Decision

Decision for A & G Structures Ltd (OH1025164)

Published 14 December 2020

Public Inquiry held in Bristol on 15 October 2020

1. Background

A & G Structures Ltd is the holder of a restricted goods vehicle operator licence authorising the use of two vehicles from a site at Longshot Industrial Estate, Bracknell. One vehicle is recorded as in possession.

The Driver & Vehicle Services Agency (DVSA) encountered vehicle G1RDA on 13 March 2019. It was apparent that neither vehicle nor tachograph cards had been downloaded by the operator since October 2018. This led to a drivers hours investigation that was conducted by Traffic Examiner (TE) Phillip Bibbings. TE Bibbings first visited the operator on 3 May 2019 but was unable to complete a traffic examiner’s visit report because director Dennis Cooke was absent on an extended holiday and co-director Gareth Cooke was unable fully to assist. TE Bibbings postponed the visit until 24 July 2019.

On his visit TE Bibbings found the following shortcomings:

• Driving licences being checked on an annual basis
• No digital tachograph data downloading taking place due to the vehicle being new and operator having no knowledge on how to use it
• No tachograph analysis taking place
• No preventative maintenance inspections (PMIs) appear to be taking place and the operator seems to have no knowledge of the requirement under the operator’s licence
• The responsible person does not have the required level of control over the transport operation

The operator responded to the shortcomings in an email dated 7 October 2019.

The apparent lack of any maintenance led to a joint investigation with Vehicle Examiner (VE) Paul Edwards. TE Bibbings and VE Edwards visited the operator on 22 November 2019. VE Edwards found the following shortcomings:

• Vehicle not displaying licence disc.
• Extensive advice given on the means to progress continuous professional development with awareness courses etc.
• Non suitable records currently in use.
• Advise operator to evidence contemporaneous copies of PMI records if kept as manual records.
• Records do not contain declarations of roadworthiness or indications that brake efficiencies are being accurately assessed.
• PMI records not fully completed
• Mileage inconsistency regarding recorded mileage on PMI record differing from driver defect report (DDR) for same day.
• No driver defect records for the full 15 month period (only from 24/05/2019)
• DDR records air leaks over several days with endorsement only at the repair after 7 days and no evidence that responsible person was aware of defect.
• Major mirror defect not noted contemporaneously on DDR system.
• Indicator defects found at PMI on 15/09/18 and 18/08/18, but no DDR reports as none before 24/05/2019
• Hand tooling seen but requested operator to evidence roller brake testing and beam-testing use and availability of jacking equipment.
• One MOT fail for safety critical Service brake operation defect on 3 April 2017.

VE Edwards sent the notice of shortcomings and request for explanation on 22 November 2019. The operator responded on 29 November 2019. Following this VE Edwards and TE Bibbings interviewed Mr Gareth Cooke and Mr Dennis Cooke on the 14 January 2020 and 11 February 2020 respectively. VE Edwards then sent a second request for explanation on 18 February 2020. The operator responded via their solicitor on 11 April 2020. The explanation was not satisfactory. DVSA planned to prosecute for the apparent falsification of maintenance records but the prosecution failed to meet the Covid threshold for prosecution – that there be a significant likelihood of a custodial sentence.

These significant and serious concerns caused me to call the operator to public inquiry on the following grounds:

Section 26(1)(c)(iii) of the Act, that vehicles or drivers had been issued with prohibition notices;

Section 26(1)(e) of the Act, that statements made were not honoured, in this case that the operator was not inspecting vehicles at 6-weekly intervals;

Section 26(1)(f) of the Act, that any undertaking recorded in the licence had not been fulfilled, namely

• That vehicles would be kept fit and serviceable
• That the rules on drivers hours and tachographs would be observed
• That records would be kept for 15 months of driver defect reports and preventative maintenance inspections
• That there would be effective driver defect reporting

under Section 26(1)(h) of the Act, that there had been a material change in the circumstances of the licence holder in that the holder was no longer fit to be the holder of a licence.

