Open consultation

Local bus service performance standards: consultation

Published 17 September 2026

1. Senior Traffic Commissioner Foreword

As Senior Traffic Commissioner, I have powers to issue guidance and general directions to the Traffic Commissioners for Great Britain as to the exercise of their functions. This guidance and general directions are set out in the Statutory Documents. This framework aims to ensure consistent and fair regulation of the transport industry.

The Statutory Documents assist us in our approach, but they also contain helpful information for all stakeholders within the industry. The guidance sets out how traffic commissioners will consider their applications and operations, which in turn may assist them in the running of a compliant business.

Statutory Document No. 14 relates to the local bus services and the relevant standards to be applied when traffic commissioners consider regulatory action on receipt of reports of services punctuality and reliability. The Statutory Document has not undergone a significant review for over ten years, and as part of our strategic objectives we are reviewing the statutory guidance and statutory directions to ensure that they remain relevant and proportionate. 

As local bus services are devolved to the Scottish Government, the Statutory Document does not apply to services registered with the Traffic Commissioner for Scotland. However, it is recognised that there is a need for consistency and this work may help to inform the approach to be taken for those services registered within Scotland, and there is an intention for the Traffic Commissioner for Scotland to issue a similar document to set out that approach. 

We have already engaged with stakeholders from a number of different organisations, and I thank them for their time and input into this document. I now invite thoughts and contributions from all stakeholders on how the traffic commissioners may approach their functions in respect of the performance of local bus services in the future.

Kevin Rooney

Senior Traffic Commissioner for Great Britain

2. Introduction

The Traffic Commissioners for Great Britain are independent specialist regulators. They are responsible for the licensing and regulation of commercial vehicle operators and regulating the conduct of professional drivers in the lorry, bus and coach industries. They promote fair, efficient and reliable transport of goods and passengers. They are also responsible for the registration of the majority of local bus services (outside of London and Greater Manchester) and the regulation in respect to their reliability and performance.

The first guidance on local bus service performance was issued by the Senior Traffic Commissioner in 2002, and revised guidance was issued by way of a Practice Direction in January 2005. Following public consultations, the approach to bus punctuality compliance was formalised in Statutory Document 14 when it was first published in 2015. Other than some minor amendments the document has not been subject to a wider review since this date.

The traffic commissioners recognised the importance of improving local bus services and as part of their strategic objectives for 2023 to 2025 agreed to review how performance of local bus services is measured by engaging with the industry and other stakeholders and promoting updated statutory guidance. This work was delayed whilst focussing on the stabilisation of the industry following the pandemic and awaiting changes in legislation, although preparatory work was undertaken including meeting with a number of stakeholders in December 2024.

The changes resulting from the Bus Services Act 2025 and subsequent Regulations have introduced additional responsibilities for operators of local services and an increased regulatory role for traffic commissioners. It is appropriate that a revised Statutory Document sets out the approach a traffic commissioner may take when considering these additional duties.   

3. Scope of Consultation

Following these published strategic objectives the Senior Traffic Commissioner wishes to receive views on whether the approach that traffic commissioners adopt in relation to local bus service punctuality standards continues to reflect modern local bus services. In addition, views are also sought on the approach traffic commissioners should take to:

• The failure of an operator to comply with the requirements of the Public Service Vehicles (Open Data) (England) Regulations 2020
• How a traffic commissioner should exercise their powers to seek information from a local authority in relation to their duties under the Traffic Management Act 2004
• An operator who operates a local bus service in a franchised area without the required authority from the franchise authority

Traffic commissioners can only regulate in accordance with the legislation. It is for Parliament to consider whether the legislation needs to be changed. This document will seek to set out the legislation and respondents are advised to respond with those limitations in mind. 

4. Local Bus Service Punctuality Standards

4.1 Introduction

The current reliability and punctuality targets have been in place for a number of years. Much of how traffic commissioners approach their functions was defined by the appeal of Ribble Motor Services Ltd against the decision taken by the Traffic Commissioner for the North Western Traffic Area before the Court of Appeal in 2001. This appeal can be accessed at: Ribble Motor Services Ltd v Traffic Commission For North Western Traffic Area [2001] EWCA Civ 267 (23 February 2001)

Since their introduction the bus industry has experienced developments in technology and an evolving legislative framework.

