Decision

Decision for IGM Haulage Ltd (OF1144763) & Transport Manager, Marius Giuricici

Published 23 November 2023

0.1 In the Eastern Traffic Area

1. Deputy Traffic Commissioner’s Written Decision

1.1 IGM Haulage Ltd (OF1144763) & Transport Manager, Marius Giuricici

This is my decision issued in relation to the Public Inquiry listed for 13 November 2023 in Cambridge. Marius Giuricici (dob August 1977) is the sole director registered at Companies House and also the nominated transport manager who had been called in separately.  Mr Giuricici did not attend.

Mr Giuricici’s latest email was sent to the Office of the Traffic Commissioner on 10 November 2023 in response to the caseworker confirming in an email the previous day that Mr Giuricici’s application to surrender the licence had been considered by the Traffic Commissioner and refused. Mr Giuricici was informed that he should attend the Public Inquiry.

Notably, Mr Giuricici responded that he was working as a driver and so would not be able to attend the hearing. The caseworker replied to recommend that he should attend and that if he did not do so then a decision may be made in his absence. Mr Giuricici was also notified that he could apply for an adjournment, but that any such application may not be granted. No further communication has been received from him since then.

Overall, I am satisfied that the operator and Mr Giuricici in his capacity as transport manager was fully aware that the Public Inquiry would proceed if he did not attend and the company was not represented. Therefore, I have determined this case in Mr Giuricici’s absence on the available evidence. 

2. BACKGROUND

This standard national licence with a current authority of 1 vehicle (a 44 tonne vehicle is in possession) and 1 trailer was granted on 24 May 2016. The authority had been reduced from 3 vehicles and 1 trailer on 18 August 2023 at Mr Giuricici’s request. I also note that an application to surrender had been lodged on VOL before that in May 2023, but that Mr Giuricici had subsequently withdrawn it after he had explained that business picked up. The primary work has been container haulage from various ports with some occasional curtain side trailer work.

There is one operating centre recorded at E H Roberts Plant Hire, London Road, Capel St Mary, Ipswich, IP9 2JT. There had also been a second operating centre at East Anglian Freight Terminal, Parker Avenue, Felixstowe, IP11 4HF. Seemingly the operator had left this site in June 2021, but had failed to notify the Traffic Commissioner.  Maintenance is on a 6 weekly basis for vehicles and trailers recorded with 3 different maintenance providers recorded on the licence, PRM Commercials, Norfolk Truck & Van Suffolk and Ipswich Truck Services Ltd.

Mr Giuricici has been nominated as transport manager since the grant of the licence. He obtained his CPC qualification in Romania in 2016.  In 2020 he underwent a 2 day transport manager CPC refresher course.

There had been an unsatisfactory investigation (MIVR) carried out by DVSA Vehicle Examiner (VE) Lockwood on 18 April 2023. The visit was unannounced. At the time of the visit the VE was informed that no drivers were employed and no vehicles were on the road. However, according to Mr Giuricici and VOL he was in possession of three vehicles. The VE highlighted issues regarding;

i. Inspection/maintenance records

ii. Driver defect reporting

iii. Inspection facilities & maintenance arrangements

iv. Wheel & tyre management

v. Training on Load security

vi. Prohibitions issued prior to visit and also at the MIVR to vehicle PN15 KTU when it was noted that the vehicle excise duty had expired on 1 April 2022.

vii. The VE’s assessment of the transport manager was of a failure to ensure effective control due to the shortcomings listed above.

The operator replied to the VE’s findings and acknowledged that he had failed to comply with the conditions of the operator’s licence with systems unsatisfactory. The reasons he gave were related to the economical aspect of the transport activity, the irregularity of work volumes and the low rates paid as a subcontractor and sometimes a lack of good drivers. This had effectively transformed him into “a kind of one man company”. He was doing a little bit of everything including driving.

Mr Giuricici claimed to have started work to resolve the issues and stated he would do his best to put systems in place to prevent future problems and secure the safety. He tried to give a clear indication of the actions, process and procedure which have been introduced and adopted to ensure the improvement required to ensure ongoing compliance. 

