Decision

Decision for Eugene Brendan Corr & Partner t/a E Corr (OF111936) and Sean Desmond Corr - transport manager

Published 23 October 2020

In the Eastern Traffic Area.

Written confirmation of the Traffic Commissioner’s decision

1. Background

The partnership, which was formed in the name of Eugene Bernard Corr and Eugene Brendan Corr, holds a Standard National Goods Vehicle Operator’s Licence authorising 15 vehicles and 1 trailer since 15 May 2013. The Transport Manager is Sean Desmond Corr.

There are two Operating Centres: Loppingdales Farm, Bishop’s Stortford, CM22 6DR and LPL Compound, Stansted, CM24 1QW. The declared maintenance contractor is Scantrucks Scania Ltd, which is said to be inspecting vehicles and trailers at 6 weekly intervals.

This operator is engaged in tipper operations. LPL is a successful corporate entity, connected through family ownership and which provides approximately 40% of the operator’s work. There is a medium-term intention to incorporate this business, which will remain separate from LPL. It is hoped to complete the outstanding administrative tasks by the end of the year.

2. Hearing

The operator was requested to attend a Preliminary Hearing today, 6 August 2020, in Tribunal Room 1 of the Office of the Traffic Commissioner in Cambridge, for the purposes of determining whether I needed to convene a Public Inquiry. The operator was present in the form of Brendan Corr and Sean Corr (also Transport Manager), represented by Ms Laura Hadzick, of Backhouse Jones solicitors.

3. Summary of Evidence

The OTC received an email dated 12 December 2019 from Eugene Brendan Corr requesting that the licence be changed following the passing of his father on 25 April 2019. The email also requested that Sean Corr (who is transport manager) be added as a partner. A response was sent to Mr Corr explaining that unless a partnership agreement was in place that would amount to a change of entity and that a new application will be required. He was advised that if this were the case, he might apply for authority to continue operating under Regulation 31, whilst an application was made. A completed Regulation 31 form was supplied under cover of an email dated 6 January 2020.

It later emerged that this application was unnecessary. Miss Laura Hadzick of Backhouse Jones solicitors supplied documentation including a deed, which continued the partnership as an entity and allowed for the appointment of Sean Corr, Mr Sean Corr was appointed as Transport Manager for this licence at grant on 15th May 2013. The representations from Ms Hadzik confirmed that he remained in that position, and has also taken up a partnership role following the death of Mr Bernard Corr. In preparing for this hearing I noted that my full decision had not been communicated. I regret that the partnership was not told that I had been satisfied that there was no change in entity.

Noting the change in circumstances and that there had been a late notification, I decided to review the current position at a Preliminary Hearing. In evidence I was told that it had taken a protracted period to sort the affairs of Bernard Corr, resulting in a delay in notification. I accept that there was no mal intent.

I had noted the 90% pass rate at annual test and 100% in the past two years, so I only requested a selection of maintenance records. However, the letter of 15 July 2020 from OTC erroneously referred to test history. In evidence I was given the background to the 2018 prohibition notice. A puncture had occurred, a different tyre contractor had just changed the wheel and the vehicle was on its return journey, when it was stopped by DVSA.

The call-up letter requested maintenance documents for 12 months for 4 vehicles. In correspondence it was suggested that this would require 35 safety inspection records consisting of 140 pages (based on 8.7 safety inspection records per vehicle each consisting of 3 pages plus brake test), 1040 drivers’ daily defect reports (based on an average of 5 days per week over 12 months and including ‘nil’ defects reports, which I assume the request encompasses). It was suggested that each document would need to be scanned or copied multiple times. I was concerned by what appeared to be a reluctance of the operator and/or its representative to assist the tribunal and to meet the undertaking on the Operator’s Licence. In the end the operator supplied original documentation direct to OTC, which I reviewed in advance.

I was also supplied with electronic documents submitted under various headings including “Training”, “Vehicle maintenance”, “Forward Planner” and “Partnership Documents”. It was the latter that prompted me to inquire of the OTC whether my decision regarding the partnership has ever been communicated. It appears not.
My intention in calling to a Preliminary Hearing was to review the current state of compliance following the changes in the personnel of the partnership. I therefore carried out a dip sampling of the records produced.

I noted that the driver defect reports for X333 COR are predominately ‘Nil’ except for an inner tyre flat on 31 March 2020. There were repeated references to excessive exhaust smoke recorded on 14, 15 and 16 August 2019. The defect reports for EU13 were all ‘Nil’.

The Preventative Maintenance Inspections for EU13 VOG show some driver detectable defects, e.g.:

• 10 July 2020 - cab doors/windows, legal plate/s, lamps, spray suppression & tyres.
• 5 June 2020 - windscreen wipers, lamps, cab security.
• 23 April 2020 - warning lamps, lamps, condition of tyres & bodywork.
• 11 March 2020 - lamps. RBT = 51%, 47%, 45%.
• 1 October 2019 – cab door/window, markers/reflectors, fuel tank.

The PMI records for X333 COR show some defects I would consider should have been identified on a walk round check, e.g.:

• 5 June 2020 - spray suppression.
• 10 March 2020 - seats and driving controls.
• 28 January 2020 - lamps.
• 12 January 2020 - windscreen.
• 23 September 2019 - windscreen washers/wipers, spray suppression, condition of tyres.

