Decision

Decision for Christopher Hewitt & Andrew Hewitt t/a Hewitt Vehicle Services (OF0219789) and Andrew Hewitt – Transport Manager

Published 21 March 2023

Christopher Hewitt & Andrew Hewitt t/a Hewitt Vehicle Services (OF0219789) and Andrew Hewitt – Transport Manager

0.1 In the Eastern Traffic Area

1. Confirmation of the Traffic Commissioner’s Decision

1.1 CHRISTOPHER HEWITT & ANDREW HEWITT t/a HEWITT VEHICLE SERVICES (OF0219789) AND ANDREW HEWITT – TRANSPORT MANAGER

2. Background

Christopher Hewitt and Andrew Hewitt hold a Standard National Goods Vehicle Operator’s Licence authorising 9 vehicles and 7 trailers. Andrew Hewitt is also the Transport Manager.

There is one Operating Centre at Unit C, Pioneer Concrete Works, Tweed Road, Northampton NN5 5AJ. Preventative Maintenance Inspections are said to be carried out by Clarke Brothers of Stone Hill Garage at 6-weekly intervals for vehicles and trailers (but see below).

3. Hearing

The Public Inquiry was listed for today, 27 February 2023, in Tribunal Room 1 of the Office of the Traffic Commissioner in Cambridge. The operators were present in the form of Christopher and Andrew Hewitt.

4. Issues

The public inquiry was called at the request of the operators and following notice that I was considering grounds to intervene in respect of this licence and specifically by reference to the following sections of the Goods Vehicle (Licensing of Operators) Act:

• 26(1)(b) – conditions on licence to notify changes, in this case relating to maintenance, repute, financial standing and the ability of the Transport Manager.

• 26(1)(c)(iii) – prohibitions (pages 60 to 63)

• 26(1)(e) – statements relating to inspection intervals, who was responsible for maintenance, and to abide by conditions on the licence.

• 26(1)(f) – undertakings (vehicles to be kept fit and serviceable, driver defect reporting, complete maintenance records, drivers’ hours and tachographs)

• 26(1)(h) – material change;

• 27(1)(a) – repute, financial standing, and a Transport Manager meeting Schedule 3.

• 28 – Disqualification.

Andrew Hewitt was called separately to consider his repute as Transport Manager, by reference to the statutory duty to exercise effective and continuous management – section 27(1)(b), Schedule 3 and section 58, and to consider whether I should make a direction in respect of his Certificate of Professional Competence.

The operator was directed to lodge evidence in support by 14 February 2023, including financial, maintenance and other compliance documentation. On 8 February 2023 my office received correspondence with confirmation of attendance, financial evidence, but insufficient to meet the prescribed sum for this authority, additional personal evidence from individual partners, evidence from a credit card and an unverified printout. The operator was advised on the need to secure admissible evidence. Further evidence was produced, but not all of it was admissible

5. Summary of Evidence

The operator was issued with an ‘S’ Marked prohibition denoting a significant failure in its systems on 26 May 2022. at Crick. The issuing Examiner noted damage with rusty exposed cords to the nearside tyre on axle 3.  It was subsequently found that the tyre tread was re-cut by the operator at the inspection on 23 April 2022.

An advisory notice was issued for inoperative rear registration plate lamp on the cab; obligatory reflector missing (but another reflector in place). The load appeared safe but not as per published guidance. Records also showed a further offence notice was issued for a failure by Driver Dawid Gajewski for driving over the 4.5-hour limit and a failure to use a tachograph.

The ‘S’ marked prohibition prompted the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency to commence a maintenance investigation. The Vehicle Examiner, Kevin Ridgeway attempted to visit on 30 May 2022. An appointment was made to return on 9 June 2022. The Examiner spoke with both partners and identified a number of areas for concern, including:

• Preventative Maintenance Inspection records were not properly completed with trailer records unclear as to which trailer had been inspected. Trailers were only subject to brake performance checks at annual test. Decelerometer tests are not suitable for semi-trailers.

• Vehicles are only subject to brake performance checks at annual test and even then, there was not a check at every inspection and all were in an unladen condition. The inspection record failed to identify the type of check which was engaged and there was no evidence of a further or appropriate check after remedial work. There was no record of brake work between inspections despite brake wear undergoing dramatic changes.

• None of the records were signed as roadworthy or dated, most had no tyre pressures recorded. Incorrect vehicle registration numbers have been entered with little comparison to the operator’s actual vehicles and sometimes mileages corresponded with previous correctly entered Vehicle Registration Numbers.

• Operators relied on a wall chart forward planner but claimed there had been no vehicles taken off-road.