The review aims to determine whether the existing standard, requiring 95% of local bus services to operate within a window of one minute early and five minutes late, remains suitable for 2026. It will also assess the potential impact of evolving technologies on this target. It seeks views on whether the introduction of Enhanced Partnership Schemes changes the role of a traffic commissioner when considering bus punctuality and reliability.

Where services are not operating within the framework an operator may put forward an argument of ‘reasonable excuse’. The review of the statutory document will consider what may be considered a ‘reasonable excuse’, and we seek views on what may be considered positive action that an operator may take to mitigate regulatory intervention of a traffic commissioner.

4.2 Background

Local services are defined in section 2 of the Transport Act 1985 (the 1985 Act), as services using Public Service Vehicles to carry passengers at separate fares over short distances. Services outside of London, and those where the registration authority has not been delegated to a local authority using the powers introduced by the Bus Services Act 2017, must be registered with a traffic commissioner.

Local bus services in Scotland are devolved but follow many of the same principles as for England and Wales.

Section 26 of the 1985 Act sets out a traffic commissioner’s powers to take regulatory action in relation to local bus services. These include where;

• an operator fails to operate a local service in accordance with the registration without reasonable excuse, or
• contraventions related to provisions in the Transport Act 2000, regarding Enhanced Partnership Schemes, Quality Partnership Schemes and the provision of information occur.

If a traffic commissioner finds it proportionate, having received sufficient evidence of contraventions set out in section 26, he/she may:

• impose a financial penalty under section 155 of the Transport Act 2000 (section 39 of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 for services within Scotland) of up to £550 for every vehicle authorised under operator licences issued to that operator;
• place a condition on an operator’s licence that prohibits or restricts the registration of local services.

4.3 Current Expectations

The expectation of an operator’s local bus services differs depending on the type of service. There are three main types of services operated:

• Timetabled Services

A standard timetabled service runs along a fixed route in accordance with a timetable. It must run at all times it is registered to do so.

The current standard described by the Senior Traffic Commissioner comes from case law and is that 95% of an operator’s timetabled services operate within a window of tolerance in that buses should not depart from starting points and registered principal timing points more than 1 minute early or more than 5 minutes late or arrive at the final destination point more than 5 minutes late. To aid clarity, a service is considered 1 minute early if it departs more than 59 seconds early and is considered late if it departs more than 5:59 seconds late.

• Frequent Services

These are described in the legislation as routes on which “the service interval is 10 minutes or less”.

The current standard for frequent services is that six or more buses should depart within any period of 60 minutes and the interval between consecutive buses should not exceed 15 minutes. In general, 95% of buses should meet this standard.

All the other requirements that apply to a standard timetabled service, apply to a frequent service.

• Flexible Services

A flexible service is defined as one which serves one or more local communities or neighbourhoods within a specified geographical area and which is so flexible that it is not practicable to identify in advance all the roads to be used at any given time. The legislation also cites other criteria.

Where it is impracticable to specify an exact time of arrival at, or departure from, a fixed stopping place or other point within the area of operation, a time window (a period of time during which a vehicle is intended to arrive/depart) may be specified instead. This time window should not be longer than 20 minutes unless the traffic commissioner is satisfied in an exceptional case that it is reasonable for a longer period to be allowed.

An operator must maintain records of bookings, including the times that it was agreed that passengers would be picked up or set down and the actual times.   

The current Statutory Guidance and Statutory Directions are silent on performance expectations for flexible services due to the absence of case law and no references made in previous consultations.

The current Statutory Document indicates that where an operator’s performance is between 80% and 95% a traffic commissioner may give the operator time to resolve punctuality issues and demonstrate a programme for continuous improvement.

However, where the compliance rate is below 80% a public inquiry is likely to be called.

In cases where a traffic commissioner considers it to be appropriate to impose a financial penalty under section 155 of the Transport Act 2000 the Senior Traffic Commissioner has set out the following starting points:

• under 95% compliance – up to £100 per authorised vehicle

• under 90% compliance – £100 - £250 per authorised vehicle

• under 85% compliance – £250 - £400 per authorised vehicle

• under 80% compliance – £400 - £550 per authorised vehicle

However, a traffic commissioner can exercise discretion where they are satisfied that a different standard would be more appropriate. Traffic commissioners will also follow the principle of proportionality when considering the amount of penalty to impose taking care to ensure that the amount of the penalty reflects the scale of the failure/s.