2. The Public Inquiry

Mr Dennis Cooke and Mr Gareth Cooke attended for the operator represented by David Pojur of Counsel, instructed by Peter Hampson, solicitor, Rradar. Traffic Examiner Philip Bibbings and Vehicle Examiner Paul Edwards attended for DVSA.

Proceedings were recorded and a transcript can be produced as required. I do not record all the evidence here, only that which is necessary to come to a decision.

2.1 Preliminary Matters

Access to financial resources was satisfied. I had been provided with a statement on behalf of the company in advance and a further short update. Copies of maintenance records and other documentation had also been provided in advance in line with the standard Covid directions.

2.2 The evidence of Traffic Examiner Philip Bibbings

TE Bibbings introduced himself and adopted his public inquiry brief. There was no update in relation to any further encounters with the operator. The operator had been encountered at the roadside at M25, Leatherhead, in March 2019. TE Richard Bate had found two historic drivers hours offences but, more concerning, was that the tachograph had never been downloaded and the company had not registered a company card in the machine. The driver’s card had not been downloaded since 4 December 2107, a lapse of 464 days.

I asked about the length of time that appeared to have been taken for the investigation. TE Bibbings told me he called for the first time on 23 April and again, having received no call back on 25 April and agreed a date of 3 May 2019. He had been aware that Dennis Cooke was out of the country but proceeded on an understanding that Gareth Cooke would be able to assist. Unfortunately, he was not able adequately to do so and a further visit took place on 24 July 2019. Towards the end of that meeting, he asked for the preventative maintenance inspections but received no response, TE Bibbings describing it as a “tumbleweed moment”.

Immediately following that visit, TE Bibbings went on leave and had other priorities on return so his written request for further information was not sent until 29 August. He received no response and chased by phone and email on 9 September. He received a response from Gareth the following day stating that Dennis Cooke was at the Kent site and they would respond the following week. No response was received during the following week so TE Bibbings completed his report and sent it to the operator noting that the seriousness of the apparent shortcomings meant that it had passed the threshold for reporting to me. He did that by email on 19 September again inviting a response and further explanation within 14 days. A response was received on 7 October 2019 by email. Attached to it were three, single-page, vehicle inspection reports. Gareth Cooke asked whether the inspection reports were adequate. TE Bibbings consulted Vehicle Examiner colleagues and a further visit was agreed with a Vehicle Examiner present.

2.3 The evidence of Vehicle Examiner Paul Edwards

Vehicle Examiner Paul Edwards introduced himself and adopted his maintenance report of 22 November 2019. The facilities at the premises were an indoor workshop with no pit and no brake testing or headlamp testing facilities. There was no jack available. It was apparently being used offsite. He had been sent a photograph of a jack but without any reference point it was not possible to see how big the jack was. Mr Edwards had expected to see something larger but it was difficult to say whether or not it was suitable for raising a corner of a 7.5 tonne truck.

Dennis Cooke had responded to the request for further information.

I referred VE Edwards to the vehicle inspection reports and asked as to their adequacy. VE Edwards told me that they appeared to refer to service items, did not cover all MOT requirements and were not as comprehensive as they should be.

2.4 The evidence of Gareth Cooke, Director

Mr Cooke told me that he was the Operations Director and had recently taken over responsibility for the authorised vehicle from Dennis, his father. He had completed a RHA operator licence awareness course and been on the DVSA website, watched relevant videos on YouTube and was booked on a further RHA course on 8 December to learn how to conduct PMIs.

He recalled TE Bibbings visit on 29 July 2019. There was no triple request for PMIs as the Examiner had claimed. TE Bibbings specifically asked what arrangements were in place for external repairers. They didn’t use external repairers except RJC who had previously been used for large repairs but hadn’t been needed since purchasing the new vehicle. RJC had since been placed on a contract to carry out four brake and headlamp alignment tests and a pre-MOT inspection. He hadn’t responded to TE Bibbings in that way because he thought the Traffic Examiner was only there to look at tachographs. There was no “tumbleweed moment”.

