Decision

Written decision for Keith Taylor & Kevin James Taylor t/a Coniston Coaches (PD0001933)

Published 9 October 2020

In the West Midlands Traffic Area.

Decision of the Traffic Commissioner following Public Inquiry held in Birmingham on 7 July 2020.

1. Decision

The standard national licence held by the partnership Keith Taylor and Kevin James Taylor is revoked with effect from 0001 hours on 1 October 2020. The revocation is pursuant to Sections 17(1)(a) and (b) and 17(3)(a), (aa) and (c) of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 (“the 1981 Act”).

The good repute of transport manager Kevin James Taylor is lost. Pursuant to Schedule 3 of the 1981 Act, he is disqualified for five years, from 1 October 2020 until 1 October 2025, from acting as a transport manager under any operator’s licence.

Pursuant to Section 28 of the Transport Act 1985, Keith Taylor and Kevin James Taylor are disqualified for five years, from 1 October 2020 until 1 October 2025, from holding or obtaining any type of operator’s licence in any traffic area and from being the directors of any company holding or obtaining such a licence.

2. Background

The partnership of Keith Taylor and Kevin James Taylor, trading as Coniston Coaches, holds a standard national PSV operator’s licence PD0001933 authorising five vehicles. The nominated transport manager on the licence is Kevin James Taylor.

2.1 DVSA reports

In March 2020 I received a report on the operator from DVSA vehicle examiner Christopher Walker. This stated that:

1. the contracted maintenance provider was not being used;

2. the forward planner he had seen at the operating centre was for 2015; he had been informed that maintenance planning was in partner Keith Taylor’s head;

3. the driver defect reporting system was ineffective;

4. on his visit to the operating centre he had looked at the records of two vehicles and found no safety inspection records for those vehicles in the last 15 months. He took away other records which showed far fewer safety inspections than expected (the safety inspection interval was supposedly six weeks). However, at a meeting at Kidderminster vehicle testing station two days later he was handed a file of numerous maintenance inspection sheets for three vehicles. All contained minimal or no defects, no information on brake tests or tyre tread depths and were in the same handwriting. Mr Walker suspected that the sheets had been created after his visit;

5. two of the three vehicles brought to Kidderminster by the operator for inspection were issued with prohibitions for multiple defects;

6. Mr Walker subsequently contacted the stated maintenance contractor B W Rogers and found that the operator’s vehicles had not been there for eight years.

7. Mr Walker concluded that the transport manager Kevin James Taylor was not in control of the operation and that the operator’s maintenance systems were so dysfunctional that the public was at risk. He advised me to bring the operator to a public inquiry as soon as possible.

3. Public inquiry

Concerned by this report, I decided to call the partnership and the transport manager to a public inquiry. The COVID-19 crisis intervened and the public inquiry could not take place until 7 July 2020, when it was held in Birmingham, as I felt that it was not suitable for a virtual hearing.

Keith Taylor and Kevin James Taylor attended, represented by Anton Balkitis, solicitor. DVSA vehicle examiner Christopher Walker was also present.

On behalf of the operator Mr Balkitis made the following points:

1. the absence of some of the maintenance documentation was down to the actions of a disgruntled employee;

2. both partners had suffered from health issues;

3. the operator had moved from B W Rogers in 2018 and had thereafter used Mayo’s as their maintenance provider. Since Mr Walker’s visit they had used Avanca;

4. the operator denied forging maintenance records;

5. the operator was willing to undertake to be audited in six months or so’s time.

Keith Taylor stated that he could provide evidence that the maintenance records were genuine in the form of invoices for the six-weekly PMIs from Mayo’s and corresponding bank transfers. I considered that the operator should have brought these to the inquiry but I agreed to allow more time for the operator to submit these invoices and bank statements. I asked specifically for invoices from Mayo’s relating to the six-weekly preventative maintenance inspections for the calendar year of 2019.

Mr Balkitis suggested that, if I was content with the further evidence once submitted, I dispose of the case by means of a formal warning or short curtailment. I could be satisfied that the operator would comply in the future.

4. Further information

The requested evidence re invoices for the six-weekly inspections was sent by the operator on 17 July 2020. I looked at it on return from my annual leave in August.