4.4 Performance Standards

In engagement sessions with stakeholders in December 2024 all parties agreed that the current 1 minute early / five-minute late measure was appropriate and was sufficiently clear and understood. However, clarifying the exact timings, (i.e. 0:59  seconds early and over 5:59 minutes late) in the document would be helpful. The attendees included industry and passenger representatives.

It has been considered whether different standards could apply to different types of services, such as rural and urban services. It is thought that this would create the risk of confusing the position and it has been decided that the current approach would apply to all timetabled services.

The current expectation for standard services to meet this target on 95% of occasions was seen to be aspirational given that performance is currently recorded in the region of 80%. The recent peak of 89% was experienced in 2020/21 during the COVID pandemic when there were fewer vehicles on the road[1]. It has been stated that reporting against the 95% target reduces the trust that the public have in local bus services.  The risk of regulatory action acts as a demotivating feature to operators who may be less inclined to introduce new services.

Although the current guidance suggests that operators are likely to be called to a public inquiry on evidence of performance of less than 80%, it was suggested that the guidance should give a clearer indication that a different approach would be taken on performance between 80-95% in that a public inquiry would not usually be the default position. This could include reference to improvement plans and the opportunity to deliver those improvements.

Question 1

Is the 95% standard for timetabled services to run between one minute early and five minutes late still relevant today, and that it should apply to all timetabled services? If not, please state what the standard should be and how services could be differentiated?

Question 2

Where an operator’s performance is between 80-95% would it be appropriate for a clearer statement to be set out in the Statutory Document that a traffic commissioner would usually allow time for performance improvement plans to be put into place and performance to then be assessed over a period of time before considering formal regulatory intervention at a public inquiry? Please state any circumstances where you consider a public inquiry would be appropriate.

4.5 Frequent Services

The legislation determines that a timetable is not required in the case where planned service intervals are ten minutes or less. Although there may be merits in allowing this to be extended slightly, it is not within the remit of the Senior Traffic Commissioner to change that timeframe as it would require legislative change. 

However, the current performance guidance provides that the interval between services should not exceed 15 minutes. That 15-minute interval could be shortened or extended in the guidance.

The Senior Traffic Commissioner is not currently minded to extend this time period, as passengers relying upon frequent services generally do so on the understanding that their wait time should be less than 10 minutes but may occasionally be longer, especially in busy periods when ‘bunching’ may occur. Extending the performance time period to 20 minutes might deter passengers from using the service with no real benefit to the operator. However, the Senior Traffic Commissioner would be interested to receive views on the impact of extending the 15-minute performance standard to 20 minutes.

Question 3

Does the 15-minute performance period for frequent services remain appropriate? Please provide any views on any impact in extending it to 20 minutes.

4.6 Flexible Services

As stated earlier there is currently no reference to the performance standard for flexible bus services in the Statutory Documents. The registered particulars for a flexible service requires an operator to provide (where it is impracticable to specify an exact time of arrival or departure) a time window during which the vehicle is intended to arrive or depart.

In the case of a flexible service, it would appear to be less cause for concern if a vehicle arrives slightly earlier due to the nature of the service being provided. This is on the understanding the vehicle waits for the booked passenger to arrive in the stated time window. However, the impact on late arrivals and departures are as significant for these services as they are for standard services.

Given that the prevalence of these services is increasing, the Senior Traffic Commissioners proposes to apply a similar window of tolerance and performance standard to flexible services as that for standard services. It is intended that these services would arrive or depart no later than five minutes from the specified time window provided in the booking on 95% of occasions.

Question 4

Do you agree that flexible services should be expected to arrive or depart no more than five minutes late from the time period specified in the booking on 95% of occasions? If not, please give reasons.   

4.7 Mitigatory Features

Traffic commissioners seek to regulate using a risk based proportionate approach. It is important that operators are given opportunity to present mitigation if services fail to meet the standards expected.

The Senior Traffic Commissioner is considering setting out guidance which a traffic commissioner will take into account on the mitigation relevant to any regulatory intervention.