They acquired the new vehicle in October 2018. The focus was on maintaining the vehicle not the paperwork. He had been involved with PMIs since he was a young lad. The paperwork was supplementary. Now that he had attended the course he understood the need for an audit trail. He was happy that he was capable of keeping the lorry roadworthy and the paperwork compliant. The discrepancy in the mileage happened because one of them (he and his father) would be in the cab and would call out the mileage. Dennis was old-school and believed in recording miles not km. He (Gareth) was “not Carol Vorderman”. To keep paperwork “nice and neat”, the old forms were rewritten and then discarded. There were lots of steps where it could go wrong. There was no set format to the PMIs. Now a photo was taken of the mileage and it is attached to the PMI.

There had been no falsification of records. They were a small business and tried hard to get things right. There was no dishonesty. He could not profess to know the 2000-odd regulations that applied to road transport but the driver would be trained. The company had responded to DVSA as quickly as it could. Transport was not what the business did. It was a small busy company and hadn’t expected to have to deal with this.

The company has a number of jacks and props and they are used in the main business to align structural steelwork. They had a 10-tonne bottle jack, a 5-tonne trolley jack and a 3-tonne forklift truck. The mileages had only been out by 1.5%. TE Bibbings had himself made an error in recording the mileage in one instance.

I asked what training Mr Crooke had undertaken in being able to inspect a vehicle. He told me that he had learned from his father but his father had not had any formal training either. He (Gareth) was now booked on a further PMI course. I noted that the course that was planned to be attended was for supervisors not technicians. Mr Cooke told me that he had just spoken to someone at RHA who had recommended it.

The directors had recently discussed outsourcing PMIs to RJC but wanted to get the hearing out of the way before making any changes. I referred to the more recent PMIs which used sheets photocopied from the Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness. Mr Cooke described the brake test; the vehicle was loaded, brakes applied and then the temperature of the brakes was taken. At the front, he measured the temperature of the caliper. At the back, he took the temperature of the hub. I noted that the temperature was 23 degrees on 3 wheels and 24 on another. In July, that was little above ambient. On 9 June, the temperatures were recorded at 21 and 23 degrees. I asked what Mr Cooke would expect and he said “a difference”. Mr Cooke senior sought to assist his son.

I asked Vehicle Examiner Edwards what he would expect to see. He told me that he would have to road-test the vehicle and then would expect to see readings of 70, 80 and 90 degrees or much higher. There would need to be substantial temperatures. He would measure the temperature of the brake disc not the caliper.

Noting that the company had previously used industry-standard “Tachopak” inspection reports, I asked why the company had moved to the much-simplified single-sheet form. Mr Cooke told me that it has been an error in purchasing them on Amazon. He accepted that they were the wrong forms which is why they had started to use the forms from the guide. He had noticed that the forms were deficient at the time. The focus was on the inspection not the paperwork. He had not provided the sheets to TE Bibbings as he had not asked for them directly. I took Mr Cooke to the email dated 29 August 2019 where the Examiner had set out clearly what was needed stating “I am required to inspect 12 months’ PMI records”. Mr Cooke could not explain why there had been no substantive response from the company until 7 October and then only three PMIs were supplied.

His attendance at the operator licencing course had been delayed by Covid from March to September. It had been booked and paid for as an in-person course and the option to attend online had not been considered.

The operator had been using RJC for 5-6 years. They were very knowledgeable. They hadn’t needed to use them much on the new lorry. However, it would be a sensible solution to use them for all maintenance. They had considered employing a transport manager but didn’t need one as a restricted licence holder and, for one vehicle, it was not viable.