• Preventative Maintenance Inspection record driver detectable defects with no associated report. The Examiner found the driver defect reporting system to be ‘ineffectively managed’ with few driver reports of defects. The operator attributed this to the use of weekly fleet checks but there was no record of these. One driver report form showed no rectification.

• The Examiner found the maintenance provider to be a car MOT station and workshop, owned and run by the operator. The commercial vehicles cannot enter the premises, so Preventative Maintenance Inspections are carried out on a hard-standing area, under a canopy. (The Examiner has advised: ‘could only just about accommodate a transit van let alone a HGV’). Staff are trained as light vehicle mechanics carrying out Class 4/5/7 annual tests. The annual test rate is poor, with failures including critical areas such as brake systems, headlamps, steering and tyres.

• The Examiner found ineffective wheel security and tyre systems with no recording of torquing or tyre condition. No in-service wheel security or tyre condition checks are carried out between inspections.

• Training is not documented. The Transport Manager had received no refresher training since qualifying in 1993.

The operators responded on 22 August 2022, just within the required deadline date and suggested that Andrew Hewitt would attend a transport manager refresher course on 20 and 21 September 2022, that the partners would change maintenance provider and ensure that safety inspections were completed, including brake testing, and wheel and tyre management. The Transport Manager would ensure that all maintenance records were complete and accurate. The operator concluded by commenting that in 29 years there had been no major accidents, no breach of tachograph rules and no Public Inquiries.

The Transport Manager accepted that some of his knowledge may not be up to date and referred to the two-day refresher course. He undertook to forward the certificate of attendance. He had approached three potential maintenance providers. He suggested that he would check that maintenance records to ensure that they are completed properly and ensure ‘the brake testing of vehicles’ as well as wheel and tyre management records. He would also ensure that driver defect reports are correctly signed off once completed and monitor the new maintenance contract.

The Examiner was subsequently provided with a copy of a maintenance agreement dated 5 September 2022, with New Euroline Ltd. However, Clarke Brothers remain named on the licence. New Euroline Ltd is not. Mr Ridgway also received a copy of the certificate of attendance from the Transport Manager.

The representations received on 8 February 2023 referred to a change in maintenance contractor with brake tests to be undertaken at every maintenance inspection. Andrew Hewitt referred to attending a Transport Manager CPC refresher course in September 2022 to increase his understanding and awareness of the licence requirements. He referred to 30 years of experience with no attendance at Public Inquiry or major incidents which might impact repute.

I refer to the dip sampling of the maintenance records produced in advance of the hearing:

5.1 BJ64 FET

18 November 2022 – inspection (14 + weeks prior to the hearing) with brake test: 57%, 25%, 13%. The axle 1 (again) and 2 discs were notably worn but marked as an advisory item. It also records that the windscreen was chipped, washers were blocked and defective lamps, but the driver defect report for that date was Nil.

7 October 2022 – inspection with brake test: 59%, 27%, 12%. Axle 1 discs were worn. The keys were not available to check the fuel cap seal and it records a wing/spray suppression split. The previous driver defect report for 5 October 2022 was marked as Nil.

• 26 August 2022 – inspection with no brake check. It also records windscreen chips (again), mirror back missing and front tyres getting low. The driver defect report for 25 August 2022 was marked Nil.

• 15 July 2022 – inspection with no brake check. There is an illegible entry regarding electrical connections. It also records chips in the windscreen (again).

• 2 June 2022 – inspection with no brake test. It records chips in the windscreen and failed batteries. The last driver defect report dated 20 May 2022 was Nil.

• 23 April 2022 – inspection with no brake test.

5.2 MX61 CYZ – driver defect reports only available for 26 January to 11 May 2022.

• 2 December 2022 – inspection (11+ weeks prior to the hearing) with no brake test, apparently at the request of the operator. It also records a defective rubber on the brake pedal, windscreen chips (again), some issue with the spray suppression and an oil leak (again).

• 21 November 2022 – inspection (10+ weeks since the previous) with brake test: 70%, 28%, 28%. It also records an oil leak, clutch fluid low, seatbelt frayed, chips in the windscreen, and washer blocked. All to be monitored.

• 9 September 2022 – inspection with no brake test. It records windscreen chips (to be monitored again), mirror cover, and battery replaced.

• 29 July 2022 – inspection with no brake test. It also records chips in the windscreen, inoperative fog light, side marker cracked, read wing guard broken.

• 17 June 2022 – inspection with no brake test. It also records a defective reversing light and a cracked mirror.

• 2 May 2022 – inspection with no brake test despite the brake pad sensor being repaired but no reference to retorque. It also records wipers in poor condition and the brake pad warning light on the dash. The last driver defect report dated 29 April 2022 was Nil.

The operators were advised to consult the DVSA guidance on brake testing dating from February 2022.