The list below is not exhaustive, and the Senior Traffic Commissioner wishes to receive views on these and proposals for any other scenario that could be offered as mitigation. The suggestions are: 

• Nature of services

Consideration has been given to the introduction of different targets related to the length of the route with an expectation that a service should be more punctual the earlier it is in the journey. Stakeholders expressed some concern as longer routes would allow more scope to make up time and a lower expectation would penalise those using services towards the end of a specific journey.

However, the example of a short distance cross-city service was given as a type of service where some mitigation may be appropriate. These services are more likely to be impacted by problems within a city centre that affect all services and it may deter operators from running services that better meet passenger needs.

• Collaboration and Process

An operator is already expected to build positive relationships within the local authority but evidence of raising issues with both the local transport team and highway’s team within a local authority might help provide assurance to a traffic commissioner. If an operator demonstrates good collaboration with the local authority to resolve performance issues, a traffic commissioner could take greater assurance from a proactive response to poor performance to improve the overall performance levels within the operator’s control.

• Passenger Information

The growth in use of technology offers greater opportunity to operators for ensuring passengers are aware of known disruption to journeys. Where reliable real time information exists and is available to passengers, they can plan their journeys better. For example, if an App is available that advises of a bus is running 10 minutes late a passenger can avoid waiting at the stop for that time, or social media posts can advise of expected delays on particular services on any given day.

The Senior Traffic Commissioner seeks views on whether the availability of technology being provided by an operator can be given as a mitigatory factor for poor performance of services. Larger operators are more likely to have suitable technology, and this could create a two-tier approach by, either penalising the smaller operators who do not have the technology, or by removing incentives from small operators to provide services to passengers.   

Not all passengers have access to the internet or social media as set out in the report from Age UK :internet-use-statistics-june-2024.pdf. Reliance on providing internet-based information on disruption cannot be relied upon in isolation. Operators who can demonstrate efforts to work with communities on reducing digital exclusion might expect to receive credit by a traffic commissioner.

• Comparisons with similar services

Improved data sources make information on performance more accessible. The information stored in the Bus Open Data Service (BODS) offers operators a real time source of information for identifying their own performance. Where operators can demonstrate a comparison with their performance and other similar services it may assist in the understanding of whether performance issues are within the control of the individual operators and a traffic commissioner may take this into account when determining a case before them.  

• Enhanced Partnership Schemes and performance standards

An Enhanced Partnership Scheme may set standards that operators are expected to adhere to. That standard might be lower than that described by the Senior Traffic Commissioner and may be indicative of the operating environment in that area. 

• Extreme temperatures

The summer of 2026 has seen prolonged periods of hot weather across the country. It has been reported that this has contributed to vehicle breakdowns and driver illness or, at least, drivers needing to take more frequent breaks from uncomfortable working environments. Adverse winter weather can be put as a reasonable excuse. The Senior Traffic Commissioner intends to confirm that extreme high temperature may be a mitigating feature. For clarity, an operator would be expected to demonstrate why it was an exceptional situation, the impacts and their risk assessment to alleviate that impact. Views on what control measures would be reasonable.    

Question 5

Do you agree that the mitigatory examples set out above are appropriate. Please explain reasons why you believe any should not be included.

Should additional mitigatory examples also be included? If so, please explain.

Question 6

If you believe that the performance standard should alter depending on the nature of service, please give examples of services and the reasons why the performance standard should differ.

Question 7

If the provision of real time passenger information should be a mitigating factor what should the operator be expected to provide in order to rely upon the mitigation?

Question 8

Please provide thoughts on what evidence should an operator provide of working in the community on reducing digital exclusion in order for a traffic commissioner to take it into account.

Question 9

What weight should a traffic commissioner give where an operator is meeting a standard set out in an Enhanced Partnership Scheme which is lower than the expectations described in the current Statutory Document?

4.8 Timetables

Operators are expected to produce timetables that reflect the expected running times of the service. However, since the end of the COVID pandemic people have adopted different working patterns resulting in patterns of road use and patronage may be more difficult to assess. It is more common for some people to no longer attend the workplace on each day during the working week and many also now travel to work outside of the previously accepted ‘rush hours’.