Mr Pojur took Mr Cooke to the subject of the alleged false maintenance records. The odometer readings didn’t tally because the steps taken in recording it. Had he wanted to forge them, he could have referred to the Tachomaster records and identified the correct mileage. Of nine documents, there is no discrepancy on two, five are less than 1.5 percent out. One is only 2 km out. The other discrepancies were converting km to miles by Mr Cooke Snr.

Mr Cooke was not able to identify the discrepancies on particular records. On 17 May, it looked like the PMI had been undertaken at the start of the day but TE Bibbings had compared it with the end mileage that day. On 31 August 2019, the PMI was undertaken on a Saturday but not completed until after it was loaded on the Monday.

I noted a PMI dated 20 December 2018. Referring to the corresponding tachograph record, I noted that there was no driving of the vehicle that day yet the record shows that the PMI was started and finished the same day. The vehicle had been moved at 08:16 for less than one minute and again at 16:54 for less than one minute. I put it to Mr Cooke that the form was not genuine as no inspection could have been carried out without driving the vehicle.

The next inspection report shows a PMI starting and finishing on 16 February 2019; the tachograph record indicated that the vehicle had not been moved that day. An inspection is recorded as starting and finishing on 17 May 2019. The tachograph record for that date records up to one minute driving at 05:49. The record shows a day of driving by “Neil Clark” from 07:46 to 16:03. There is then a further period of driving of 3 minutes with no card inserted at 16:04. That did not appear to me to indicate a PMI had occurred that day.

I put it to Mr Cooke that, with three out of three documents so far having gross inconsistencies, it was hard to resist a finding that the documents were forged. I suggested to Mr Cooke that the company may indeed have been carrying out inspections but had failed to record them until requested to provide the records by DVSA at which point they had purchased the single-sheet forms and fabricated the evidence. At some point they realised the record sheets were inadequate and moved to the Tachopak forms. I could find no other explanation for why they would move from a compliant form to one that was so obviously non-compliant. Mr Cooke maintained his position.

I noted that Mr Cooke had disagreed entirely with the evidence of TE Bibbings and invited Mr Pojur to address that point.

2.5 Further evidence of Traffic Examiner Philip Bibbings

Mr Pozur put to TE Bibbings that there had not been a “tumbleweed moment” but rather a misunderstanding of what had been requested. TE Bibbings denied that there had been any misunderstanding and confirmed that he had made the request three times. There had been good cooperation throughout until that point. No contemporaneous note had been taken and there had been a four to five week delay in putting it down in writing due to leave and other work commitments.

TE Bibbings was clear that the moment was so unusual that it stuck in his mind. He could not have mis-remembered the incident. He accepted that the operator in the email on 7 October from Gareth Cooke indicated that they were saying that they were confused but did not agree that was the case. He had felt no need to respond to the operator further.

2.6 Closing submissions

Mr Pojur did not wish to call Mr Dennis Cooke and I indicated that I had no specific questions for him.

Mr Pojur noted that the potential finding that records were forged was very serious. Gaps and omissions were accepted by the company. Messrs Cooke were not villains or rogues. There was nothing to be gained by what had been alleged. It would have been better to outsource to RJC at the outset. Gareth Cooke had done his best to upskill himself in the difficult circumstances. They were men of good character and a finding of dishonesty would be devastating.

There was a disagreement on the facts between Mr Bibbings and the operator. Mr Bibbings had not made a contemporaneous note of what had been said as might be expected of a former police officer. He had then gone on holiday and had a heavy workload. Gareth Cooke had said in his email of 7 October that they were confused even if the Examiner did not accept that. Had they wanted to forge them, then they could have done so. There was no pattern to the discrepancies on the documents. On five of the sheets, the discrepancy was less than 1.5%. The range of errors was accountable for by the method of converting from kilometres to miles.

Gareth Cooke had booked a face to face course and it was not unreasonable to wait for it to be rescheduled. A further useful course was booked for December.