I have seen the service job cards and am satisfied that the rectification work is taking place. I was also told that the operator appreciates that there are weaknesses in the DDRS and has implemented a Driver Training book. At the end of every week Mr Corr not only checks the timesheets but requires the driver defect reports before the drivers can be paid. Both partners have been checking the quality of driver walk round but this has not been recorded to date. It also appears that the checks carried out by the in-house fitters on early and late shifts may have resulted in less robust checks by the drivers themselves. The quality of the walk round must be addressed by the Transport Manager but is ultimately the responsibility of the operating partnership.

I have seen the maintenance contracts and noted a Repair and Maintenance arrangement dated in 2017 and a more recent contract dating from May 2020. I have also noted the use of wheel security notices. However, I was concerned to note the results of metred brake performance checks, which regularly appear to be far below the readings expected, for instance on EU13 VOG:

• 10 July 2020 - 43%, 41% & 39% insufficient load is recorded on axle 2, after fitting a new slack adjuster the RBT records show 57%, 50% & 49%.
• 5 June 2020 - 42%, 41% & 41%, insufficient load recorded.
• 23 April 2020 - 43%, 39% & 36% insufficient load.
• Noted 7 January 2020 where I query - 49%, 49%, 49%.
• 14 November 2019 - 43%, 38%, 38%

The safety inspections for X333 COR show:

• 5 June 2020 - 32%, 17%, 15%, insufficient load on axles 1, 2 & 3.
• 22 April 2020 - 30%, 17%, 13% & 14%, insufficient load axles 2, 3
• 10 March 2020 - 30%, 17% & 14%.
• 28 January 2020 - 29%, 17% & 13%.
• 12 January 2020 - 29%, 17% & 14%.
• 7 November 2019 - 29%, 12%, 12%.
• 23 September 2019 - 28%, 11%, 14%.

The operator has undertaken to ensure laden brake tests at every Preventative Maintenance Inspection. Mr Sean Corr has the assistance of Ms Danielle Hawes, who has returned from furlough and is part way through her CPC studies. To aid those checks, I have included relevant extracts from the DVSA Guidance: Heavy vehicle brake test: best practice:

1.1 Locked wheels and the brake test

Vehicles must be fully loaded before being roller-brake tested because the grip between the tyre and the rollers is more effective that way. The wheels keep turning for longer, and a higher brake force will be achieved.

If your vehicle is empty or only lightly loaded, the grip between tyre and the road (or the rollers on a roller- brake tester or ’RBT’) will be lower, and a relatively small brake force will cause the wheels to lock (stop turning).

Once locked, no matter how much more the brakes are applied, the recorded brake force won’t increase. This means that if the vehicle’s load is too light, the wheels may lock before achieving the required brake efficiency.

If a vehicle is properly loaded, there are two concessions in the HGV inspection manual that Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) inspectors can make: * front wheel lock allowance (FWA): this takes into account the weight transfer to the front axle(s) that occurs when the vehicle is on the road * passing on locks (locked wheels): if more than half the wheels on a system lock, then the vehicle will pass on locks, unless there’s another reason for failure

You shouldn’t rely on either condition during test preparations. If the wheels don’t lock in the actual test, the vehicle will have to meet the required efficiency.

Remember: a locked wheel does not always mean a good brake

2. Preparing your vehicle for the brake test

Authorised Test Facilities (ATFs) are responsible for making sure that vehicles are properly loaded before the MOT starts. This normally means at least 65% of the vehicle design axle weight (DAW).

You can do this in a number of ways:

• by arranging to load the vehicle or trailer yourself
• by asking the ATF to provide load simulation - a loading fee may apply
• in the case of a tractor unit, using ballasted trailers - ask your local ATF if they have one for hire

Where load simulators can’t be placed above the rear axles, vehicles or trailers - unless exempt by design - must be loaded when tested. This includes:

• any multi-axle vehicle or trailer (excluding tri-axle semi-trailers) with a bogie weight exceeding 10,000kg
• tri-axle tractor units that are fitted with air suspension on any of the rear axles: to provide sufficient load these must be coupled to a loaded semi-trailer, so that the drive axle is loaded at or very close to the plated weight shown in column 2 of the plate and plating certificate

When loading a vehicle for brake test:

• place loads close to the rear axles
• aim to apply at least 65% - and not less than 50% - of the design axle weight to each axle
• if possible, use similar loads to add weight to the vehicle: this will help in placing the loads correctly, and achieve consistency between tests
• where load simulators can’t be placed above the axles - unless exempted by design - the vehicle or trailer must be presented laden

The operator and Transport Manager should engage that guidance and where a vehicle fails to achieve the pass values on the print-out but still shows as having locked, they need to question the maintenance contractor about the results and to seek an explanation. By way of quick reference and to assist the operator with the types of questions to be put to the contractor, I have included the ‘pre-MoT RBT checklist’ prepared by DVSA:

• is the vehicle sufficiently loaded?
• have all the brakes had time to bed in?
• are you aware of the correct method of inspection?
• is the RBT calibrated and in good condition?
• has the vehicle exceeded the minimum efficiency required in the manual?

4. Determination

I have accepted the statement of intent that all driver audits and spot checks will now be recorded and form part of the maintenance record.

I have referred to the undertaking for laden rolling road brakes tests at every Preventative Maintenance Inspection, which I have accepted.

I have accepted an additional undertaking: the operator had already booked a compliance audit to be undertaken by Novadata in October. The operator has undertaken to supply a copy of that report and a response to any undertakings, to be lodged with the OTC in Cambridge by close on 13 November 2020.

The operator was issued with a warning so as to avoid a repeat of the late notification of changes and in respect of the driver defect reporting systems.

RT/TC/6/8/20