Decision

Decision for Andrew John Southon

Published 11 November 2022

0.1 WESTERN TRAFFIC AREA

1. ANDREW JOHN SOUTHON

1.1 PH1056748

1.2 VOCATIONAL LICENCE HOLDER ANDREW JOHN SOUTHON

2. AT A PUBLIC INQUIRY HEARD IN BRISTOL

2.1 2 November 2022

3. DECISION

Adverse findings are made under Sections 17(3)(aa), 17(3)(c) and 17(3)(e) of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981, the latter in relation to financial standing and fitness. The operator’s licence is revoked with effect from 16 November 2022.

Pursuant to Section 112(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, I find Mr Southon no longer fit to be the holder of a vocational PCV entitlement. Under Section 115 of that Act, the PCV vocational entitlement is revoked from 16 November 2022 and Mr Southon is disqualified from holding it for a period of twelve months thereafter.

4. REASONS

This is a Restricted Public Service Vehicle operator’s licence that authorises the use of two vehicles. The operator presented vehicle LF09UDY for its PSV MOT on 10 November 2021. It failed on five separate items and had a further advisory defect. The near side outer axle 2 tyre had a deep cut in the tyre with cords exposed. The vehicle was prohibited from further use and the issuing examiner considered that the tyre defect should have been identified by the driver and marked the prohibition as identifying a significant failure of compliance systems. A follow-up maintenance investigation identified significant shortcomings and I called the operator to a public inquiry. Due to the nature of the defect, I also called Mr Southon to a conjoined driver conduct hearing to consider his vocational entitlement.

The hearing was initially list for 14 September but had to be rearranged for today. Mr Southon has not attended. He has been called and confirms that he is aware of the hearing and has chosen not to attend. I proceed to make a decision.

In relation to the maintenance investigation findings, there is no evidence of instrumented brake performance testing as there is required to be. The performance at MOT is very poor and defects found at MOT should have been identified by the driver and the maintenance provider. I note that a vehicle underwent and passed a Class 5 MOT just a few weeks before failing by some margin the Class 6 MOT on items common to both. I am sure that DVSA will have followed up with the Class 5 private test station and that does provide some mitigation for Mr Southon.

Exhaust emission failures are a common feature. I note with concern Mr Southon’s comment in his response to the Vehicle Examiner “failing on emissions is not a danger to a passenger or other road user”.

There is in my bundle a picture of the tyre damage. It is obvious and should have been picked up by the driver that morning. Mr Southon advances in his response to the vehicle examiner that he did not present the vehicle for test. I refer to the prohibition notice issued. There is no operator licence number which suggests that there was no disc in the window, and that is an observation not a criticism. I note from the licence record that the vehicle concerned had never been specified on the licence. It is not a legal requirement to do so and that is not a criticism either. But those two observations lend context to the fact that the prohibition document is recorded as being received at time of issue by “A SOUTHON”. Without the vehicle having been specified or a disc being in the window, there would be no link to Mr Southon unless it was he who presented it for annual test.

I find, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr Southon presented the vehicle for test. It follows that he should have identified the obvious serious defect on his walk-round check. It further follows that he has sought to mislead me in his written submission. Had he attended, he may have been able to provide an explanation but he has chosen not to. Making a false statement to mislead a Traffic Commissioner is a serious matter. Operator licensing is based on trust. I find Mr Southon no longer to be fit to be the holder of a PSV operator’s licence..

No financial evidence has been provided. I find that the operator fails to satisfy that mandatory requirement. Vehicles have not been kept fit and serviceable. A prohibition notice has been issued and annotated as identifying a serious failure of compliance systems. Sections 17(3)(aa), 17(3)(c) and 17(3)(e) are made out, the latter in relation to financial standing and fitness. The operator’s licence is revoked with effect from 16 November 2022.

My finding in relation to Mr Southon’s involvement in the tyre defect is such that I find he is no longer fit to be the holder of a vocational driving entitlement. The starting point in the relevant guidance is a suspension of 14 days. However, it has been seriously aggravated by the false statement made in response to the vehicle examiner. That goes to the heart of the trust that must exist with a PCV licence holder given the nature of the role with passengers and their belongings. It causes me to deal with the matter as dishonesty and so to revoke the PCV vocational entitlement with effect from 16 November 2022 and then to disqualify Mr Southon for 12 months.

Kevin Rooney

Traffic Commissioner

2 November 2022