The Cookes had evidently failed to impress me but I could draw back from a finding of dishonesty. The company invested in safety and focussed on the vehicle condition rather than the paperwork. There had been no collisions. It was shoddy paperwork and shoddy understanding but not a shoddy vehicle. The company had immediately accepted my concern about the internal maintenance and had agreed to outsource it. The company did not fall in to the most serious category. Allowing them to keep the vehicle but ensuring that the maintenance was done externally would make the point. Having heard evidence that did not obviously make sense generated difficult questions and potentially even more difficult answers. Causing the company to hire-in transport would be disproportionately and prohibitively expensive for them.

I offered Mr Pojur seven days to put forward evidence of the impact of action on the business. That evidence and submissions were submitted on time and I have taken account of them in my decision.

3. Consideration and Findings of Fact

The hearing was largely taken up with discussion in relation to maintenance records and the operator’s conduct during the investigation. I remind myself that this investigation began with an encounter on 13 March 2019 where it was identified that the tachograph vehicle unit had never been downloaded since the vehicle was purchased in October 2018, the data was not locked in using a company card, and the drivers tachograph card had not been downloaded since 4 December 2017, 464 days earlier. The legal requirement is for the actual period to be risk-based but with a long-stop of 90 calendar days. It follows that no driver’s hours management was possible and that the operator had breached its undertaking to observe the rules on drivers hours and tachographs and to keep proper records. The operator had still not procured a company card or tachograph download tool when TE Bibbings visited on 3 May 2019. Section 26(1)(f) is made out. This finding is confirmed by the two 4½ hour offences committed by the driver and identified by TE Bate at the roadside. It is a serious finding.

I note that drivers hours analysis was in place when TE Bibbings revisited on 24 July 2019. It was at that date that the issue of the preventative maintenance inspection reports arose. The content of the discussion that day is disputed and I will come back to that. It is helpful to consider the status of the records first.

There are ten PMI records in total, with a helpful summary of the position of nine of them appearing at page 49 of my bundle. It is necessary that I consider each one here:

3.1 17 November 2018

This is the first recorded inspection of vehicle G1RDA as an Iveco (the registration having previously been on a DAF). No mileage is recorded. For that reason, there is no evidence of a discrepancy with the tachograph reading. It is recorded on an industry-standard form produced by “Tachopak”. The brake efficiency is recorded as “100%” for service, secondary and parking, which is clearly nonsense. No tyre tread depth is recorded. These shortcomings persist through almost all inspections. Not one shows a brake performance test.

3.2 20 December 2018

Tachopak form. Inspection states started and finished on the same day. The mileage is recorded as 6928. The end mileage on the tachograph record that day was 9976 km which, using the company’s method of miles = kilometres x 0.6, equates to 5,985 miles. Mr Cooke explained that the PMI may have been conducted at the start of the day but that does not explain a difference of almost a thousand miles. The vehicle is driven twice for a period of less than one minute, once at 08:16 and once at 16:54. The operator states that brakes are tested by a road test. No road test has been conducted that day. The recorded mileage on the report is actually recorded by the vehicle tachograph at some point on 14 January whilst being driven by Neil Clark. I find with a very high degree of certainty that no preventative maintenance inspection was undertaken that day and that record is false.

3.3 16 February 2020

Tachopak form. Inspection states started and finished on the same day. Mileage recorded as 9598 which, using the company’s conversion, equates to 15997 km or, done more accurately, 15446 km. The tachograph record shows an odometer reading of 15,230 km. More strikingly, the vehicle does not appear even to have been moved at all. I find with a high degree of certainty that the record is false.

3.4 30 March 2020

Tachopak form. The mileage accords with the tachograph reading for end of duty on 29 March. I make no adverse finding in relation to the voracity of the record.

