Decision

Decision for Dent Logistics Limited and Transport Managers

Published 11 June 2024

0.1 IN THE NORTH WEST OF ENGLAND TRAFFIC AREA

1. DENT LOGISTICS LIMITED OC1127383

2. TRANSPORT MANAGER FIONA ANNE CANNON

3. TRANSPORT MANAGER JENNI EDITH THOMPSON

4. DECISION OF THE DEPUTY TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER

4.1 In the matter of the Goods Vehicle (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995

5. Public Inquiry held at Golborne on 24 April 2024

6. Background

Dent Logistics Limited (“the operator”) has held a standard national goods vehicle operator’s licence OC1127383 since 2014 authorising the use of ninety vehicles and one hundred trailers. The Operator currently has the full authority in possession without any margin.

The Operator holds another standard national goods vehicle operator’s licence OB2067819 in the North East Traffic Area which was granted in October 2023 and authorising the use of 5 vehicles and 5 trailers. That licence has not been formally called to this public inquiry.

The operator’s sole director is Thomas Hugh Dent.

There are two Transport Managers currently in post, Fiona Anne Cannon, and Jenni Edith Thompson. Ms Cannon has been in post since 2015 and is also Transport Manager on the North Eastern licence. She was previously sole director of the Operator between 2014 and 2016 and is its financial controller. Ms Cannon is the life partner of the director Mr Dent. Ms Thompson has been in post on this licence since 2015.

There was previously a third Transport Manager on this licence. Hollie Dent   was appointed on 12 August 2019 and formally removed on 29 November 2023. Ms Dent is the daughter of the director Mr Dent.

In July 2023 my office became aware of a fatal road traffic collision involving one of the Operator’s vehicles on 23 August 2021. The driver employed by the Operator was subsequently convicted in April 2023 of causing death by driving without due care and attention and driving without due care and attention. There was no evidence to suggest the Operator was culpable in relation to the incident, but it failed to notify my office of the conviction. TM Cannon later apologised and said she was unaware that such a matter needed to be notified.

I was also made aware of a DVSA encounter with another of the Operator’s vehicles on 16 February 2022. The driver, Arran Barbieri was found to be driving without a valid CPC qualification. His previous CPC had expired 2 years previously in February 2020. Seven separate drivers’ hours offences were also identified between November 2021 and the encounter date. It subsequently emerged that the Operator allowed Mr Barbieri to continue driving without a valid CPC after the encounter until he belatedly obtained the required qualification in May 2022. Both Mr Barbieri and the Operator were prosecuted for the offences disclosed with the Operator being fined a total of £6,666 and ordered to pay costs of £618. The conviction was not notified to my office by the Operator.

The public inquiry was called to consider these matters identified.

The Operator and the three Transport Managers had not previously been called to a public inquiry. However, a warning letter was issued to the Operator by Traffic Commissioner on 29 July 2021 after it received a tachograph related prohibition. The Operator was also asked in 2018 to explain why it had failed to notify a driver’s conviction for careless driving. After Ms Cannon responded on behalf of the Operator no further action was taken at the time.

7. The Call to Public Inquiry

The operator was called up to public inquiry by letter dated 28 September 2023.

The call up letter gave notice that the grounds for regulatory action in Sections 26(1)(b), 26(1)(c)(i), 26(1)(c)(ii), 26(1)(c)(iii), 26(1)(e), and 26(1)(f) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (“the Act”) were to be considered as well as the statutory requirements to be of good repute, hold professional competence and to have financial standing. The letter also gave notice that the provisions for disqualification in Section 28 of the Act would be considered.

Transport Managers Cannon, Thompson and Dent were called up by letters of the same date that gave notice of consideration of the requirement of good repute and professional competence in Schedule 3 of the Act.

The public inquiry was scheduled for 7 November 2023. After the letters were issued it became apparent that Ms Thompson had a pre-booked holiday, and the hearing was re-listed for 22 February 2024. Notice was given to the parties by letter dated 7 December 2023.