Some people may prefer to have a standardised timetable that allows for certainty on when a bus is due. For example, a timetable which states the bus is due on the hour and half hour. This does not allow for changes in patterns across different days and times. The standardisation of timetables is used by some operators. However, a previous Transport Focus survey found that passengers consider it more important to have a timetable that reflects the actual running time for that journey rather than a standardised version which is unlikely to be adhered to at busier times of the day. The Senior Traffic Commissioner would like to receive views on whether a realistic timetable that may differ over times of a day or days or a week is preferable to those that seek a standardisation of timings. 

Question 10

Should the guidance make a clearer statement that timetables must reflect the expected running time of the individual journey even if it creates a more complicated timetable for passengers? Please set out any benefits and drawbacks.

4.9 Timing Points

The longstanding practice is that principal timing points should not be more than 15 minutes apart (except where the next stop is more than 15 minutes running time from the preceding stop). This practice ensures that the performance of the service can be monitored across its entire length. This avoids a ‘tactical’ registration by an operator to limit timing points which could lead to certain areas of the service being subject to poor performance without consequence, with the resultant impact on passengers.

There has been discussion with stakeholders on whether allowing longer intervals between timing points would bring benefits to the operation of services. It is noted that longer gaps between timing points could allow services to make up lost time, however, all agreed that doing so would not bring benefit to the customer experience. Therefore, the Senior Traffic Commissioner does not intend to make a change to the current position.

However, stakeholders indicated that it would be beneficial to issue further guidance on the circumstances where a traffic commissioner might allow an extension to timing points and that this should cover the practicality of the stop, taking into account safety for the bus to layover and customer expectations. For example, timing points should be located where it is useful for passengers. There is little benefit in a timing point being placed at a random stop rather than a nearby train station a short distance away.  

The current guidance already provides some guidance on how traffic commissioners and staff are directed to look for timing points in order to facilitate the monitoring of punctuality:

• key interchanges with other bus routes;
• railway stations;
• at least one bus stop in every town and village along the route with a population of more than 2,000 people;
• at least one bus stop on each different section of route where alternative routes between a common destination are contained in one registration.

Some of these examples would also serve to provide advice on when a timing point might be extended, e.g. to allow a service an extra five minutes to ensure that the next town on the route has a timing point.

Question 11

Please provide suggestions on when it may be appropriate to allow an extended timing point beyond 15 minutes.

5. Traffic Management Act 2004

Section 27A of the Transport Act 1985 provides that a traffic commissioner may direct a local traffic authority to provide the commissioner, within a specified period of time, with specified information connected with any aspect of the performance of their duties for network management (as outlined in sections 16 and 17 of the Traffic Management Act 2004).

The information specified must be information which the local traffic authority has in their possession or can be reasonably expected to acquire. This includes information relating to the management of a local traffic authority’s road network or the use of their road network by different kinds of traffic or the effects of that use.

If a traffic commissioner identifies any remedial measures which could be taken by the operator, or by a local traffic authority, the traffic commissioner may prepare a report recommending the implementation of those measures to enable or facilitate the operation of the service in accordance with the registration.

The legislation requires for any report to be disseminated to the operator and local traffic authority, and there is discretion for a traffic commissioner to send it to any person considered appropriate. The report may also be published. There is no requirement for a local traffic authority to take action on any report.

Operators may cite difficulties in the road network and traffic flow. Traffic flow is an issue in many towns and cities, particularly at peak periods. Roadworks are also often cited as a major obstacle to operators in meeting their punctuality targets. Roadworks can often be as a result of urgent repairs to utilities, but many are planned in advance. Enhanced Partnership Schemes often include reference to network disruption with planned mitigation to reduce the impact. These actions may include multi-purpose control centres, categorising works on a RAG basis in terms of impact on local bus services, operating permit schemes with operator involvement. 

Traffic commissioners have been advised that the highways authority team and local passenger transport team are often contained in separate departments within a local authority and that this can, sometimes, lead to conflicting priorities and uncertainty in the role of the traffic commissioner. It is considered that greater use of the powers available to a traffic commissioner with regard to the Traffic Management Act 2004 may assist in raising awareness across local authorities. 

It is recognised that there may be limited resource available to a local traffic authority to improve traffic flow. Authorities may be able to consider solutions such as examining and adjusting signalling as these may be more realistic and affordable options compared to changing road layouts.

