Consultation outcome

Review of the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document: Vocational Driver Conduct: Summary of Responses

Updated 7 November 2025

1. Introduction

The Traffic Commissioners for Great Britain are independent specialist regulators responsible for the licensing and regulation of commercial vehicle operators and the conduct of professional drivers in the lorry, bus, and coach industries.

As part of their key strategic objectives, the commissioners aim to promote a safe road transport industry which supports compliance, fair competition and protects the environment.

The Senior Traffic Commissioner issues Statutory Guidance and Statutory Directions to the Traffic Commissioners for Great Britain, collectively referred to as the Statutory Documents.

The Statutory Documents are published to explain how the traffic commissioners work to deliver consistent and fair regulation of the transport industry and represents our efforts to modernise the licensing regime.

The Statutory Document on vocational driver conduct is issued by the Senior Traffic Commissioner pursuant to section 4C of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981. It provides Statutory Guidance on how the law should be interpreted and Statutory Directions on how staff acting on behalf of individual traffic commissioners should operate delegated functions.

2. What we consulted on

We consulted on changes to the Statutory Document on vocational driver conduct with the aim of:

• achieving consistent regulatory outcomes for drivers by considering the risk they pose to other road users;
• the referral and starting points for regulatory action against drivers;
• the delegation of matters to staff acting on behalf of traffic commissioners;
• the use of case studies in the document.

The consultation ran from 17 April 2025 to 29 May 2025.

Stakeholders were invited to comment on a number of proposed revisions, including:

• clarifying the legislative provisions which apply when traffic commissioners consider the conduct of vocational drivers;
• outlining the approach traffic commissioners will take when an operator notifies that a driver has failed a drink or drugs test;
• setting out the requirement for hearings and decisions to be transparent with clear reasons provided;
• identifying which cases may be suitable for a virtual hearing;
• clarifying that the starting points and case examples are nonbinding on the presiding commissioner, who retains full discretion in their decision-making;
• consolidating the different types of conduct and offences listed in the starting points annex to make them easier to interpret;
• removal of the clause that set out that a driver who received a community penalty from a court should be called to a hearing. This has been removed to ensure that those drivers who received a community order because they are unable to pay a fine are not treated unfairly;
• removal of the starting point related to multiple CU80 offences for the mobile phone offences. This reflects the previous change in the law to increase the standard penalty to six points meaning that multiple offences are likely to lead to a disqualification of all a driver’s entitlements;
• revision of the disqualification thresholds to recognise that a longer ban is typically imposed for more serious offending;
• identification of additional negative and positive features which can form part of the risk assessment of a driver’s fitness;
• adding further case examples to the Annex to provide additional scenarios which explain how a traffic commissioner may use their discretion.

3. Executive Summary

A total of nine responses were received. We are grateful to all respondents for their time and input.

Organisation	Number of responses
Trade associations	2
Consultants	2
Operator	2
Individuals	3

The responses reflected strong support for the overarching aims of the revised Statutory Document—namely, improving clarity, consistency, and fairness in vocational driver regulation. Stakeholders welcomed the risk-based approach and procedural updates, while also highlighting areas for refinement, particularly around communication, training timelines, and the application of discretion.

A number of responses related to matters outside the jurisdiction of the Traffic Commissioners; therefore, no formal response will be provided to those points.

4. Detailed Summary of Responses

The consultation sought responses to the following questions:

4.1 Does the revised draft guidance better explain the role of the traffic commissioner with regards to their LGV/PCV driving entitlement? If not, how could it be improved.

Summary of responses

Most respondents agreed that the revised guidance improves clarity around the role of Traffic Commissioners in regulating vocational driver conduct, particularly through the inclusion of new explanatory paragraphs. There was strong support for efforts to raise awareness among vocational drivers, many of whom remain unaware of the TC’s role and responsibilities.

A respondent recommended clearer articulation of how non-vocational conduct relates to vocational fitness, to avoid ambiguity and ensure proportionality.

One respondent cautioned that Statutory Documents should remain interpretive and not be treated as binding legislation, emphasising the need for compliance with UK common law and the European Convention on Human Rights.

Next steps

We will retain the revised explanatory content and look at where we can improve this in the future. We are satisfied that the current case-by-case approach, supported by the Statutory Document and the discretion afforded to presiding commissioners, provides sufficient scope to ensure that non-vocational offences are addressed proportionately.

We recognise the concerns raised about the status of the Statutory Documents and that they must be applied in accordance with UK law and the European Convention on Human Rights. However, the power to issue Statutory Guidance and Statutory Directions are set out in section 4C of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 and the Upper Tribunal has held that a traffic commissioner will not be wrong in law if they follow lawful directions given by the Senior Traffic Commissioner. This reference will be added to align with the other Statutory Documents.

4.2 Are the processes for considering whether regulatory intervention against a driver who holds LGV/PCV entitlement clear and appropriate, particularly the starting points and guidelines for specific offences? If not, how could it be improved.

Summary of responses

Most respondents supported the consolidation of offence categories and the clarification of starting points for regulatory action. The removal of automatic hearings for community penalties was seen as a positive step towards fairness.

