Decision

Decision for GB Concrete & Pump Ltd

Published 11 April 2024

1. IN THE WEST MIDLANDS TRAFFIC AREA

2. GB CONCRETE & PUMP LTD OD2018895

3. CONFIRMATION OF THE DEPUTY TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER’S DECISION

---

This case is called under sections 26 and 28 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995.  The operator holds a restricted licence authorising 6 vehicles.

Attending Public Inquiry on 16th January 2024 was Director Manjinder Singh. He was assisted by an interpreter and represented by Jeremy Woodcraft. Also in attendance was Ian Dodd, Transport Consultant and Ominderjit Singh, Mr Singh’s son.

4. Background

This operator received an immediate ‘S’ marked prohibition in relation to vehicle WX57 DWC on 18th July 2023 for an insecure load; with no load securing in place. A prior prohibition was issued on 27th October 2021 for a deep cut in tyre with cords exposed on vehicle KP08 VUH.

On 7th August 2023 DVSA Traffic Examiner Matthews then conducted an announced maintenance investigation (B1 in the bundle), which was marked as unsatisfactory. The shortcomings were identified as:

• Inspection / maintenance records

• Driver defect reporting

• Inspection facilities & maintenance arrangements

• Vehicle Emissions

• Wheel & tyre management

• Load Security

• Prohibition Assessment

• Concerns as to the control exercised by the responsible person.

An unsigned response was received from this operator which the DVSA identified failed to address the shortcomings.  TE Matthews concluded:

“The failure of having anyone in control resulted in a vehicle being operated by a driver with no driving licence. The same driver also took a vehicle onto the public highway with an insecure load and tyre damaged to cords. This was due to no training given in load security or walk round checks. Vehicles have failed to have metered brake tests at PMI with numerous driver related defects being identified with

no relevant DDR available. The operator has also failed to keep the required records for 15 months. Note;- WX57 DWC should be inspected every 6 weeks due to the age of it. All of these shortcomings identified and the lack of a satisfactory response off the operator is most certainly caused by having no responsible person in control, resulting in a very poor compliance and failure to adhere to the promises made when the Operator Licence was granted.”

This operator has an initial MOT failure rate of 40% compared to national average of 12.78%.

5. Areas for Consideration at Public Inquiry:

• Section 26(1)(b) – continuing and mandatory requirements

• Section 26(1)(e) – re inspection intervals and maintenance provider

• Section 26(1)(f) - not honoured undertakings signed up to when applied for licence: vehicles would be kept fit and serviceable; drivers would report promptly any defects or symptoms of defects that could prevent the safe operation of vehicles and/or trailers, and that any defects would be promptly recorded in writing; informed of changes affecting the licence.

• Section 26(1)(h) - material change: that you may no longer meet the requirement regarding fitness and the appropriate financial requirement.

6. The Hearing

The operator produced financial documentation the day before the hearing. I can be satisfied that the applicant meets the financial requirements and has sufficient financial resources to ensure that vehicles can be maintained in a fit and serviceable condition.

A witness statement of Manjinder Singh was also served the day before the hearing.

The DVSA evidence was accepted by the operator and so I took it as read.

Maintenance documentation disclosed prior to Public Inquiry noted continuing concerns.  VE Matthews identified to me in his supplemental report of a number on ongoing issues:

• Laden roller brake tests not being carried out and in some cases no brake efficiency test being carried out.

• PMI sheets not been correctly filled in.

• Defects found at PMI not signed off as rectified.

• Driver-type defects being found at PMI.

• PMI intervals exceeded.

• DDR sheets not fully completed.

• One PRS at MOT for lamps.

I heard lengthy evidence from Mr Singh. My assessment is that his understanding of operator licensing is woeful. He struggled to answer simple questions about running a transport operation, in my assessment (and that of DVSA) does not have control over this operation and clearly did not prioritise road safety. Moreover, I find that he ignored advice from DVSA in the MIVR (for example in relation to 6 weekly PMI’s for WX57 DWC), his own solicitor (in relation to advice given not to use mobile fitter with a workshop Reivix Ltd) and his own, very recently engaged, transport consultant Mr Dodd (re failure to take up Mr Dodd’s offer to start training drivers last week).