The Senior Traffic Commissioner would like to receive views on the value of traffic commissioners using this power in cases where traffic network management is cited as leading to poor punctuality.  The cost of providing additional reports to a traffic commissioner may place a burden on a local traffic authority’s resource. However, it is likely that a report would allow a traffic commissioner to make a more informed decision on any representations raised by an operator.

In addition, the Senior Traffic Commissioner would like to invite views on whether the revised Statutory Guidance could include examples of good and poor practice for local authorities in the document. Good practice should also highlight the benefits of working across neighbouring authorities to ensure main bus routes are not affected by roadworks at multiple points at the same time.

This could include matters such as:

• Monitoring and managing traffic flow
• Managing traffic signals
• Coordinating and managing road and street work effectively
• Controlling parking, including bus land enforcement
• Requiring operators to monitor the performance of services and inform the authority of any difficulty in maintaining timetables
• Providing operators with detail, frequent, clear and advance information about emergency and programmed works on the highway (both highway and statutory undertaker works and Traffic Management Act pre-notice requirements when these apply
• Undertaking effective and regular dialogue with operators, including on major infrastructure changes and resulting impacts on services

Question 12

Please provide your view on the benefits and impact of a traffic commissioner using their powers to request reports from a local authority when traffic management issues are cited as a reason for poor punctuality. Please provide any evidence on the estimated cost to providing reports.   

Question 13

Would a statement on what the Senior Traffic Commissioner considers to be good practice for local authorities be useful in managing network issues and roadworks? If yes, please provide examples of what you consider to be good practice.

Question 14

Should a traffic commissioner publish any report and send a copy to the Secretary of State?

Question 15

Should a traffic commissioner allow a report to be used as mitigation by an operator?

6. The Public Service Vehicles (Open Data) (England) Regulations 2020 (Bus Open Data)

The Public Service Vehicles (Open Data) (England) Regulations 2020 (Bus Open Data) were introduced under powers set out in the Bus Services Act 2017 with the intention of improving passenger information and encourage bus use. They apply to local bus services operating within England registered under section 6 of the Transport Act 1985.

Operators of registered local bus services are required to publish specific data sets to the Bus Open Data Service (BODS). These data sets are:

• Timetable data – required from 31 December 2020
• Fares and location data - required from 7 January 2021
• Punctuality and vehicle location data - required from 31 March 2021

The data must be provided in a format compliant with the Regulations.

The objective of the Regulations is to enable passengers to plan journeys confidently, reduce waiting times, and find the best-value tickets. Ultimately, increasing bus patronage, reducing congestion, and improving air quality.

Operators of local bus services who fail to comply with the Regulations can be referred to a traffic commissioner for the consideration of regulatory action under section 155 of the Transport Act 2000. Financial penalties of up to £550 for each vehicle authorised under the PSV operator’s licence may be issued by a traffic commissioner.

The Senior Traffic commissioner is aware of the investment that most operators have made in order to become compliant. The data available on DfT Analyse Bus Data Service from June 2026 suggests that 85% of timetable data, 82% of automated vehicle location data and 71% of fares data is published on BODS. Many of the published services are marked as requiring additional work to fully comply. Operators must also ensure that as service registrations change that the published data must reflect those changes.

It is understood that some services may present more technical challenges to comply with BODS, but the traffic commissioners expect all operators to fully comply or actively engage with the support services made available through the Department for Transport. The majority of operators have taken these steps, but there remains a small number who have chosen not to take all reasonable steps to fully comply with the legislation.

A key objective of traffic commissioners is to assist in ensuring that there is a ‘level playing field’ for operators. Operators who choose not to comply with their obligations may obtain a commercial or financial advantage over compliant operators. Therefore, the Senior Traffic Commissioner intends to set out in revised Statutory Directions and Statutory Guidance the approach that traffic commissioners should take to operators who have failed to take reasonable steps to comply with their obligations under The Public Service Vehicles (Open Data) (England) Regulations 2020 (Bus Open Data).

Traffic commissioners seek to regulate in a proportionate manner. They are required to consider the evidence before them and balance positive and negative features. Since the Regulations came into force OTC staff on behalf of the traffic commissioners have engaged with the Bus Open Data Service and operators to encourage compliance. It is considered that operators have had opportunity to comply with the Regulations and that further action should now be taken in certain cases. This does not mean that any operator failing to fully comply will be referred to a traffic commissioner for regulatory action but in the most serious cases of non-compliance an operator should expect regulatory intervention.

