Decision

Decision for Camps Transport and Logistics Ltd OG2023142 & Transport Manager Gary Camps

Published 16 November 2022

0.1 In the Welsh Traffic Area

1. Written Decision of the Traffic Commissioner

1.1 Camps Transport and Logistics Ltd OG2023142 & Transport Manager Gary Camps

2. Background

The operator, Camps Transport and Logistics Ltd, holds a Standard National Goods Vehicle Operator’s Licence authorising 8 vehicles and 8 trailers, granted on 18 June 2019. Gary Camps, sole director of the operating company, is the transport manager on the licence.

On 15 February 2022, the operator attended a Preliminary Hearing due to prohibitions having been issued to its vehicles and an unsatisfactory Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (“DVSA”) maintenance investigation. The hearing resulted in the operator receiving a warning from the presiding deputy traffic commissioner in relation to the shortcomings found. On 21 March 2022, an “S” marked prohibition was issued to one of the operator’s trailers during a roadside stop when two loose wheel securing nuts were found on the same wheel – a serious and dangerous defect which should have been detected by the driver during his pre-use walkaround check of the trailer. This triggered an investigation by the DVSA in June 2021. The results of DVSA’s report were unsatisfactory, with shortcomings found in relation to the operator’s prohibition history, driver defect reporting and wheel and tyre management. By a call up letter dated 23 August 2022, the operator was called to public inquiry. By a call up letter of the same date the transport manager, Gary Camps, was also called to the inquiry to explore the shortcomings identified in the report.

3. Hearing

The Public Inquiry was listed for 20 October 2022 at the Office of the Traffic Commissioner for Wales in Pontypridd. Gary Camps, the sole director of Camps Transport and Logistics Ltd attended on behalf of the operator and in his capacity as transport manager. He was unrepresented and confirmed that he fully understood the action that I could take against the licence, against him as director of the operating company, and in his capacity as transport manager. Vehicle Examiner (“VE”) Michael Harris of the DVSA also attended the hearing.

4. Issues

The public inquiry was called for me to consider whether there were grounds for me to intervene in respect of the licence held by Camps Transport and Logistics Ltd, specifically by reference to the following sections of the Act: 26(1)(c)(ii), 26(1)(f), 26(6), 27(1) and 28.

Gary Camps was called as Transport Manager to consider whether I should make a finding against his repute and prevent him from relying on his Certificate of Professional Competence - section 27(1)(b) of and Schedule 3 to the Act.

5. Evidence

The call up letters required Mr Camps to send documentation to VE Harris at least 14 days prior to the public inquiry hearing – i.e., by 6 October 2022. Specifically, the call up letters required at least the following documents: maintenance records for the previous 6 months, including preventative maintenance inspection records with brake test reports; driver daily defect reports; invoices for work done and wheel removal/retorque records; maintenance contract; forward planner; evidence of the operator’s systems for managing drivers for the previous 6 months to include at least the following – driver licence checks, driver infringement reports, vehicle download reports, evidence of continuous professional development of relevant managers/planners/supervisors and evidence of disciplinary action received by drivers and managers. In addition, Mr Camps was asked to submit any other evidence to help show that he is a compliant operator or is taking steps to address the operator failings identified. The call up letter sent to Mr Camps as transport manager also stated that, if he wished to submit any written representations or evidence that he wanted me to take into account at the hearing, this must be submitted seven days in advance of the hearing.

I received a Public Inquiry Supplementary Statement dated 6 October 2022 from VE Harris in which he stated that Mr Camps had contacted him on 4 October 2022 to advise that he was unable to provide any vehicle documents because he no longer owned any vehicles. VE Harris checked the DVSA database and confirmed that there were no longer any vehicles specified on the licence, the last 4 having been removed on 3 October 2022. Mr Camps sent an email to VE Harris on 5 October 2022 following on from his telephone call in which he advised that all his trucks and trailers had been sold, accompanied by the vehicle files.