Prior to the MIVR there had also been an unsatisfactory Traffic Examiner investigation (TEVR) conducted on 6 January 2023 by TE Hawkins with his report concluded on 7 July 2023.  It was noted there had been some improvements during that time, but that there was a “long way to go.” Notably there were no printouts of driver licence checks, no Working Time Directive written policy, no written instructions for drivers regarding loading containers despite this being the primary work, little evidence of driver induction training or CPC modules. The tachograph analysis was contracted out and appeared effective with drivers retaining 28 days of records and downloads carried out appropriately. However, there was no driver disciplinary procedure. Notably, there were no drivers employed at that time and no vehicles on the road, although Mr Giuricici confirmed he was still in possession of 3 vehicles that were parked up at the Capel St Mary operating centre.

The TE noted that perhaps Mr Giuricici had received incorrect advice from other sources previously. The TE obtained confirmation from the owners of the site at East Anglian Freight Terminal, that the site had not been used by this operator since June 2021, even though it had remained authorised on the licence. It was eventually removed following a variation application granted in August 2023.

3. EVIDENCE

The evidence of the two DVSA investigations is unchallenged because Mr Giuricici did not attend the Public Inquiry. I note that in relation to both investigations that Mr Giuricici was considered to be co-operative.

It is a matter of record that Mr Giuricici attempted to surrender this licence on 22 May 2023, but then withdrew it, stating that business had picked up. Subsequently, a variation application was granted removing the second operating centre. It was also agreed that the authority would be reduced to 1 vehicle and 1 trailer.

Most recently, Mr Giuricici lodged an application to surrender on 27 October 2023 in response to the calling in letter. The Traffic Commissioner refused to grant the application. When Mr Giuricici was informed of this and that he should still attend the Public Inquiry he responded that he could not afford to take the time off from his driving job. He also stated;

“To be honest I don’t clearly see the sense of me personally going in public enquiry, two investigations has been made by your colleagues this year, and they clearly showed that the system were far from beeing satisfactory, in my view it would have been so simple to sort out my situation by your colleagues either to give me a last chance to prepare the compliant systems in a certain amount of time as a ultimatum or just take it away in Voolpit imediately there. Why needs this complication process of me appearing in court just to explain “why did I arrived in this situation “, to analyse the past, I don’t quite get it. wouldn’t be better to concern our selfs about the present moment the future and what could possibly done to improve and avoid problems which already happened and is past.”  

Overall, it is unfortunate that Mr Giuricici did not attend so that I could hear his explanation for the compliance shortcomings. Without any such explanation, I am bound to make adverse findings in respect of all the grounds set out in the calling in letters of 9 October 2023 for the operator and also the transport manager.

4. FINDINGS

Therefore, I make adverse findings in terms of the following grounds;  

a)  Pursuant to section 26(1)(b) you have breached the conditions on your licence to inform the Traffic Commissioner or occurrences/events which could affect the operator to meet the requirements to be of good repute, financial standing, and financial standing; and changes in the maintenance arrangements;

b)  Pursuant to section 26(1)(c)(iii) your vehicles or drivers have been issued with prohibition notices by DVSA or the police in the past five years

c)  Pursuant to section 26(1)(e) the following statements you made when applying for the licence were either false or have not been fulfilled:

i.   that your vehicles would be inspected at the 6 week intervals you promised they would be

ii.   that you would notify the traffic commissioner within 28 days of any convictions incurred by the licence holder or its employees, of any changes to the maintenance arrangements, or of any changes in financial status that might affect the licence

iii.  that heavy goods vehicles would normally be kept (when not in use) at the operating centre at East Anglian Freight Terminal, Parker Avenue, Felixstowe, IP11 4HF

iv.  that you would abide by any conditions which may be imposed on the licence.

d)  Pursuant to section 26(1)(f) you have not honoured the undertakings you signed up to when you applied for your licence, namely:

i.   that your vehicles [and trailers] would be kept fit and serviceable

ii.   that you would observe the rules on drivers’ hours and tachographs and keep proper records

iii.  that you would keep records for 15 months of driver defect reports, safety inspections and routine maintenance and make them available on request

iv.  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

v.  the traffic commissioner would be immediately informed of any changes or convictions which affected the licence.

e)  Pursuant to section 26(1)(h) since the licence was issued, there has been a material change in the circumstances of its holder; namely, that you no longer have sufficient financial resources to support the total number of vehicles authorised under the licence and that you ceased using an operating centre at East Anglian Freight Terminal, Parker avenue, Felixstowe, IP114HF but failed to inform the Traffic Commissioner.

