. That is a matter of record, as is the failure to notify me of several material changes going to the ability of this operator to hold this licence.

I am satisfied that I should make adverse findings under sections 17(3)(a) relating to the safety inspections; 17(3)(aa) due to breaches of the undertaking that vehicles would be kept in a fit and serviceable condition, to employ an effective written driver defect reporting system, and to maintain and retain maintenance records; 17(3)(b) through the failure to notify relevant changes; 17(3)(c) due to the prohibition; and 17(3)(e) due to material changes in the operator’s circumstances.

It was suggested that the operator had taken steps to correct the compliance issues identified by VE Penny during the desk-based assessment. I accept that this is the first Public Inquiry. The representations claim that DVSA had no prior cause to consider the operation before the application to vary the operator’s licence. That ignores the duty on the operator to review its own operations and I refer to the findings above. Mr Oliver accepts that the PG9 record reflects badly on the operator. The submissions wrongly imply that the operator undertook to achieve a national average pass rate, which is not the case. In any event it fell below even that standard as a recurring issue with lamps was not addressed.

The operator referred to Mr Penny’s conclusion that it be capable of addressing the shortcomings and that he recorded its intention to follow all the guidelines and best practice. On my findings this did not extend to brake testing. In addition, I was referred to the commissioning of an independent audit in response to the initial call up. I was asked to take account of the improvements and refinements in the operator’s compliance systems. I have attempted to summarise those elements above. I can also acknowledge the operator’s cooperation and some of the admissions made during the hearing. I have noted what was said about the improved driver management system, the number of prohibitions and the relative dates, recent improvements in test history, evidence of recent retraining. I disabused the operator of the view that a Public Inquiry would not have been necessary if the audit recommendations had been fully implemented. Mr Oliver realistically acknowledged that deterrent intervention. I would agree that there are lessons here for this operator and for operators, as per the appellate Tribunal’s decision in 2019/025 John Stuart Strachan t/a Strachan Haulage. I regret that I was unable to accept that there are now effective management control systems in place for reasons, which I set out below. The direction in Statutory Document No. 10 at Annex 4 suggests a starting point for intervention to be at least within the “Serious” range.

I therefore proceeded to consider the question posed by the Tribunal in 2009/225 Priority Freight, namely: how likely is it that this operator will, in future, operate in compliance with the operator’s licensing regime?

Mr Coldham thought that maintenance and the defect sheets were being addressed but as operations were reduced, he felt unable to test them. This appeared to illustrate one of the challenges for Mr Coldham when he views the shortcomings as matters of paperwork rather than in his own management. In correspondence, he sought further time to achieve compliance: This previous year has been the most stressful ever in trying to take all the right procedures, directions in keeping us employed through these troubled times for the industry with the hope that at the other end of the tunnel there is some light and the industry on a whole will move forward again. Although I have cover in my office though with regards to this situation (my sick leave) I wish to sort out exactly what I need myself though I do employ a consultant now as well (ex VOSA) also there is only so much I can do from my house on my iPad.

I acknowledge that during the last year operators in this industry have been in what was described as “survival mode”. The OTC attempted to assist operators with regularly updated guidance as to how they could continue to meet the requirements of the operator’s licence, but that provides no reason to give them other than the priority which they deserve. Mr Coldham described how the employees have been furloughed with most drivers on a partial furlough, apart from the mechanic. It has been a particular struggle to keep going over the school holidays.

However, the evidence shows a situation where Mr Coldham has been nominated as the Transport Manager since November 2011. It is only in the last 4 years that he feels he has been able to step up and assume more of those responsibilities. I gave some credit for the outsourcing of drivers’ hours and tachograph analysis to Tachomaster, with 28 downloads of driver cards and vehicle units and the same period for analogue charts, but this is such a recent development that there have been no infringement or missing mileage reports produced and tuition was booked for the morning after the hearing. It was only following the refresher course in February 2021 that Mr Coldham started using on-line driver licence checks and it took Mr Lafferty to go over many of the suggestions before he started to implement them. The wheel-off and retorque policy is a case in point.