The operator did submit evidence of financial standing, as requested, in advance of the public inquiry, which met the requirements. However, none of the documentary evidence relating to vehicles, compliance systems or driver management was provided to VE Harris, as required in the call up letters. Nor was any written representation or other evidence received by my office, as requested in the call up letter addressed to Mr Camps in his capacity as transport manager. On the day of the hearing, Mr Camps provided a 3-page statement which he asked me to consider. This set out the background to his involvement in transport, his current business, and difficulties that he had encountered with drivers failing to carry out proper checks and which had resulted in the compliance failings found. He explained what he had done to try to ensure that drivers complied but had concluded that he could not rely on them and attributed the two “S” marked vehicle defects to them. He did, however, fully accept that this was down to his management and that he was responsible as figurehead of the company. He had sold all his vehicles and vehicle files were given to the purchaser.

I heard oral evidence from VE Harris, who adopted his evidence included in the PI brief, and his additional statement dated 6 October 2022. In response to questions from me he clarified some aspects of his report relating to the prohibitions issued and the date of a safety critical defect failure at annual test. Mr Camps confirmed that he did not contest VE Harris’ evidence, but he did want to ask VE Harris some questions, which he proceeded to do. These were questions about conversations between VE Harris and Mr Camps during his visit about wheel nuts and what could be a useful visual indicator for drivers that these might be loose, and about documentation requested by VE Harris for the purpose of his investigation. The latter line of questioning was not pursued by Mr Camps when it was pointed out by me that there was no allegation that Mr Camps had not provided the documents requested by VE Harris.

In his oral evidence Mr Camps fully accepted the compliance failings set out in the DVSA evidence and call up letters and apologised for these. He advised that, regardless of the outcome of the public inquiry, he did not wish to continue as an operator and had already sold all his vehicles. He did, however, wish to retain his transport manager qualification. When asked why he had failed to provide the evidence I had requested for the purpose of the inquiry, specifically, the evidence that was not vehicle related (e.g. driver defect reports, driver management/disciplinary evidence, evidence of relevant training etc) he accepted that he should have done and could offer no explanation as to why he’d failed to do so. His vehicles were sold during September 2022, but the call up letters were dated 23 August. Mr Camps accepted that he received those letters setting out the evidence I required before the vehicles were sold, he could have taken photocopies of the relevant vehicle documents for the purposes of the inquiry but had not done so. His statement produced on the day of the hearing referred to measures he had introduced, letters to drivers and declarations signed by them, but none of this was substantiated by way of documentary evidence.

Mr Camps also accepted in his evidence that he had failed in his duties as transport manager to manage the transport operation continuously and effectively. He had failed to devote enough time to his transport manger duties, and it had become too much for him as he had devoted his time to running the business. When asked why he had not brought in an external transport manager to take over the role when he realised it was getting too much for him, his response was that he had engaged a consultant to offer him advice, but the days were just getting away from him. In short, it had all become too much for him. Mr Camps had completed the transport manager training and qualified in 2018. His evidence was that, since the course he completed some three years ago, he had not done any further transport manager training and he realised that he needed to do more training to get him to the standard where he needed to be. He believed that, with some training and guidance, he could make the role work. He wished to rely on his qualification in the future and had the opportunity to work with a transport consultant who had offered to re-train him to get him to the required standard. He recognised this would not happen overnight and having discussed a re-training programme with the consultant, he believed it would likely take 3 to 6 months. He intended to have a compete break from the industry from now until after Christmas and, if allowed to retain his repute as transport manager, would pursue this opportunity of working with the transport consultant from mid- January 2023. That opportunity would not be available to him should he lose his repute as transport manager.

6. Findings of fact

It is undisputed that the operator has been issued with further prohibition notices by the DVSA since receiving a formal warning from a traffic commissioner at a Preliminary Hearing in February of this year. The first was a serious “S” marked immediate prohibition issued in respect of the operator’s trailer on 21 March 2022 for two loose wheel securing nuts and which triggered the second DVSA investigation, the subject of this inquiry. VE Harris’ evidence was that this was a serious and dangerous defect which should have been picked up by the driver conducting his walk around check. There were also prohibition notices issued to both a vehicle and a trailer on 8 April 2022 - a delayed prohibition issued to the vehicle for an engine malfunction indicator lamp illuminated indicating a fault, an immediate prohibition to a trailer due to tyre being cut to cord/cords exposed, and a delayed prohibition to the same trailer due to air suspension pedestal being damaged. Accordingly, I find that section 26(1)(c)(iii) of the Act is made out.