Mr Singh addressed me that he had difficulty understanding English, which was evident from the use of an interpreter in the hearing. He told me he relied on his son to interpret but that his son left the business in 2019/2020. He admitted that since then he does not have anyone in the business to translate official documentation for him. This was provided as an explanation for the late service of documentation to this office.  I cannot accept this explanation, particularly given my assessment that Mr Singh has ignored advice from professionals.

Mr Singh implored me to find that he had rectified mistakes and learnt from them; but the DVSA evidence told me otherwise. I was assured by Mr Singh that going forward he would engage with Mr Dodd (who was instructed last week) and that he was very sorry.

I find this all too little too late. Further, I did not find Mr Singh to be a credible witness. In some breath he told me he knew what the requirements were in holding an operator licence and in another he told me he didn’t understand, and he was sorry. He simply could not provide me with any assurances as to his fitness to hold a licence.

7. Decision

I make findings under section 26(1)(b), (e), (f). I deal with section 26(1)(h) below.

I consider this case falls within the ‘severe’ to ‘serious’ bracket when considering Annex 4 of Statutory Document No.10. 

I find that these wide ranging, numerous and serious failings led to undue risk to road safety over a protracted period. This operator has ineffective management control and insufficient or, in some cases, no systems and procedures in place to prevent operator licence compliance failings. I find that this operator failed to act on the advice of the DVSA, their own solicitor and the recently engaged transport consultant, Mr Dodds. I can only conclude that this is because of complete ignorance of the severity of their situation or arrogance; the impact is wilful disregard for the operator licensing system. Further, there was a failure to cooperate with this Public Inquiry in the very late service of documentation.

Balancing these negative features, this operator has not had any prior Public Inquiries and they cooperated with the DVSA (albeit I note my findings above re this Public Inquiry). I also note that the business is in the process of being sold and Mr Singh has no intention to be involved in a business holding an operator licence in future.

In respect of section 26(1)(h), as previously stated, finance is sufficient.  However, in respect of fitness I am mindful of the breadth and severity of maintenance failings directly impacting road safety and that those failings were not remedied despite DVSA intervention. Even if Mr Singh could say he was unaware of the concerns before the DVSA investigation (albeit that it was his duty to be so aware), he was certainly aware afterwards yet failed to act on the recommendations, which goes directly to the fitness of the operator. Mr Singh told me in evidence that he was aware of the requirements, yet the tenor of his evidence persuaded me otherwise.  I did not find him to be credible in evidence. I find that this operator is not fit to hold a licence.

Going on to consider whether this operator deserves to be put out of business, I have been told that as of the end of this month this operator will not require an operator licence in any event.  Any impact of regulatory action is therefore extremely limited in scope. However, even if I were considering these matters without this background, I would conclude that this operator deserves to be put out of business.  It is clear to me that operator licence compliance has not been a priority for this operator, with serious consequences for road safety. I determine that I cannot trust this operator going forward; actions speak louder than words and this operator’s inactions have led me to this conclusion.

Regarding the impact of regulatory action, I was urged to allow an orderly disposal of the business in the event of revocation. I was offered an undertaking to retain Mr Dodd or another transport consultant. I heard evidence from Mr Dodd of his four pre-conditions of accepting the role; I was urged to find that this would give me sufficient comfort to allow the business to be disposed of.  Whilst I was impressed with Mr Dodd, I note that this operator has failed to take his advice to date. How can I be assured that he would in future?

I revoke this licence with effect from 00:01 on 1st February 2024 to allow an orderly wind down of the business. I accept the undertaking that Mr Dodd or another transport consultant be engaged in this business until its revocation.

Having revoked this licence, I must go on to consider whether this operator and Director Mr Singh should be disqualified from holding an operator licence in future.  I determine, from hearing the evidence of Mr Singh and the conclusions I have reached, that disqualification would be a proportionate response to this catalogue of woeful failings. I disqualify this operator and Mr Singh from holding an operator licence for a period of 18 months.

Laura Thomas

Deputy Traffic Commissioner