Decision

Decision for Ashby Scaffolding Ltd (OF2035101)

Published 18 December 2020

In the Eastern Traffic Area

Confirmation of the Traffic Commissioner’s Decision

1. Background

Ashby Scaffolding Ltd seeks a Restricted Goods Vehicle Operator’s Licence authorising 3 vehicles only. The sole Director is Brett Vernon.

The applicant proposes to use one Operating Centre at the Minorca Warehouse, Swepstone Road, Measham, Swadlincote DE12 7HF. It proposes to conduct Preventative Maintenance Inspections in-house with inspections at 6-weekly intervals.

An earlier application in the name of Ashby Scaffolding Limited was withdrawn as the applicant was unable to meet the statutory deadline for advertising.

2. Hearing

The Public Inquiry was originally listed for 27 October 2020 in Tribunal Room 1 of the Office of the Traffic Commissioner in Cambridge but it was then rescheduled, at the request of the applicant, to 4 November 2020. The operator was present in the form of Brett Vernon, appearing by video link at his application.

3. Issues

The public inquiry was called at the request of the applicant in order to allow further opportunity to satisfy me that the statutory criteria are met and specifically by reference to the following sections of the Goods Vehicle (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995:

• 13B – the requirement to be fit to hold an Operator’s Licence
• 13C(3) – the requirement for arrangements to ensure that vehicles are not overloaded
• 13C(4) – the requirement to have facilities and arrangements so that vehicles are maintained in a fit and serviceable condition
• 13D – the requirement to have sufficient finances available so that maintenance is not prejudiced.

The applicant was directed to supply documentation by 16 October 2020, including:

• evidence of its available financial resources to support the application;
• details of the proposed vehicle maintenance system, including sample safety inspection records, the daily defect reporting system, and the maintenance contract;
• details of how the company will comply with the laws regarding drivers hours;
• maintenance records and driver defect reports for Allround Scaffolding Services (Midlands) Limited - OF1101750.

4. Determination

The applicant director, Mr Vernon, declared that he had been involved with a company that had gone into liquidation. His explanation (page 21) at Question 10 of the application form confirmed a degree of involvement in the management of that company.

A Joachim Hassall was listed as a Director of Allround Scaffolding Services (Midlands) Limited (page 38). A Judith Hassall signed the statement of affairs dated 21 June 2019 notifying the appointment of liquidators (page 42). Companies House records (page 35) suggest that Mr Vernon was a shareholder and person of significant control of Allround Scaffolding Services (Midlands) Limited. Allround Scaffolding Services (Midlands) Limited held Operator’s Licence: OF1101750. It went into liquidation on 4 July 2019 but failed to notify my office. That licence has been revoked.

This applicant was known as Allround Scaffolding Systems (Midlands) Ltd from 4 February to 14 May 2019 (page 25).

The vehicles listed on the new application: YM14 YJS, YX57 HUV and MX55 EWH were still specified on OF1101750 (page 34D). The liquidators were advised. The annual test history for licence OF1101750 indicates that vehicle MX55 EWH was submitted for annual test in October 2019, i.e. after that company had entered into liquidation. Mr Vernon confirmed that this was under the direction of the former managers.

Financial evidence submitted in support of the application showed several fuel card service transactions and transactions for wages, including for a Jake Hassall. The financial evidence indicates the same significant amount being paid to Mr Vernon and Joe Hassall at the start of each month, with additional payments in between.

The request for an adjournment, dated 15 October 2020 (page 34O), from Mr Vernon, refers to a business partner, Joe Hassall, who he wished to attend the hearing originally (page 34Q) listed for 27 October 2020, but was unable to attend on that date due to a family bereavement. Mr Vernon was put on notice of concerns arising from that correspondence, in an email dated 23 October 2020 (page 34P).

In evidence it was admitted that Joe Hassall should be appointed as a Director. It was explained that there had been a few distractions connected with the liquidation. Mr Hassall has been exercising that level of influence over this applicant.

In examination it became clear that incorrect details have been entered on the application. Mr Granger in fact works through Midland Trucks Ltd. Mr Vernon was unable to give the correct Unit number. The Operating Centre on this application should really be described as Unit 1. However, Mr Vernon was unable to describe the maintenance facilities available, had not obtained a sample PMI form and was unable to confirm the source or regulatory of brake performance testing. He was unaware of the contents of the Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness or DVSA Guidance: Heavy vehicle brake test: best practice. It would appear that only 2 vehicles are required. They will be driven by Mr Hassall and Mr Vernon but neither hold a DCPC, relying on the exemption, but there has been no training on drivers’ hours requirements or even how to complete a driver walk round check.

Mr Vernon did not give the impression of being aware of his responsibilities under any Operator’s Licence: “Directors have collective responsibility for the company that they manage. It is their responsibility to set the standards that employees are expected to meet; it is their responsibility to ensure that those standards are actually met, and that undertakings and promises made in their name are complied with” as the appellate Tribunal explained in 2003/350 Al Madina Transport Ltd. Persons in control of an entity, which operates heavy goods vehicles, must have sufficient knowledge to exercise proper oversight (2012/025 First Class Freight Ltd).

I have referred to potential sources of guidance above. In addition, I sought to assist the applicant to identify areas, which might deserve additional consideration, were there to be a further application:

• all those acting as Directors should be named on the Companies House register and in any application for an Operator’s Licence;
• they need to equip themselves to ensure compliance with the licence requirements, probably through Operator Licence Awareness Training (with courses available on-line);
• they should satisfy themselves as to the facilities available to the contractor e.g. covered inspections, pit, beam tester, torque wrench, brake performance testing; so as to support re-torqueing and wheel-off policies, inspections to the current standard, to include effective brake performance testing etc;
• they should have a safe-loading policy and guidance with ratchet straps etc to be included in the driver walk round checks;
• drivers need to be trained on how to meet the relevant Operator Licence requirements.

I was satisfied as to the financial position but in the absence of the above, I remained to be satisfied as to sections 13C(2), (3) and (4), and on that basis I remained to be satisfied under 13B. The application was therefore also refused.

Richard Turfitt

Traffic Commissioner

4/11/2020