Decision for A T Best Handlers Limited (OM2004639)
Published 20 March 2023
© Crown copyright 2023
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.
Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.
This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/decision-for-a-t-best-handlers-limited-om2004639/decision-for-a-t-best-handlers-limited-om2004639
0.1 In the Scottish Traffic Area
1. Written Confirmation of Oral Decision of the Traffic Commissioner
1.1 A T Best Handlers Limited (OM2004639)
Pursuant to adverse findings under section 26(1)(c) 26(1)(ca) and 26(1)(f) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (“the Act”), operator licence number OM2004639 is curtailed, with immediate effect, from 3V and 3T to 2V and 2T. The operator’s repute is tarnished, but not lost.
The application to downgrade licence OM2004639 from standard international to standard national is granted with immediate effect.
Transport Manager, Mr Stuart Rose is given a warning in relation to his repute.
An eight (8) week period of grace is allowed for an application to appoint Mr John Reid as transport manager on the operator’s licence.
1.2 Reasons
I heard evidence from TE Scott, Mr Richard Rose, Mr Stuart Rose and Mr Reid, proposed transport manager.
The evidence contained within TE Wilkinson’s report was accepted. There had been a previously unsatisfactory TE report in 2019. TE Wilkinson visited again in 2022. There has been some improvements, however, the systems for downloading and analysing driver’s hours data were still unsatisfactory.
The operator and transport manager both accepted that the transport manager had not been exercising continuous and effective management of all parts of the transport operation. That was the case despite the earlier TE visit and advice having been given.
The operator had made some improvements but these did not go far enough, necessitating the call the PI. The operator did not act quickly enough when they were made aware that things were not as they should have been. Many of the changes, including the nomination of a replacement transport manager, had been actioned as a result of the call to PI.
There were also positives in this case. The operator had a perfect pass rate at MOT. They had a modern fleet and, despite systems for monitoring driver’s hours being inadequate, there were a relatively low number of driver’s hours infringements. This was a family company and there was a desire to be fully complaint.
Mr Rose senior realised that it was time to retire as transport manager and did so with immediate effect at the inquiry. His retiral comes after a long and previously unblemished career in transport. All witness, to their credit, were candid in accepting the failures which had occurred.
I had regard to the submissions lodged by Mr McGarvey. I accepted his submission that, after balancing, regulatory action in this case should fall within the low to moderate bracket set out in the STC statutory guidance. The operator had 2V and 1T in possession with no plans to operate more. I decided, therefore, that a permanent curtailment of the margin was a proportionate regulatory response.
The operator is on notice that systems must, without hesitation, be brought up to an acceptable standard. Mr Rose has given me his promise that they will and he is reminded that they must stay that way if this licence is to continue into the future.
Claire M Gilmore
Traffic Commissioner for Scotland
17 January 2023