The most serious cases involve operators who fail to engage with the Department for Transport (and their designated contractors who support the service). An operator who fails to publish any statutory information and does not engage with the support available to them should expect to incur the most serious penalties. It is considered appropriate that these should be at the higher end of the permissible amount of £550 for each authorised vehicle.

Other cases that may be referred to a traffic commissioner are those in which an operator has failed to publish all data sets or services correctly on BODS. An operator referred to a traffic commissioner may put forward mitigation as to why they are not in full compliance.

Where an operator can evidence any of the following, a traffic commissioner may take it into account and lower any financial penalty to be applied, or deal with the matter by way of a warning. A traffic commissioner maintains discretion and the level of any reduction will depend on the severity and circumstances of each case, but examples might include where:

• the operator has sought, and acted upon, expert assistance in order to comply with the standards and have demonstrably engaged with the Bus Open Data Service Helpdesk and can evidence a plan for full compliance.
• an operator has published partial data, either for a number of their services or specific data sets. The more correct data sets or services that are published will reduce any financial sanction applied.
• that services are operated where it is accepted that they present greater challenges to fully comply, but the operator must have taken all reasonable steps to do so. A traffic commissioner would expect to see corroborating evidence of the steps taken and acceptance from the Bus Open Data Service of the challenges that any specific service presents.
• where services have previously been correctly published but, as a result of a registration change, they have not been promptly updated in BODS but the operator has been proactive in rectifying the issue.
• the nature of the service being provided and the benefits that arise from BODS. For example, a service operating as a closed door work or home to school service may attract a lower penalty than a local service open to the public.

Where a warning is issued, an operator would be expected to provide a clear plan to rectify any issues and be in full compliance within a reasonable timeframe.

There is no requirement to hold a public inquiry to consider regulatory action under section 155 of the Transport Act 2000. In bus punctuality cases a traffic commissioner would usually take action under section 26 of the Transport Act 1985 or section 155 of the Transport Act 2000 following a public inquiry. This allows an operator to provide mitigation and a future action plan. This reflects the complexity of bus punctuality cases and the amount of evidence considered.

The Senior Traffic Commissioner considers that cases related to the failure to upload data sets to BODS are usually more straightforward and are likely to be capable of determination on the papers. Limiting public inquiries helps to ensure the efficient use of valuable tribunal resources and may reduce costs for operators, but there may be a deterrent value in publicising such cases in Notices and Proceedings. The Senior Traffic Commissioner would like to receive views from stakeholders on whether cases of this nature could be determined without a public inquiry. In all cases an operator would have to be given sufficient opportunity to present mitigation for a traffic commissioner to take into account. 

The discretion to hear evidence at a preliminary hearing or public inquiry would remain with the individual traffic commissioner who may wish to convene an inquiry for transparency considerations or where additional matters are to be considered.

The Bus Open Data Service could also provide an opportunity for a change in approach in what evidence is placed before a traffic commissioner. Currently a traffic commissioner may receive monitoring reports based on a sufficient sample of an operator’s services. This requirement was established in case law and the resource intensive approach limits the number of cases referred to traffic commissioners. It is uncommon for there to be more than ten public inquiries held in any reporting year. The Bus Open Data Service provides opportunity for staff of the Office of the Traffic Commissioner or the DVSA to review an operator’s performance across all or some of their services based upon the data provided by that operator in a much less resource intensive way. Therefore, the Senior Traffic Commissioner invites views on whether the regulation of compliance with performance standards could utilise the data held within BODS provided operators are provided with opportunity to provide reasonable excuse. This approach might modernise the current resource intensive approach and allow for an increased number of cases to be considered, targeting those operators whose performance falls far short of what is expected.     

Question 16

Do you agree that operators who have failed to publish any datasets and to engage with the support available to them should expect a financial penalty at the higher end of the scale? If not, please give reasons?

Question 17

Do you agree with the points set out as potential mitigation, and can you provide any further items that could be used as mitigation?

Question 18

Do you consider that it would be appropriate for cases regarding the failure to provide information to BODS (or any future equivalent service) to be dealt with outside of a public inquiry where a traffic commissioner considers the facts are clear? If not, why not? Please set out any benefits you consider arise from doing so, or from holding public inquiries.