There have been unsatisfactory MIVR and TEVR. Although Mr Giuricici was considered to be co-operative by both examiners, he was found wanting in terms of his transport manager responsibilities. Therefore, I find that he did not have continuous and effective control of the transport operations. Consequently, I further find that the company has failed to demonstrate that it meets the mandatory requirement for professional competence pursuant to sections 13A(d) and 13A(3)(a).  

Overall, in terms of good repute, I repeat that it is unfortunate that Mr Giuricici did not attend this Public Inquiry to provide his explanation for the compliance shortcomings. Had he done so, I would have been able to at least consider and most likely take into account some of the factors which have led to these compliance shortcomings. The company has also gained a commercial advantage by continuing to operate without adhering the requirements of operator licensing.

Given there is no proper or indeed any explanation, it follows that the company has failed to demonstrate it meets the mandatory requirement for good repute pursuant to section 13A(b).

No financial evidence had been provided to demonstrate the required £8,000, so it also follows this mandatory ground has not been met pursuant to section 13A(c).

Given the adverse findings relating to the transport operations, I also find that good repute of Mr Giuricici in his capacity as transport manager is lost.

5. DECISION

5.1 IGM HAULAGE LTD

I am required to formulate a proportionate approach in accordance with the principles set out by the Upper Tribunal in Bryan Haulage (No 2) (UT2002/217) to the question “is the conduct such that the operator ought to be put out of business?”

The Upper Tribunal has indicated that it is helpful to consider the preliminary Priority Freight question (UT2009/225) of “how likely is it that this operator will in future operate in compliance with the operator’s licensing regime?”   However, given the operator had applied to surrender the licence, this question does not arise so critically in practice.

Even if that had not been the case, I am satisfied that the series of adverse findings I have made must result in the conclusion this operator cannot be trusted to be compliant. This is especially given the lack of continuous and effective management of the transport operations, even though Mr Giuricici himself was the transport manager and should have known to ensure there were effective systems in place in all respects of the transport business.

In any event, there are adverse findings in relation to the three mandatory requirements of good repute, financial standing and professional competence that require me to revoke the licence.

Factoring in the adverse findings in terms of the discretionary grounds as well, the balancing exercise has fallen fully on the side of negatives. The outcome has been a breakdown of trust between the Traffic Commissioner and this operator. Indeed, there are no substantive positives to consider because Mr Giuricici did not attend to provide any explanation for his conduct as a director or as the nominated transport manager.

Therefore, in terms of Bradley Fold question, the company deserves to be put out of business, regardless that it requested to surrender its licence recently with that application being refused by the Traffic Commissioner because the operator had already been called to this Public Inquiry.

In conclusion, I direct pursuant to section 27(1) Schedule 3(8) and Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 that the standard national operator licence OF1144763 IGM Haulage Ltd is revoked effective from 23.59 hours on 13 November 2023.

I have specifically requested that the DVSA and the Police employ their ANPR and on-road resources to identify and stop any vehicle being operated by the company after the revocation date. Should a vehicle be found to be carrying goods for hire or reward on a public road after this time it would be liable to be impounded.

Mr Giuricici should also understand that in addition I have considered whether it is proportionate to disqualify the company and him in his capacity as a director.  However, I have concluded that it would not appropriate to do so in these circumstances, including the offer to surrender the licence.

Furthermore, Mr Giuricici needs to be aware that should he wish to re-join the industry and apply in the future in any capacity for an operator licence, he will need to demonstrate that he has undertaken additional education and that he is fully committed to operator compliance in order to establish a satisfactory level of good repute has been restored.

5.2 TRANSPORT MANAGER MARIUS GIURICICI

Upon a finding of loss of good repute pursuant to section 13A(3)(a), section 26 and paragraph 16(2) of Schedule 3 Mr Giuricici is disqualified indefinitely from acting as transport manager with effect from 23.59 on 13 November 2023.

Pursuant to paragraph 17(2) of Schedule 3 the rehabilitation measure to be fulfilled would be that Mr Giuricici attends a two day in person transport manager CPC refresher course before consideration could be given to the restoration of his good repute and the variation or cancellation of the disqualification pursuant to paragraph 17(1) of Schedule 3.

Gillian Ekins
Deputy Traffic Commissioner, Eastern Traffic Area

13 November 2023