8. The Public Inquiry

The Public Inquiry commenced at Golborne on 22 February 2024. The operator was represented by its director Mr Dent. TMs Cannon and Thompson also attended as did former TM Hollie Dent. The Operator, Mr Dent and the current Transport Managers were legally represented by counsel Darren Finnegan instructed by DWF Law. Ms Dent was legally represented by Sarah Jennings of Weightmans Solicitors.

On the eve of the initial hearing, Traffic Examiner Lightfoot provided a report on evidence of driver management that the Operator had submitted in accordance with the case management directions made previously. The report made some unsatisfactory findings that the Operator disputed. It sought to provide further submissions and evidence in response. It also requested the attendance of TE Lightfoot at the hearing. The examiner was not available on the day of the hearing and I was also concerned that I had insufficient time to properly consider the evidence at such short notice.

As this evidence went to the critical question of the Operator and Transport Managers’ current approach to compliance, I determined it was in the interests of fairness to adjourn consideration of those matters to 24 April 2024. I did however decide that the public inquiry could proceed on 22 February 2024 to hear evidence of the events related to Hollie Dent’s tenure as Transport Manager for the Operator.

Having heard the evidence, I recorded a finding that there was no evidence whatsoever of any dishonesty or other deliberate impropriety by Ms Dent. These matters do not call into question her personal integrity. I did not hold Ms Dent responsible for the failure to notify my office about the fatal road traffic collision. She left her position whilst the investigation was at an early stage, and I would have expected others within the company to have identified and acted on the requirement to notify.

I did find that Ms Dent was accountable for two errors. First, I found that she was responsible for undertaking the check of Mr Barbieri’s driving licence when he was engaged in July 2021. Whilst she did identify the relevance of his previous endorsements, she did not identify the expiry of his CPC.  I accepted there was some mitigation in that the Operator should have checked the system again and identified the error more swiftly. The second error was that Ms Dent failed to personally notify my Office of her resignation in December 2021 and relied on the Operator to do so. Ms Dent with hindsight accepted that error. This again is mitigated by the fact that the Operator should have promptly notified my office as well of her removal.

I accepted the submissions made on Ms Dent’s behalf that those two errors were isolated in nature and I did not consider that they came anywhere near the threshold required to consider a finding that repute is lost. Nevertheless, they were a blemish on Ms Dent’s record, and I considered this should be reflected in a formal warning.

The public inquiry was then adjourned to today and I made a number of case management directions. The parties subsequently complied with those directions as required.

Driver Arran Barbieri was called to a conjoined driver conduct hearing on 22 February 2024 but did not attend at the start of the hearing. I initially determined that a decision should be made in his case in his absence. Mr Barbieri subsequently attended at my offices at 13.15 hours (after the hearing had concluded) claiming he had been delayed by transport issues. I did not resume the hearing and directed that he should be called to attend again at a conjoined hearing today so that the other parties had the opportunity to hear his evidence and, if necessary, comment on it.

The public inquiry resumed on 24 April 2024. Mr Dent, TMs Cannon and Thompson attended again and remained legally represented by Mr Finnegan.

Driver Barbieri did not attend having informed my office the previous day that he was working. The driver conduct decision for Mr Barbieri has been recorded separately.

9. Evidence

In advance of the hearing, I was provided with various written submissions and statements, the key items being:

• Statements from director Thomas Dent, TM Cannon, and TM Thompson with supporting documents

• Written submissions by Mr Finnegan in relation to financial standing

• Submission by the Operator in relation to former Transport Manager Hollie Dent

• A statement from Hollie Dent and submissions on her behalf.

• Reports from TE Lightfoot on the evidence of driver management supplied to DVSA before the hearing and the Operator’s submissions in response.

• Recent evidence of maintenance

These statements contained the following key points:

• Mr Dent explained that when the Operator applied for its licence in 2014, Ms Cannon was named as director as he was bankrupt at the time. When the bankruptcy was discharged in 2016, he replaced Ms Cannon as director.

• It was accepted by the Operator and Ms Dent that the latter was responsible for checking Mr Barbieri’s driving licence when he was employed in July 2021. She clearly failed to note his CPC had expired.

