Decision

Decision for Cruisers Logistics Ltd

Published 8 March 2024

0.1 IN THE EAST OF ENGLAND TRAFFIC AREA

1. CRUISERS LOGISTICS LTD  LICENCE OF2017227

2. DECISION OF THE DEPUTY TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER

2.1 Expanded written version of decision given orally at a Public Inquiry in Cambridge on 5 February 2024

---

3. Decision

The standard international licence held by Cruisers Logistics Ltd is revoked with effect from 0001 hours on 4 March 2024, pursuant to Section 26(1)(c)(iii), (e), (f) and (h) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995.

4. Background

This application was called to a public inquiry in Cambridge on 5 February 2024 after deputy traffic commissioner Gillian Ekins had found significant and continuing non-compliance issues at a preliminary hearing on 13 November 2023. The preliminary hearing had itself been called in the light of an unsatisfactory maintenance assessment carried out by DVSA in April 2023.

5. Reasons for the revocation

Having heard the evidence at today’s inquiry and looked at further maintenance and drivers’ hours records supplied by the operator, I made the following adverse findings:

• vehicles have not been presented at the 10 week inspection interval the operator said they would be (Section 26(1)(e) of the 1995 Act refers). DVSA found extended intervals of up to three months between inspections. While the recent record is better, the operator still does not seem to be on top of things: a six week inspection (the operator has reduced the interval owing to the vehicles’ high mileage) for vehicle LV63 MYA was due the week before today’s inquiry but there was no evidence that it had taken place.

• the preventative maintenance inspections (PMI) records for the vehicles have often only been made available several weeks after the PMI, meaning that the operator had no oversight of what defects there were with the vehicle and whether or not it had been signed off as roadworthy. Some defects marked “advise” required immediate attention (eg a tyre with a tread depth of only 2mm).

• the brake testing regime has been inadequate. LV63 MYA was not given any kind of brake test between 13 September 2022 and 14 November 2023. Since the 13 November preliminary hearing, roller brake tests have been carried out but vehicles have not been sufficiently laden and there are some serious imbalances (more than 30%) which have gone unnoticed by the operator.

• no driver defect reports have been presented to the inquiry, despite a request that they be submitted in advance. From the numerous driver detectable defects present on most PMI sheets, it is clear that drivers are not carrying out effective walk-round checks of their vehicles. The PMI records show that they are missing obvious items such as defective brake lights, ABS warning lights, loose sideguards etc.

• there are large amounts of missing mileage (mileage when the vehicle was driven but it is not known by whom). I found the director’s explanation – that the Tachomaster reports were simply wrong – unconvincing. I would have expected the operator to make inquiries into the cause of the missing mileage.

• there are numerous and repeated drivers’ hours infringements, by one driver in particular. The director had also committed serious drivers’ hours infringements, on one occasion driving for 6 hours 10 minutes without a qualifying break. Again, I was unimpressed by his explanation that this had simply not happened.

• the infringement reports issued to drivers had unconvincing driver signatures – all signed with an illegible squiggle with the same pen. The reports had not been signed by the transport manager or director at all. Even worse, the purported dates of the signatures were clearly false, as the date on which the infringements reports were generated was always several (or many) days later than the supposed day that the drivers had signed the reports. No infringement reports at all were generated between 17 October 2023 and 17 January 2024.

• the director ignored the advice of the transport manager as to when PMIs and roller brake tests were required (although the transport manager should have been much firmer in ensuring that his advice was followed).

• while noting that a new transport manager has now been nominated, I also note that he is only 20 years old and, having qualified in July 2023, is not experienced. The prospective transport manager did not attend the inquiry and so I was unable to question him and seek reassurance that he would be up to the task of making the necessary deep and rapid improvements to this operator’s practices and culture.

• I was not impressed by the director’s excuse that the previous transport manager had resigned in November 2023 (directly after the preliminary hearing) and that he hadn’t really known what to do in the meantime. I would have expected much more dynamism, acceptance of responsibility and determination to improve in order to be able to answer the Priority Freight question (how likely is it that the operator will comply in future?) positively.

I conducted a balancing act. Against the negative features listed above were the fact that roller brake tests were now being conducted (although with the shortcomings described in paragraph 3(iii) above); that the operator had reduced the inspection interval from 10 to 6 weeks (although one 6 week inspection was overdue); that wheel torque and retorque records were now being kept (although there were no records after September 2023 even though at least one wheel had been removed since then); and that the director Mr Siurkus had attended an operator licence management training course in May 2023 (although that did not seem to have inspired the necessary level of improvement). I concluded that the negative features heavily outweighed the positive and that the company’s conduct fell into the “severe to serious” category defined in the senior traffic commissioner’s statutory document no. 10.

The Bryan Haulage question – does the operator deserve to go out of business? - I answered in the affirmative. The company was warned both by DVSA in April 2023 and by DTC Ekins in November 2023 that compliance was unsatisfactory. There have been some improvements but not nearly enough. Drivers’ hours oversight is woeful, driver defect reporting is dysfunctional, the brake testing regime is still inadequate. The director has failed to demonstrate that he can be relied on to comply. I consider that the company needs a period of time out of the industry in which to take stock and assess whether it wishes to re-enter it and, if it does so, acquire the requisite knowledge and establish the required compliance systems before making any future application. I am not making a disqualification order but any future application will need to be closely scrutinised and tested at a public inquiry.

Nicholas Denton

Deputy Traffic Commissioner

5 February 2024