One respondent objected to the suggestion that completing Driver CPC training late in the five-year cycle is inherently problematic, citing operational constraints. Another warned that overemphasising the non-binding nature of starting points could reduce predictability.

Next steps

The revised structure of offence categories and starting points will be retained, with additional clarification that these are indicative and not prescriptive. The STC is of the view that the starting points cannot be given additional authority, as doing so would risk undermining the discretion of the presiding commissioner.

We acknowledge the concerns regarding the timing of Driver CPC training, particularly within the PSV industry, where training schedules are often arranged by operators around operational demands. While completing training late in the cycle is not, in itself, a compliance breach there is an expectation that learning is planned, managed, and appropriately identified. The wording will be amended to clarify that early and evenly spaced training is encouraged as best practice. However, a traffic commissioner retains the discretion to view last-minute completion of training as a negative feature, particularly where delayed training results in a driver operating without the required knowledge, leading to an offence.

4.3 Is the introduction of a risk-based consideration appropriate to determining whether a driver is fit (by way of conduct) to hold LGV/PCV entitlement? Are there any other positive or negative features that should be included.

Summary of responses

All substantive responses supported the introduction of a risk-based framework for assessing driver conduct. Many viewed the list of positive and negative features as comprehensive with two respondents identifying a number of additions. The approach was seen as aligning with modern regulatory practices and enabling more targeted interventions.

One respondent requested an explanation be added of what a risk assessment involves to assist smaller businesses. One respondent stressed the need for a clear methodology to ensure consistent application.

Next steps

The risk-based framework will be retained and the list of features expanded to include examples such as a history of infrastructure collisions, attempts to conceal misconduct, voluntary remedial training and proactive engagement with employer-led interventions. To support reader understanding, additional detail will be included on the process Traffic Commissioners follow when assessing the risks a driver may present.

Additional training will be provided to delegated staff and Traffic Commissioners to support consistent application of the risk-based approach across traffic areas.

4.4 Is the use of technology to hear cases remotely helpful and are the starting points for when a case is suitable for a virtual hearing appropriate? If not, please provide additional comment.

Summary of responses

Respondents supported the use of virtual hearings where appropriate, recognising their potential to improve efficiency and accessibility. Concerns were raised about fairness for unrepresented drivers, those with limited access to technology and the reduced deterrent effect.

Next steps

We will continue to support the use of virtual hearings where appropriate, particularly for less complex cases or where accessibility is not a concern. The guidance will emphasise that in-person hearings remain available and may be required where fairness or the nature of the case demands it. Protocols will be developed to ensure virtual hearings maintain the formality and structure of in-person proceedings.

4.5 Are the case examples useful and clear? Please comment on whether there are any other case examples which would be useful.

Summary of responses

The case examples were widely regarded as helpful for illustrating how the guidance applies in practice. A number of respondents sought additional case examples on:

• Bridge strikes – illustrating how Traffic Commissioners assess responsibility when route planning is inadequate;
• Destination boards – demonstrating how Traffic Commissioners approach cases where a driver fails to display the correct destination;
• Mental health – demonstrating how Traffic Commissioners approach cases involving underlying mental health conditions;
• Alcohol testing – clarifying how Traffic Commissioners respond to drivers who fail a company-administered alcohol test;
• Drivers’ hours – clarifying how Traffic Commissioners differentiate between accidental and deliberate offences.

Next steps

We welcome confirmation that the case examples are useful. Additional examples have been incorporated, and consideration will be given to expanding the range further to reflect a broader set of real-world scenarios, with the aim of supporting consistent interpretation. In the meantime, further guidance has been included to explain how Traffic Commissioners approach conduct issues relating to alcohol testing and PSV accessibility.

4.6 Please provide any ideas on how we may provide useful information directly to drivers without the benefit of being able to write or email them directly.

Summary of responses

There was unanimous agreement that more needs to be done to raise awareness among vocational drivers.

Next steps

We will collaborate with DVLA, DVSA, and operator licence holders to distribute key messages through existing communication channels. We will explore the inclusion of TC guidance in Driver CPC training, potentially through a short, standardised module. Trade associations and industry publications will be engaged to help disseminate updates and guidance.

5. Conclusion

Overall, the consultation has been a valuable exercise in ensuring that the Statutory Document is comprehensive, fair, and aligned with the legal framework. The collaborative efforts of all stakeholders have contributed to a more robust and effective regulatory regime for vocational drivers

The consultation did not provide enough evidence to support a change in approach to the restoration of vocational entitlement following disqualification or to the current starting point for bridge collisions. In the case of bridge strikes, Traffic Commissioners routinely hear evidence from both a driver and operator before deciding on the appropriate regulatory action which enables them to carry out a full assessment and depart from the starting point when appropriate. These issues will be examined further to determine whether additional evidence can be gathered to support the development of new proposals.

The Senior Traffic Commissioner extends gratitude to all respondents and contributors involved in updating the Statutory Document. The updated Statutory Guidance and Statutory Directions have been issued accordingly.