3.5 17 May 2019

Tachopak form. Mileage recorded as 16,302 which converts to 27,170 using operator formula. Date out recorded as 17/8/19 but date in and declaration signed 17/5/19. Recording on tachograph at the start of the day is 27,170. The vehicle is started and moved for a duration less than 1 minute at 05:49, no card inserted. The tachograph defaults to other work until 07:46 when Neil Clark inserts his card. He then appears to undertake a standard shift. There is no evidence of a road test before Mr Clark starts a constant period of driving of 2 hours and 9 minutes. The record would be consistent with the vehicle being moved for loading prior to Mr Clark starting his shift. I find with a high degree of certainty that this record is false and that Gareth Cooke’s statement to me that the PMI was conducted at the start of the day is equally so.

3.6 28 June 2019

Tachopak form. Mileage is 17,637 which converts by the operator to 28,945 km. All dates, in, out, declaration signed 28 June 19. Tachograph records 33,607 at start of the day and 33,895 at the end. Notably, the start reading for 28 May 2019 is 29,200. The tachograph record shows the vehicle being moved for a period of less than 1 minute with no card inserted at 07:17. Mr Clark then begins a period of driving of 1 minute at 07:50, briefly stops, then starts a period of driving of 1 hour 34 minutes at 07:53. Mr Clark appears then to conduct normal driving duties. There is no evidence of any road test being conducted. It would not be possible to conduct a preventative maintenance inspection in the period between 07:17 and 07:50 even assuming Mr Clark drove the vehicle off the jack Formula 1 style. I find with a high degree of certainty that this maintenance record is false.

3.7 20 July 2019

Short-form, non-compliant inspection sheet used. Mileage accords with tachograph.

3.8 31 August 2019

Short-form sheet. Mileage recorded at 42,266, which appears to be km and is the end of day reading for 2 September 2019 but inspection report records the inspection being undertaken between 07:00 and 10:00 on 31 August. Tachograph record for 31 August shows that the vehicle has not moved at all that day so no inspection could be carried out. I find with a high degree of certainty that the inspection report is false. This is the instance on which Gareth Cooke told me the brake and road test had probably been conducted on the Monday after the vehicle was loaded. There are two, one minute driving periods without a card on the Monday morning, at 05:46 and 06:45. Neither is anything like long enough to constitute a road test and brake test. The vehicle is then driven in what appears to be a normal working shift by Neil Clark. It would appear that Mr Cooke either mis-remembered or was trying to mislead me.

3.9 21 September 2019

Short-form sheet. Mileage recorded as 44953, presumably kilometres. End tachograph reading on the preceding day is 45,018 kms. I do not have the tachograph record for 21 September. I find it more likely than the inspection report is false.

3.10 2 November 2019

Short-form sheet. The operator has returned to recording miles. Using the operator’s conversion, it is within 2 kilometres. I make no adverse finding.

There are three instances when the vehicle is not moved at all on a day when a PMI is claimed to have taken place. On each occasion, the PMI starts and finishes on the same day so must include a road test. It is simply not possible to conduct a preventative maintenance inspection without driving the vehicle at least a short distance – even a roller brake test will be recorded as driving on the tachograph head and this operator does not have access to such a facility. There are two other dates on which the vehicle appears to undertake a standard driving shift and there is no evidence of any preventative maintenance inspections. That is five of the ten. The scale of the mileage discrepancies on several occasions is such that there is no natural explanation. Mr Cooke puts it down to mistaken conversion between kilometres and miles but that would generate a consistent error. I might accept one or two errors in recording the odometer reading but I only have two out of ten that are actually the same. That is hard to believe.

I am required to make decisions to the civil standard of proof, that is, is it more likely than not that the operator has falsified maintenance records. I also note the basic principle that the more serious the allegation, the more cogent the evidence needed. In this case, the combination of mismatched odometer readings with vehicles not being moved at all, or undertaking a standard day’s work whilst also apparently undergoing a preventative maintenance inspection, I am satisfied beyond the civil standard, indeed to the criminal standard, that the operator has falsified maintenance records.