The evidence is clear that the operator failed to comply with the undertakings on the licence that its vehicles and trailers would be kept fit and serviceable as evidenced by the prohibition notices issued and a poor initial MOT fail rate.

The operator failed to comply with the undertaking that it would keep proper safety inspection and driver defect reports. Although VE Harris’ evidence was that there had been an improvement in maintenance records since his visit last year, some of the PMI reports he reviewed were incomplete with tyre depths and pressures not recorded in some instances and the driver defect reporting system was ineffective.

The operator failed to comply with the undertaking that drivers would promptly report defects that could prevent the safe operation of vehicles and/or trailers and that defects would be promptly recorded in writing. This was an issue highlighted in the previous unsatisfactory maintenance report which resulted in the operator attending the preliminary hearing in February of this year for which it received a warning. Yet, only 5 weeks later, an “S” marked prohibition was issued for a serious safety critical defect on one of the operator’s trailers which should have been easily picked up by the driver during his walk round check. There were instances of defects which should have been identified by drivers found on PMI sheets and the VE found the system of walkaround checks being used by drivers ineffective. Accordingly, I find that section 26(1)(f) of the Act is made out.

6.1 Gary Camps – transport manager

Gary Camps, in his capacity as transport manager, was unable to demonstrate that he had complied with his duty effectively and continuously to manage all the transport activities of Camps Transport and Logistic Ltd’s transport operation, as required by the legislation. The failings and concerns set out above are equally apposite to Mr Camps as transport manager. In his evidence he candidly and completely accepted this and explained that his failure to fulfil his transport manager duties was because he had focussed instead on running his business. There was evidence that he had been overstretched trying to do everything himself in terms of operating his business and trying to fulfil his transport manager duties. Gary Camps clearly did not have effective control of maintenance standards, as evidenced by the prohibitions issued. The “S” marked prohibition should have been detected by the driver and the VE’s report was highly critical of the system of driver walkaround checks and defect reporting as well as the operator’s wheel security system. Mr Camps acknowledged that he did not do enough to ensure that drivers employed by the operator carried out proper checks on the vehicles and trailers. His statement for inquiry suggested that he had taken some steps in that regard, although he did not produce any corroborative evidence to show that, and the VE’s report (whilst noting some improvement since his visit last year) was critical. I remind myself of the helpful guidance of the Upper Tribunal in Tasci Gwynedd (2015/040): It must be borne in mind that, for the regulatory scheme to achieve its purpose, relevant information needs to be made available to the regulator. Much of that information can only realistically be produced by the entity or person called-up to the public inquiry. It must, therefore, in principle be open to a Traffic Commissioner to make adverse findings about good repute in the light of an unreasonable failure to supply records that a commissioner has precisely and reasonably requested or ‘required.’ It follows, that I can only give limited weight to such evidence where there is a lack of any corroborative evidence. The failure to manage the risk posed by drivers failing to carry out basic walk around checks is serious and posed a clear danger to other road users.

Furthermore, Mr Camps had already been warned by a Deputy Traffic Commissioner, as recently as February of this year, that he needed to address the shortcomings found then, including in relation to driver walkaround checks and monitoring/management of drivers. Mr Camps gave assurances at that hearing and was afforded a chance to demonstrate that he could effectively carry out his obligations both as operator and transport manager. Evidently, he has failed to do so to the required standard. VE Harris’ report did note that some improvements had been made, but these were not enough to prevent the serious compliance failures still found a year after his initial visit. The role of the transport manager is a key one and where there the sole director is also the transport manager extra diligence is required. That was patently missing here and, as a result, road safety has been put at risk.

Mr Camps has been involved in the transport industry for 31 years, initially as a driver and more recently (since 2018) as a transport manager. He put his failings as transport manager down to lack of time to devote to the role but also his need for more training and guidance. He has failed to meet the expectations that the public rightly have of him as transport manager to ensure that HGVs are operated safely and legally. Although Mr Camps fully accepted that he had failed to exercise effective and continuous management of the transport operation, he asked me to find that his repute was not lost because he wishes to rely on his qualification following some re-training with a transport consultant in the first half of next year.