In evidence Mr Coldham suggested that 4 years ago he had stepped up as a Director and Transport Manager, but that level of impact is not reflected in the findings of Mr Penny, Mr Lafferty or my own. I was told that the DVSA intervention had left Mr Coldham in no doubt that there was more work to be done and yet I found that the operator was still not compliant. I have been offered undertakings for roller brake testing at every Preventative Maintenance Inspection and for external analysis of drivers’ hours records and tachographs, as the operator is still unable to provide evidence of those improvements.

As I hope will be evident from the time taken to produce this decision, I have thought long and hard to try and understand the underlying cause of the position described above. It appears to me to be more than a lack of priority, but on Mr Coldham’s admission he only started to assert his position as Transport Manager in the last 4 years. As Mr Lafferty and Mr Penny found, there was still more to do. I wondered if it was a question of available time, but that does not appear to be the cause here. I am reminded of a quote from the Tribunal’s decision in 2014/050 Andrew Harris trading as Harris of Leicester: “Given the importance attached to operators complying with the regulatory regime and given that transport managers must: “effectively and continuously manage the transport activities of an undertaking holding an operator’s licence”, it seems to us that whether or not an individual has the character, personality, ability and leadership qualities to ensure compliant operation as an operator or to effectively and continuously manage the transport activities as a transport manager is a factor which can, properly, be taken into account when assessing good repute.” It may be that the drivers recognise Mr Coldham’s approach and that may be sufficient to oversee the operation, but it has not been sufficient to deliver effective management and compliance, even now.

I can distinguish this case from the decision of the Tribunal in 2017/9055 Alistair Walter, as this is a corporate entity and, for the time being, there are two directors. However, the position of Mr Coldham Snr must be addressed without any further delay. The operator’s repute is undoubtedly severely tarnished by the failure to act promptly, when it comes to a Transport Manager, that is not so easily overlooked. It necessitates an adverse finding under section 17(1)(b) to show that Mr Coldham has lost his repute as a Transport Manager.

In this case any rehabilitation must confirm his knowledge and confidence to manage, so I have adopted a similar approach to that described by the Tribunal in 2014/058 Angus Smales trading as Angus Smales Eventing, by working with an experienced Transport Manager for a period of no less than 12 months following which he should demonstrate his ability to ensure compliance. I make the adverse decision under section 17(1)(a), so as to allow a Period of Grace of two months to recruit a suitable candidate and have that person approved for appointment by my office in Leeds. A failure to act within that timescale will result in revocation on that basis. However, it means that the variation application inevitably fails under section 14ZC(2)(d). The prospect of a more effective Transport Manager has allowed me to reach a more positive conclusion in respect of the Priority Freight question, but I accept the following undertakings, which will be added to the licence:

• All vehicles operated under this operator’s licence will undergo a suitable roller brake test as part of every PMI. The results will be recorded, and the records will be kept for at least 15 months.

• The operator will employ an independent service provider to analyse tachograph records and prepare monthly reports on the results of that analysis. The reports should identify any driver infringements and instances of driving without a card and driving by unknown drivers. The operator will act upon those reports, bringing the infringements to drivers’ attention and taking the necessary steps to reduce the likelihood of repetition. The reports will be retained for two years.

I considered the impact of any deterrent action on the operator. Its financial standing is sound, but the business is significantly weakened following the pandemic. I was told that it currently operates one direct contract with a school and 5 with the county council. Any intervention which impacts on the ability to service those contracts would lead to an end to the business. However, the suggested intervention at a weekend or over half-term would not adequately convey my concern or act as a sufficient spur to action when responses have proved so slow in the past.

I amend the condition on the licence so that it may only operate a total of 6 vehicles and will require return of the relevant disc to the Cambridge Office, within 4 days of the date of this decision. The operator should understand that if there is any further delay in compliance, then its ability to hold a licence will be put in jeopardy.

Richard Turfitt

Traffic Commissioner

24 May 2021