Decision

Decision for Charlies Cars Ltd (PF1040611)

Published 16 June 2023

0.1 In the Eastern Traffic Area

1. Confirmation of the Traffic Commissioner’s Decision

1.1 Charlies Cars Ltd (PF1040611)

2. Background

Charlies Cars Ltd holds a Restricted Public Service Vehicle Operator’s Licence authorising 2 vehicles. The Director is Mohammed Naeem. He replaced Mohammed Rashid, who resigned on 1 October 2021, but the change was not notified. The Office of the Traffic Commissioner wrote on 15 November 2021, and a full on-line application followed on 9 December 2021 (see below).

There is one Operating Centre at 283 Rutland Avenue, High Wycombe HP12 3LY. Preventative Maintenance Inspections are said to be carried out in-house but at 51A Abercromby Avenue, High Wycombe and by Britannia Motors at 6-weekly intervals. The documents submitted suggested that inspections were intended at 8-weekly intervals.

On receipt of the application to add Mr Naeem as a Director, my office sought evidence of the current financial standing and information as to how Mr Naeem might equip himself to ensure future compliance. The operator failed to respond by the deadline of 23 December 2021. A caseworker therefore telephoned the operator and was advised that Mr Naeem was on holiday, and that a Mohammed Ayub was overseeing the business in Mr Naeem’s absence.

The Companies House register shows that Mohammed Ayub was a Director of the operator between 29 December 2005 and 12 November 2007. Further correspondence was sent on 11 February 2022, giving until 25 February 2022 to respond. The email response from ‘Rashid’ suggested that Mr Naeem had returned from holiday and that the requested documentation would be provided within a couple of days. Bank statements in the name of Mr M Ayub - Charlies Cars Ltd were provided. The operator also sought to rely on a copy of the company’s annual accounts for the year ended 31 July 2020, which showed a net loss of £8,560. An email received on 8 March 2022 suggested that Mr Naeem was willing to attend Operator Licence Awareness Training. No evidence of attendance has been provided to date.

3. Hearing

The Public Inquiry was originally listed for 17 February 2023 but was adjourned apparently because Mr Naeem was unwell with Covid. It was relisted for today, 6 June 2023, in Tribunal Room 1 of the Office of the Traffic Commissioner in Cambridge. was present in the form of Mohammed Naeem, the Director, accompanied by a Mohammed Naeem, described as the Manager.

4. Issues

The Public Inquiry was initially listed for 17 February 2023, by call up letter dated 13 January 2023. Directions were given to lodge evidence by 27 January 2023. The operator failed to comply with those Directions resulting in a chasing email of 9 February 2023. The operator failed to respond so a further email was sent on 16 February 2023. Mr Naeem then telephoned and suggested that he and other members of his household had contracted Covid. He was prompted to request an adjournment, which was subsequently granted to today, 6 June 2023.

The operator was called to consider grounds to intervene in respect of this licence and specifically by reference to the following sections of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981:

• 17(3)(a) – statements as to who was in control of the entity and to abide my conditions.

• 17(3)(b) - conditions on licence to notify changes, in this case relating to management.

• 17(3)(c) – Prohibitions, by reference to the encounter report generated on 10 May 2023.

• 17(3)(d) & (e) – Material Change in repute and financial standing

• 28 of the Transport Act 1985 – Disqualification.

The operator was directed to lodge evidence in support by 16 May 2023, including financial, maintenance and other compliance documentation and evidence which demonstrates the main occupation. Any written representations were to be received no later than 23 May 2023. Some documentation was received but by 1 June 2023, the operator had yet to supply evidence against the financial standing requirement. On 26 May 2023, my office received original bank statements for the period 31 March 2023 to 28 April 2023 only, despite the operator being repeatedly advised to supply three months of statements. I was eventually provided with acceptable evidence of financial standing but noted that Mr Ayub’s name is still on the bank statements, but according to Companies House he resigned on 12 November 2007. It was suggested that previous Directors retain authority at the bank despite Mr Naeem being the sole shareholder. Mr Ayub is a co-signatory.

5. Summary of Evidence

Attempts were made to interview the operator in July and on 18 August 2022. The Director attempted to send the ‘office manager’ due to an ‘hospital appointment’. This was refused so the interview was rearranged for 3 October 2022 when Mr Naeem attended by video link. The interview failed to elicit satisfactory responses to the matters raised above or a description of how the operations met the legislative requirements. Reference was made to a 100% the annual test pass rate but the vehicle was tested as a private vehicle (Class 5), until 2 October 2019, when it was then tested as a PSV. The operator was unable to explain this, despite the licence having commenced on 7 December 2004.