Question 19

Should notice of penalties issued under section 155 of the Transport Act 2000 be published in Notices and Proceedings even where a public inquiry is not held? Please explain your answer.

Question 20

Please provide any view on whether BODS data can be utilised and used as evidence of an operator’s performance against the reliability standards expected. The Senior Traffic Commissioner is particularly interested in views on whether it could be used as evidence with no corroborating monitoring exercise being conducted.

7. Franchising and Enhanced Partnerships

Where a franchising scheme has been made and the effective time of any local service contract is reached, no local bus service may be provided in the area to which the scheme relates unless:

• it is provided under a local service contract
• it is an interim service as set out in section 123O of the Transport Act 2000
• it is provided under a service permit issued by the relevant franchising authority

The onus for compliance remains with the operator. The Office of the Traffic Commissioner is not resourced to cross-reference requests for registration with franchising schemes, and it would not be appropriate for an operator to rely on the registration of a service as a defence to operating without the required service permits.

If it appears to the franchising authority that a person is operating, or has operated, a local bus service in contravention of this and has failed to take all reasonable precautions and to exercise all due diligence to avoid doing so, the franchising authority must inform a traffic commissioner.

A traffic commissioner may then consider whether or not to issue a financial penalty against the operator under section 155 of the Transport Act 2000. The penalty issued can be up to £550 multiplied by the total number of vehicles which the operator is licensed to use under all the PSV operator’s licences held by that operator. In addition, a traffic commissioner would consider whether the action of the operator impacts upon their good repute and whether there has been a failure of an undertaking given on the grant of the PSV operator’s licence. This could result in action being taken against the operator’s licence under section 17 of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981.

The Senior Traffic Commissioner considers it would be appropriate for an operator who knowingly operates a local bus service without the required authority to expect a financial penalty at the higher end of the scale. Furthermore, the operator should also expect regulatory action be taken against their operator’s licence.

In determining the appropriate level of regulatory intervention, a traffic commissioner may take into account the overall benefit to the operator. Relevant factors may include:

• the number of the services operated in contravention
• the frequency of those services
• patronage
• the percentage of the service that operates within the franchising area and the number of stops within that area

If an operator can provide evidence that the incursion represented only a small part of the overall service, with limited frequency and resultant patronage, a traffic commissioner may consider it proportionate to reduce the financial penalty from the starting point.

Question 21

Do you agree that the operation of a local bus service in contravention of the franchising scheme should result in a starting point for a financial penalty £550 for each vehicle authorised under the PSV operator’s licences held by the operator?

Question 22

Is it proportionate for this sanction to be reduced depending on the factors set out above?     

8. How to respond

We do not expect you to submit evidence or views in response to every question listed, if not applicable. Responses should be limited to 500 words per question.

This consultation was issued on 17 September 2026 and will run until 11 December 2026. Please ensure that your response reaches us before the closing date so that we can consider your comments.

When responding, state whether you are responding as an individual or representing the views of an organisation. If responding on behalf of a larger organisation:

• make it clear who the organisation represents
• how the views of members were assembled

To respond you can either:

Email

tccoconsultations@otc.gov.uk

Post

Scott Cambridge

Traffic Commissioner Corporate Office

Quarry House

Leeds

LS2 7UE

9. What happens next

We will publish a summary of responses on the homepage for this consultation. Paper copies will be available on request.

10. Further Information

Freedom of information

Information provided in response to this consultation, including personal information, may be subject to publication or disclosure in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) or the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.

If you want information that you provide to be treated as confidential, be aware that, under the FOIA, there is a statutory code of practice with which public authorities must comply and which deals, amongst other things, with obligations of confidence.

In view of this, it would be helpful if you could explain to us why you regard the information you have provided as confidential. If we receive a request for disclosure of the information, we will take full account of your explanation, but we cannot give an assurance that confidentiality can be maintained in all circumstances. An automatic confidentiality disclaimer generated by your IT system will not, of itself, be regarded as binding on the Traffic Commissioners for Great Britain.

The Traffic Commissioners for Great Britain will process your personal data in accordance with the Data Protection Act, this will mean that your personal data will not be disclosed to third parties.

Crown copyright

This consultation is covered by the rules of Crown copyright the Department for Transport and the UK government adhere to.

---

[1] Table BUS09a from the DfT dataset