I reflect back again on the differing accounts of the discussion on 24 July 2019, the so-called “tumbleweed moment”, or not. Having conducted my analysis of the maintenance records and found that them not to be genuine records of the maintenance regime, and having found that Mr Gareth Cooke has sought to mislead me in his evidence, and noting the evidence of TE Bibbings and his background as both a DVSA Traffic Examiner and a Detective Constable in the British Transport Police, I am left, without hesitation, favouring TE Bibbings’ account of the conversation that day.

My findings that the directors, and Gareth Cooke in particular, have presented false maintenance records and that Gareth Cooke sought to mislead me, go to the heart of the trust that must exist between an operator and the regulator. That trust is shattered. I find the operator is no longer fit to be the holder of a restricted goods vehicles operator’s licence. Section 26(1)(h) is made out and I attach very significant weight.

I conduct a balancing exercise. In addition to the two findings already made, there are further aggravating features. The operator has claimed to undertake inspections internally and previously appears to have done so with the DAF vehicle. The operator displayed a dangerous lack of technical knowledge at the hearing. For example, rather than invest in regular roller brake testing, the operator instead decided to use temperature measurement alongside a road test. However, the figures recorded are nothing like high enough to provide any level of information about brake performance at all. VE Edwards described how he would conduct a road test and then measure temperatures of the brake disc and expect to see 70, 80, 90 or even more degrees on the thermometer. Measuring temperature at the brake disc is entirely sensible. The braking system converts the vehicle’s kinetic energy in to heat energy within the brake disc and, to a lesser extent due to the material used, the brake pad lining material. It is because brake discs basically absorb the vehicle’s kinetic energy that they are ventilated to allow for cooling. In contrast, the amount of heat that is transferred to the outer surface of a brake caliper will be much lower, because it is transferred only through conduction through the brake pad material and radiation from the disc. The accuracy of any reading will also depend on the construction of the caliper. VE Edwards referred to “too many variables”. So, rather than have a proper brake test carried out, the company went for a cheap solution and implemented that in such a way as to have no meaning at all. I find both Messrs Cooke are enthusiastic amateurs with a mistaken belief in their own ability, seemingly confusing experience for expertise. They have no place within the maintenance regime of a commercial vehicle operator where they pose a danger to those around them.

The positives relate more to the operator’s circumstances than to their qualities. The vehicle is new and relatively small. The nature of the operation is such that drivers hours matters should not arise. The business appears sound financially. Mr Cooke had started to implement drivers hours management by May 2019 and seemed to be reasonably well on with it by July that year.

Mr Pojur’s post-hearing submissions remind me that the outcome of an inquiry is not supposed to be punitive but can feel so. I am urged to adopt a one-month suspension and I am told how that will impact financially with enough detail to be credible. The company commits to retain its driver if the licence is suspended for up to a month. Whilst doubtless that also makes good business sense, it is I am sure appreciated in these difficult times and I regard it as a further positive feature.

The problem I have is that I have two statutory directors who I find have been dishonest and incompetent and that is something that the positive features I have set out fail to rebalance and which no period of suspension will address. I need someone in the business who I can trust and who I can call to account. Mr Cooke told me that employing a transport manager is not viable and neither is not having a licence. Bluntly, it is one or the other. Whilst I find the company currently unfit to be the holder of a goods vehicle operator’s licence, I could find that it is of good repute if an application is made for a standard licence with a strong and capable transport manager.

Such an application would be doomed to failure if not supported by a contract for both tachograph analysis and maintenance, the latter with a franchised dealer or using the services of an IRTEC-licensed technicians.

4. Decision

Pursuant to adverse findings under Sections 26(1)(f), failure to manage drivers hours, and 26(1)(h), the operator is no longer fit, licence OH1025164 is revoked. To allow time for an application for a standard licence to be made, and noting the challenging times presented by Covid to the licensing team in Leeds, and noting that he vehicle is relatively new and passed a fresh MOT in October, revocation will take effect from 1 March 2021.

Kevin Rooney

Traffic Commissioner

30 November 2020