I was therefore interested to review the operator’s documentation. I refer to the records for PN10 FOM, which appear to have been conducted on a photocopy of an annual test summary form, rather than a recognisable Preventative Maintenance Inspection form:

• 18 May 2023 – inspection (7 + weeks from the previous) with brake test but: 48% and 20%. It also records a defective offside rear side marker light, a weak number plate bulb, with both front tyres worn on the inside edges. There was no discernible driver defect report. The Nil report on 14 May 2023 suggested that the odometer might have gone backwards.

• 24 March 2023 – inspection with brake test but no printout: 48% and 20%.

• 14 February 2023 – inspection (8 weeks since the previous) with brake test but no printout: 46% and 16%.

• 20 December 2022 – inspection (23 weeks since the previous) with brake test but no printout: 48% and 18%.

• 12 July 2022 – inspection (11+ weeks since the previous) with brake test but no printout: 48% and 19%. Reference is made to a front marker lamp.

• 20 April 2022 - inspection with brake test but no printout: 48% and 18%. It also records defective offside and nearside centre side markers, front upper marker light, nearside door stop corroded, but no discernible driver defect report.

Some defect appeared to have been reported none which accord with defects identified during inspection. Mr Ayub indicated that he finds defects and fixes them or gets them done, but nothing is recorded.

When asked to contrast the ‘records’ produced by the operator and the standard form of Preventative Maintenance Inspection annexed to the DVSA Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness it became very clear to the Director that the maintenance standards fell far below the basic standard expected. The forms produced did not even contain a declaration of roadworthiness. Mr Ayub had some memory of brake testing and thought that it might be his fault that there were no brake records. Neither he nor the Director showed any indication that they knew what they might be looking for, although Mr Naeem latterly recognised the need for print outs as part of the maintenance record. The operator has planned to obtain another vehicle (as back up), but it is not ready yet. The vehicle travels less than 10000 miles per month. Mr Ayub asked if the operator might extend the inspection intervals, but again was unaware of the Guide to Maintaining Roadworthinesss.

The operator confirmed that the Operating Centre is a residential property. It may have room to park two PSV mini-buses and a car, but there is no room to manoeuvre so whilst vehicles enter in forward gear, then must then reverse into a residential area. The safety implications had not occurred to the operator and there was no arrangement for an accredited banks-person. They thought that Driver S Khan’s licence might have been checked a couple of months ago. That consists of viewing the licence card. There are no checks of the DVLA database and no contract to allow the operator access top that data. He is self-employed as the minibus is only used infrequently. However, it then emerged that he undertakes school runs using a taxi for this operator. None of that other work is recorded. They referred to use of a digital tachograo0h to record driving of the mini-bus bit appeared oblivious to the need to record any other work. They suggested that the driver’s card is downloaded every 4 to 6 weeks, but appeared to be confused when they were asked about a company card and the download of the Vehicle Unit. The level of understanding was well illustrated by one Mr Ayub’s answers: “What do you mean by infringement reports?”

6. Determination

Based on the evidence, summarised above, I was satisfied that management of the operation had effectively been left with Mr Ayub and I made an adverse finding under section 17(3)(a). The operator failed to notify me of the restrictions on the Operating Centre and that Mr Ayub was in effect in control, with findings under section 17(3)(b). The historic prohibitions were as set out in the encounter report and were recorded under section 17(3)(c) but are also illustrative of the risk from a failure to meet the undertakings. Due to the additional evidence which emerged, I also record adverse findings under section 17(3)(aa) in that undertaking to main the vehicle in a fit and serviceable condition, to ensure an effective written driver defect reporting system, to retain full maintenance records for a period of 15 months, and to comply with driver’s hours rules and tachograph regulations, have not been complied with.

When I posed the question suggested by the Upper Tribunal in the appeal case of 2009/225 Priority Freight, namely: how likely is it that this operator will, in future, operate in compliance with the operator’s licensing regime I was struck by the level of ignorance displayed by both Director and manager. Mr Ayub at one point suggested that I might be responsible for their education. They had simply failed to wake up to the situation when interviewed by a manager from the Office of the Traffic Commissioner last year and again when the call up letter was sent 5 months ago. There was too much still to put right with too little knowledge displayed to take that action. Promises of future action carried very little weight, whilst there was not even the basic knowledge to seek assistance. I was concerned as to the risk presented by the maintenance of the vehicle and the failure to manage the driver that I determined that the operator must be removed from the industry and that such intervention could not wait. I therefore recorded a material change under section 17(3)(e) in that the operator had lost its repute and must be revoked under section 17(3)(d). In reaching that decision I took account of the fact that there is no employed driver, the very occasional use of the minibus and that there appeared to be no contractual obligations. Noting that this was the first Public Inquiry and Mr Naeem’s frankness in the face of these shortcomings, I made no order for disqualification on this occasion, but determined that the revocation take effect from 23:45 on 13 June 2023.

R Turfitt

Traffic Commissioner

6 June 2023