I am invited to find that Mr Camp retains his good repute, but I cannot avoid the comments of the appellate Tribunal in Andrew Harris trading as Harris of Leicester (2014/050): “Given the importance attached to operators complying with the regulatory regime and given that transport managers must: “effectively and continuously manage the transport activities of an undertaking holding an operator’s licence”, it seems to us that whether or not an individual has the character, personality, ability and leadership qualities to ensure compliant operation as an operator or to effectively and continuously manage the transport activities as a transport manager is a factor which can properly, be taken into account when assessing good repute.” The Tribunal has confirmed in Angus Smales trading as Angus Smales Eventing (2014/058), that being transport manager is far more than just holding the qualification. I find that Mr Camps has not demonstrated the ability to meet the statutory duty and that continues to be the case. In the circumstances, and as was confirmed in Matthew Reynolds (2015/049), I must find that he has lost his repute as transport manager pursuant to section 27(1)(b) of the Act and no longer satisfies the requirements of paragraph 14A of Schedule 3 to the Act.

7. Considerations and Decisions in respect of Camps Transport and Logistics Ltd

Gary Camps’ good repute having been lost, revocation of the licence is mandatory under section 27(1)(a) and (b) of the Act. I am also revoking the licence under sections 26(1)(c)(iii) and 26(1)(f) of the Act, having set out my findings above.

Having regard to the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document 10, Annex 4, and having considered all the evidence, I place this case in the severe to serious category. There were reckless acts by drivers that compromised road safety, with vehicles driven which had serious safety defects; ineffective management control and insufficient systems and procedures in place to prevent operator licence compliance failings; insufficient driver training with ineffective monitoring and disciplinary procedures in place; road safety critical defects, including “S marked prohibitions; a high prohibition rate; a low average first time pass rate at MOT; evidence of previous unsatisfactory maintenance investigations as recently as last year which resulted in a warning being issued by a traffic commissioner for some of the same shortcomings which are now the subject of this inquiry, and insufficient changes made to ensure future operator licence compliance. On the positive side, the operator co-operated with the enforcement investigation.

I’ve considered the situation now, namely that the operator did not provide any evidence to demonstrate compliance, it has sold all vehicles, ceased operating and does not intend to operate in the future.

In considering the Priority Freight (2009/225) question, “how likely is it that this operator will, in future, operate in compliance with the operator’s licensing regime?” I have had regard to the failures I had found proved which were serious, but also the lack of any evidence to demonstrate future compliance and on balance, therefore, I find the answer to be “unlikely.”

In considering the Bryan Haulage (no.2) (2002/217) question, “is the conduct such that the operator ought to be put out of business?” in reaching my decision, I had regard to the positive and negative features set out in the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document 10, Annex 4, and discussed above. This was a case where the starting point for regulatory action was severe to serious. I also take the view that other operators who carry out their businesses in a compliant manner would be shocked if another operator were permitted to operate vehicles against this background. I considered the effect that revocation would have in circumstances where the operator is no longer operating and has no wish to do so in future. It is appropriate and proportionate to answer the Bryan Haulage question in the affirmative and I consider that revocation is the proportionate regulatory response.

I have given serious consideration to whether the operator and Mr Camps as director should be disqualified from operating in the future under section 28 of the Act. The guidance to which I must have regard reminds me at paragraph 62 (Statutory Document 10) that whilst there need not be an additional feature before a disqualification order it is made, it is not automatic. My balancing exercise for revocation is relevant. However, I note and give some credit to the operator for some changes that it did seek to introduce following the DVSA’s initial intervention. In not making an order for disqualification I acknowledge those positive, albeit limited, changes. This may allow the operator to return to the licensing regime should it wish to do so, but it will require a different approach to compliance.

8. Considerations and Decisions in respect of transport manager Gary Camps

Having concluded that Gary Camps’ good repute as transport manager is lost, I must also disqualify him under paragraph 16(2) of Schedule 3 to the Act from being a transport manager on any licence. I direct that he is disqualified with effect from 23:45 hours on 1 November 2022.

Although Mr Camps is at liberty to apply to vary that direction, I am obliged to disqualify him for the minimum period of 12 months by virtue of paragraph 17(1A) of Schedule 3 to the Act. He would be well advised to work with an experienced CPC holder exercising transport manager duties if he is to seek to persuade a Traffic Commissioner that he is capable of meeting the statutory duty in future.

Victoria Davies

Traffic Commissioner for Wales

31 October 2022