The operators’ tri-axle trailer has been declared vehicle off-road for the period commencing shortly after the prohibition notice. The operators have been pulling a third-party’s trailers since that date. There were no trailer records available and np processes in place to ensure the inspection of trailers as per the declared intervals or to ensure that they are fit and serviceable. The DVSA Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness assists operators by making practical suggestions for managing traction-only operations. Transport managers are required by law to manage the transport operation continuously and effectively. An operator providing traction-only services must have trailer authority on that licence and must specify an inspection period. The operator needs to satisfy themselves that the trailer provider’s inspection regime is appropriate. The operator must ensure that any trailer it operates meets the stated frequency for inspection. If the operator cannot satisfy themselves that a suitable assessment has taken place, then the operator must make their own assessment, as per the declared intervals.  An operator should therefore expect access to information which indicates the annual test expiry, the date of the last Preventative Maintenance Inspection, for trailers not fitted with electronic brake performance monitoring, date of last roller brake test and confirm that this was laden, contact details for reporting of defects.

Drivers will require appropriate training on conducting an effective walk-around check including noting the trailer’s annual test expiry and confirming that it has been inspected and brake tested within the stated period. Andrew Hewitt took responsibility for the shortcomings in driver defect reporting and maintenance documentation. The operators are engaged in the haulage of polystyrene so the laden brake testing at 4 times per annum should prove sufficient, although the operator needs to explore how brakes will be check at inspections in-between. I heard that there are currently two employed drivers, in addition to Andrew Hewitt. They have both been employed for over 18 months. The drivers had been instructed to conduct walk round checks but the records above demonstrate the clear weaknesses. On Christopher Hewitt’s admission, the operators had become complacent. They have been content for drivers to take photographs on their phones to send to him, rather than compete a proper and auditable record. I was also greatly surprised to learn that, whilst driver cards have been downloaded fortnightly using an Easytac downloader, the operators are yet to even apply for a company card. There has been no download of any of the vehicle units and no proper analysis of the data produced.

6. Determination

Based on the evidence summarised above, I was satisfied that there were grounds to make the following adverse findings under these sections of the Act: 26(1)(b) – conditions on licence to notify changes, in this case relating to maintenance, and the ability of the Transport Manager, 26(1)(c)(iii) – prohibitions, 26(1)(e) – statements relating to inspection intervals, who was responsible for maintenance, and to abide by conditions on the licence, 26(1)(f) – undertakings (vehicles and trailers to be kept fit and serviceable, effective written driver defect reporting, complete maintenance records, drivers’ hours and tachographs). 26(1)(h) – material change on the production of financial evidence. The licence record must be updated to reflect the current maintenance arrangements.

I was concerned that Andrew Hewitt had not demonstrated effective and continuous management of the operators’ licence. I noted the improvements which had been made, as per the representations, but that further action is required to meet the basic requirements of the licence. I found that Andrew Hewitt’s repute as Transport Manager was retained but severely tarnished by the above shortcomings. He was warned as to the possible consequences were he not to ensure continuous and effective management of the transport operation in the future.

I explained to the operators that compliance could not continue in this way. Noting that the operator’s had responded positively in the recent past, I felt able to weight the following assurances into the balance:

• Undertaking to only operate their own trailers under this licence (save for emergencies, where a trailer might be hired in for the period of immediate repair or replacement);

• Undertaking to apply for a company card within 7 days so that vehicle unit downloads will commence within a further 7 days of receipt;

• Undertaking for Andrew Hewitt to attend an in person two-day Transport Manager CPC refresher course, provided by a trade association (Logistics UK/RHA/BAR/CPT), a professional body (IoTA/CILT/SOE/IRTE) or an exam centre approved by an accredited body to offer the transport manager CPC qualification. A copy of the certificate of attendance will be sent to the Office of the Traffic Commissioner in Cambridge within two months of the date of the hearing.

• Undertaking that the operator will arrange an independent audit to be carried out by the RHA, Logistics UK or other suitable independent body, to assess the systems for complying and the effectiveness with which those systems are implemented. The audit should cover at least the applicable elements in the annex to be supplied by the Office of the Traffic Commissioner. A copy of the audit report, together with the operator’s detailed proposals for implementing the report’s recommendations, must be sent to the Office of the Traffic Commissioner in Cambridge within 6 months of the date of this hearing.

I found it necessary to take deterrent action to emphasise the need to improve the approach to compliance. The operators confirmed that they have never used the full authority. There are no written contractual arrangements in place. One of the vehicles is a recovery vehicle but the operators confirmed that it is used for operations which are not exempt from licensing. Taking this into account, I curtailed the licence to a total of four vehicles and one trailer with effect from 23:45 on the date of the hearing.

R Turfitt

Traffic Commissioner

27 February 2023