• Mr Dent said that Transport Manager Cannon had made the decision to continue using Mr Barbieri for driving duties after the encounter in February 2022 until he undertook the required training in May 2022. It was accepted that knew that was unlawful.

• Ms Dent left the Operator’s employment in December 2021. Neither the Operator nor Ms Dent informed my Office of her departure until 2 years later after the call to public inquiry.

[REDACTED]

10. DENT LOGISTICS LIMITED

I do not make any adverse findings about the Operator’s approach to maintenance and its general approach to driver management. During the hearing, some issues arose that would benefit from further attention, but they were not to an extent that called for consideration of regulatory action. That position is clearly a significant positive factor in the Operator’s favour when the relevant considerations for regulatory action are placed in the balance.

However, I do reach adverse findings in relation to the specific matters that prompted the call to public inquiry.

I find the operator did fail to notify my office of the fatal road traffic incident that subsequently resulted in the driver’s conviction. Whilst there is some mitigation in that the driver was no longer employed by the operator when the conviction was recorded, no such mitigation exists for the second failure to notify that relates to the Operator’s own conviction for the driver’s hours offences committed by Mr Barbieri in its employment and his offence in driving without a valid CPC for several months.

That failure to notify satisfies the grounds for regulatory action in Section 26(1)(b), 26(1)(c)(i) and 26(1)(c)(ii) of the Act.

I find the CPC matter arose because the Operator had inadequate processes in place to check driving licences at the time in 2021 and 2022. It was clear from the evidence given during the public inquiry that there was considerable confusion as to which Transport Manager was accountable for the checks and what process was to be followed.

The position is also aggravated by the fact that TM Cannon consciously permitted Mr Barbieri to continue driving without a CPC qualification after she became aware of the issue in March 2022 until he regained the qualification in May 2022.

The fact of the CPC and drivers’ hours offences by Mr Barbieri also leads to a finding that the Operator failed to comply with the undertaking on its licence to observe the rules on drivers’ hours. This satisfies the grounds for regulatory action in Section 26(1)(f) of the Act.

In addition to the specific findings recorded above I do have some wider concerns about the Operator’s general approach. This does appear to be a classic case of an Operator that appears to be operating compliantly without incident for many years and has become complacent. A sudden event (in this case, the collision, and Mr Barbieri’s offending) draws the spotlight onto the operator’s approach and weaknesses are exposed.

I am also concerned that the Operator’s response to date lacks urgency albeit that I recognise some changes have been made such as introducing a revised driving licence checking process.

Whilst the overall evidence does not indicate any ongoing issues with compliance, I remain concerned that the Operator may have vulnerabilities in its approach. In closing submissions, Mr Finnegan suggested the word “lethargy” to describe the Operator’s previous approach and I found that reflected my impression following the evidence I heard at the inquiry. I am also concerned that the personal relationship between Mr Dent and Ms Cannon may at times lead to a lack of objectivity in their decision making in their respective roles of director and transport manager.

I strongly recommend that the operator considers seeking external guidance to review its approach to compliance. This could either take the form of recruiting an experienced and independently minded transport manager or engaging the services of a transport consultant on more structured and frequent basis (the operator has previously sought occasional advice from a consultant).

In terms of the final outcome to the current public inquiry, I have undertaken the balancing exercise.

Mr Finnegan in closing submissions neatly summarises the adverse issues as “deep but not wide”. The point was made that these issues related to one driver of the 120 employed by the Operator. It is clearly a negative feature that the Operator’s systems in 2022 allowed a driver to be engaged and to continue working when he was not properly qualified to do so. It is also an aggravating feature that the Operator knowingly allowed that to continue for two months after it was drawn to its attention.

This must be seen in the context of the positive features of the operator’s wider compliance and the changes that have been made since these matters first arose in 2022. Those are of a significant balancing weight.

Accordingly, I consider that the appropriate starting point for the consideration of regulatory action is in the “moderate” category envisaged by the guidance in Statutory Document 10. However, I consider that a suspension of the licence for any period of time would be disproportionate. I also note the absence of any margin on the licence and take account of the submissions that any curtailment of the vehicle numbers currently in operation, even for a short period of time, would have a significant adverse financial impact on the company. Having considered the overall picture here, I consider such a curtailment would also be disproportionate.