First, I noted that the operator had submitted copies of numerous invoices which were for recovery operations or ad hoc repairs. I had made it quite clear at the inquiry that it was invoices for the six-weekly preventative maintenance inspections that I wanted. From the Mayo invoices I extracted the following information:

1. vehicle MX55 BYA was given safety inspections on 31 January 2019, 18 March 2019 and 10 June 2019;

2. vehicle CC04 BUS was given safety inspections on 18 March 2019 and 31 July 2019;

3. vehicle C19 BUS was given safety inspections on 31 March 2019 and 22 July 2019;

4. vehicle C18 BUS was given a safety inspection on 11 October 2019;

5. vehicle TDZ 6674 was given a safety inspection on 31 March 2019;

6. vehicle YN51 MKZ was given a safety inspection on 30 April 2019;

7. vehicle T11 FEG was given a safety inspection on 7 May 2019;

8. vehicle W50 TGM was given a safety inspection on 22 June 2019;

I recalled that at the inquiry Keith Harrison had told me that he would be able to provide invoices from Mayo’s showing that regular six-week safety inspections had been carried out on all vehicles, even though much of the inspection documentation was missing (the result, it was stated, of a disgruntled employee removing records). The invoices provided (and described above) did not, in my view, substantiate the claim that inspections had been carried out at the correct intervals.

I also looked at the invoices from BW Rogers but these all related to ad hoc repairs rather than regular six-weekly inspections.

At my behest my clerk emailed both the operator and its legal representative on 20 August. The email set out my concerns in similar terms to paragraphs 9-11 above and asked for any comments to be sent by close of business on Monday 24 August. If the operator considered that I had missed some safety inspections from the list above they should state which of the Mayo invoices referred, in their view, to these inspections.

The operator did not reply to this email and attempts to contact it by phone obtained resulted only in the message “this number is not accepting calls”.

The operator has thus failed to substantiate its statement that its vehicles were given six week inspections by Mayo’s throughout 2019.

5. Findings

After considering the evidence I make the following findings:

1. the operator’s vehicles have incurred prohibitions (Section 17(3)(c) of the 1981 Act refers). Two of the three vehicles inspected by Mr Walker were issued with prohibitions;

2. the operator has failed to fulfil its promise, given on application, that vehicles would be given safety inspections every six weeks (Section 17(3)(a) refers). As is evident from the analysis in paragraph 9 above, most vehicles were given only one or two safety inspections throughout the whole of 2019;

3. many of the safety inspection sheets supplied to Christopher Walker two days after his visit are false documents. For example, there was only one invoice for a safety inspection of vehicle C18 BUS in 2019. But the operator presented six safety inspection sheets covering 2019 to Mr Walker. For vehicle CC04 BUS there were two invoices for safety inspections in 2019, but the operator presented eight safety inspection sheets. The provision of false documents to a traffic commissioner is an offence under Section 20(5) of the 1981 Act.

4. the good repute of the partners and the transport manager is lost (Section 17(1)(a) and (b) refers). It cannot survive the creation and provision to DVSA and the traffic commissioner of false maintenance records. Failing to ensure that vehicles are given safety inspections at the promised six week intervals is bad enough. Even worse is to try to cover this up by creating false records and continuing this deception at the public inquiry. Against this, I found little on the positive side of the balance. There was a willingness to be audited but this does not weigh strongly against the failure to have vehicles regularly inspected and the attempt to conceal this failure.

5. the operator has failed to fulfil its undertaking to keep vehicles in a fit and serviceable condition (Section 17(3)(aa) refers). All three of the vehicles seen by Mr Walker had numerous defects.

In the light of these findings I am unable to share Mr Balkitis’ view that this is an operator likely to comply in the future. It has shown through its cavalier attitude to its maintenance responsibilities and its untruthfulness at the inquiry that it cannot be trusted to comply. Having answered the Priority Freight question thus, the answer to the Bryan Haulage question – is its conduct such that the operator should be put out of business? – is that it is.

6. Decisions

6.1 Revocation of licence

The partnership lacks good repute and professional competence (because its transport manager is not of good repute and cannot continue in office). Revocation of the licence is therefore mandatory under Section 17(1) of the 1981 Act. The revocation will take effect on 1 October 2020. I am allowing less than the normal 28 days in which to wind down the business given the threat posed by the operator to road safety.

6.2 Disqualification - operator

For the reasons outlined above, and having performed the same balancing act described, I conclude that Keith Taylor and Kevin James Taylor should be disqualified under Section 28 of the Transport Act 1985 from holding a licence in the future. There can be no place in the industry for operators who fail to have their vehicles maintained correctly and then seek to cover this up. In deciding upon the length of the disqualification, I have taken account of paragraph 100 of the STC’s Statutory Guidance Document 10. This posits a starting point of between one and three years for a first public inquiry (which this is) but a period of between five and ten years where an operator has knowingly operated unsafe vehicles. The operator falls firmly into this latter category, as it has knowingly operated vehicles which have received only very sporadic safety checks (one per year for many vehicles instead of the eight or nine which should normally have been carried out). I have therefore decided upon a disqualification period of five years.

6.3 Disqualification – transport manager

As Kevin James Taylor has lost his repute, I must also disqualify him under Schedule 3 to the 1981 Act from acting as a transport manager on any licence. For the reasons set out in the paragraph above I am also disqualifying him for a five year period.

Nicholas Denton

Traffic Commissioner

14 September 2020