I therefore conclude the matter with a strong formal warning to the Operator. I have been persuaded not to take meaningful regulatory action on the basis that the matters considered at the public inquiry were narrow, isolated, and aged in nature. Clearly if evidence of more recent and wider concerns were to come to the attention of a traffic commissioner in future, the operator would be at risk of action being taken that would materially affect the transport operation. For that reason, I again urge the Operator to review the adequacy of its current compliance systems and welcome its willingness to offer the audit and training undertakings recorded above.

11. Transport Manager Fiona Cannon

The findings and comments I have recorded above about the Operator’s approach can be said to equally apply to my findings in relation to Ms Cannon.

Although some effort was made during the proceedings to portray the three Transport Managers as equals, I am satisfied that Ms Cannon was the most senior and exercised considerable authority over the other Transport Managers. This partly stems from her previous position as director of the Operator, and I consider her personal relationship with Mr Dent is also a factor.

Ms Cannon’s position means that I consider she bears more responsibility than the other Transport Managers for the deficiency in the approach of the Operator to driving licence checking. Ms Cannon also accepts that she was the person who knowingly took the decision to allow Mr Barbieri to continue driving without a CPC for two months until he took the course.

That was a very bad decision for any Transport Manager to make. It was submitted that her decision was mitigated by the fact she acted out of personal sympathy for Mr Barbieri and his ability to support his family. It was also conceded that Ms Cannon’s decision was influenced by the acute driver shortage at the time.

I reject both those mitigating arguments. The requirement of driver CPC is a key road safety measure. This is why it is a criminal offence to drive without a valid CPC qualification. It is completely unacceptable for any Operator or Transport Manager to knowingly allow a person to drive for them knowing that they do not have a valid CPC no matter how great the temptation. Traffic Commissioners have repeatedly made clear that driver shortages must not be allowed to compromise the requirements of road safety.

I consider that act alone by Ms Cannon would justify a finding that her good repute was lost. I draw back from making such a finding because of the wider picture of the Operator’s general compliance. I consider that picture is heavily influenced by Ms Cannon, and I recognise that she has implemented improvements since 2022. There were aspects of Ms Cannon’s evidence at the public inquiry that failed to inspire my confidence, but I balance this with the cogent documentary evidence of the Operator’s compliance.

I will therefore record a finding that Ms Cannon’s good repute is severely tarnished by the matters considered at this public inquiry, but it is not lost. I record a strong and final warning.

12. Transport Manager Jenni Thompson

I am satisfied that Ms Thompson’s role with the Operator is focussed on management of the vehicles and their maintenance. I also refer to my previous comments that I consider Ms Thompson’s position within the company is subordinate to Ms Cannon’s position.

It is clear that Ms Thompson deserves much of the credit that the Operator’s maintenance standards did not give me any significant cause for concern during the proceedings.  

It was also accepted that Ms Thompson was not involved in the driving licence checking issues that led in part to the public inquiry. Indeed, it appears she was unaware of those issues and the Operator’s conviction until she received the call to this hearing. I consider that is telling in terms of the Operator’s approach, but I do not make any adverse finding in relation to Ms Thompson individually in that regard.

I determine that there are no grounds to reach an adverse finding in relation to Ms Thompson. I find her good repute and professional competence as Transport Manager to be intact. No further action is required for Ms Thompson other than to record the refresher training undertaking noted above.

I would however advise Ms Thompson to reflect on the public inquiry and to remind herself of the guidance offered to Transport Managers in Statutory Document Number 3. It is not unusual for transport managers employed by large operators with several such postholders, to focus on specific areas of compliance. Individual Transport Managers should however be aware of their broad statutory responsibilities and ensure they have sufficient knowledge and assurance that all aspects of compliance are being met by the Operator and their fellow Transport Managers.

Gerallt Evans

Deputy Traffic Commissioner

29 April 2024