Decision

Decision for K & D Izzard Transport Ltd (OF1144442) and Daniel John Izzard – transport manager

Published 23 October 2020

In the Eastern Traffic area.

Confirmation of the Traffic Commissioner’s decision.

1. Background

K & D Izzard Haulage Ltd holds a Standard International, which was granted from 28 April 2016. Following an application, it has authority to operate 16 vehicles and 16 trailers from 18 March 2019. The Directors are Kenneth John Izzard and Daniel John Izzard who is also the Transport Manager.

The Operating Centre is at 117 Clophill Road, Maulden, Bedford, MK45 2AE. Inspections are conducted in-house at 6 weekly intervals. John Arnold was added to the record approximately two weeks prior to the hearing.

Both directors act in a similar capacity for Silbase Ltd (OF0235449) which has an authority for 20 vehicles and 20 trailers. They were therefore the subject of a warning for unsatisfactory maintenance in July 2014. It is subject to additional undertakings for rolling road brake tests. Kenneth Izzard was also required to undertake a Transport Manager CPC refresher course on 7/8 June 2014.

2. Hearing

This Preliminary Hearing was due to be heard on 9 April 2020 but was postponed due to the pandemic. It was relisted for 3 August 2020. On 30 July 2020 the OTC received an email from Daniel Izzard, Director and Transport Manager, suggesting that he should be permitted to attend by video link. He referred to concerns about travelling from Bedfordshire and around lock-down but he also referred to the hearing itself.

No medical evidence was provided in support of his application. As the hearing has already been adjourned and was relisted to allow the operator opportunity to address me in regard to future compliance and by reference to documentation, following adverse findings by the DVSA Examiner, I did not find the application to be in the interests of justice. The tribunal has Covid-secure arrangements in place.

The subsequent report from the Remote Enforcement Office confirmed my concerns. The hearing therefore proceeded on 3 August 2020, in Tribunal Room 1 of the Office of the Traffic Commissioner for the East of England in Cambridge. The operator was present in the form of Daniel Izzard, who was also present as the Transport Manager.

3. Issues

To determine whether I needed to intervene in respect of this operator’s licence and therefore whether the operator and Transport Manager should be called to a Public Inquiry

4. Summary of Evidence

An ‘S’ marked prohibition was issued to a trailer, C330430, during annual test on 31 December 2019 (brake pads falling out) leading to DVSA conducting a maintenance investigation on 8 January 2020. Mr Winn’s findings are set out in the PG13F & G form to be found at page 40 of my bundle. He referred to the following unsatisfactory findings:

• Prohibitions – one immediate ‘S’ marked prohibition, as above (page 45) on issued to trailer.
• Records - roller brake checks were not being documented, with no meaningful tests noted, despite one vehicle having a reline – with no retest, some inspections not signed off as roadworthy, No vehicle off road system.
• Driver Defect Records – no evidence of rectification work noted, no evidence of a wheel retorquing programme in place.
• Arrangements/ facilities – use of an uncalibrated torque wrench, no qualified technicians on site and issuers with brake testing

A response dated 20 January 2020 was received from the operator, to be found at page 43. I noted the annual test initial pass rate for 5 years at 83.76% based on 37 tests, with one PRS and five fails. Page 49 contains the details with fails for parking brake, seat belt, condition of tyres, spray suppression/wings, suspension. The last fail was in January 2020 where trailer C269550 failed for its parking brake.

Maintenance documentation was originally requested to be lodged 26 March 2020. I am grateful to the DVSA Remote Enforcement Office and Examiner Simpkin for completing the Desk Based Assessment dated 20 July 2020. That assessment notes that the Examiner visited 5 months ago. On that basis the OTC asked the Examiner to concentrate on the quality of laden brake checks, the completion of Preventative Maintenance Inspection reports, the use of Vehicle Off-Road reporting, the recording of rectification work, the strength of driver defect reporting in the period since the last investigation. In other words, to see whether the operator had used the opportunity to improve its compliance.

In summary, Mr Simpkin found:

• no evidence of first use checks being carried out;
• no evidence of who manages that system;
• no evidence of who drivers report defects to;
• driver defect reports have been completed incorrectly with reference made to Public Service Vehicle items;
• no evidence of dealing with driver non-compliance/discipline;
• no evidence of quality assurance checks;
• no evidence of when or how inspection records are returned;
• evidence that the PMI interval was exceeded for KP03 GOH;
• no evidence of brake tests for trailers;
• only random evidence of the use of wheel retorque procedures, with no calibration evident;
• no evidence of calibration of in-house brake tester;
• no evidence of staff training;
• no evidence of investigation into annual test fails.

It was accepted that KP03 GOH had exceeded the intervals given. There was a change to inspect the vehicle early but the next date was not changed.

I was supplied with various documents from the operator, in advance of the hearing. This included a FORS Bronze re-approval audit dated 13 September 2019. It appears to confirm whether policies are in place rather than offering much qualitative assessment against compliance standards. The response to the Examiner suggests that FORS Silver has now been attained. The operator told me that he was not provided with any audit report.

I can confirm sight of evidence of technical training for Cornel Manole and Daniel Izzard, having completed the IRTEC inspection technicians’ assessment for LGV in February 2020.

The screen print response to Mr Simpkin’s letter of 21 July 2020 does not accord with the documentation with which I was provided. In fact, there has been a complete change in the approach adopted by the operator.

The operator submitted CheckPro computer/app generated reports: KX65 PXC on 18 July 2020 with an electronic signature of Daniel Izzard. It identifies no defects and has been signed off as roadworthy despite the report showing the service brake reading as: ‘31 &’, the secondary brake reading as 18%, and the parking brake as 12%. The form has been ticked to suggest a decelorometer test but there are three percentage readings. The next page records it as a roller brake test. There is no information as whether the vehicle was laden or to explain the readings.

The next record is for YT12 AEJ and dated 27 July 2020. It is apparently signed off by Daniel Izzard but none of the items has been ticked, as above, but they are recorded as satisfactory. When printed out it has all the inspection items that would be engaged at a Preventative Maintenance Inspection, but the operator told me that this was in fact a driver defect report. This is confusing at it contains a suggestion of a laden roller brake test but with no readings.

I thought that might also be the case for KD38 trailer, which was also inspected on 27 July 2020. The service brake performance is recorded as ‘29 &’, the parking brake at 11%. KD26 was inspected on 18 July 2020 with brake readings recorded as: service 25% and parking 35%. KD22 was inspected on the same day, achieving service brake performance of ’42 &’ and parking at 11%. Reference is made to secondary brakes, but I am unclear how and why.

Mr Izzard indicated that once something is entered on the electronic records, such as the erroneous brake test readings, it is impossible to alter them. He attempted to attach screen prints of the brake test print outs, but it is impossible to read them. It would appear that the system, as currently configured, may be capable of meeting some of the undertakings on the Operator’s Licence but not that pertaining to the production of inspection records upon request.

Daniel Izzard gained his Certificate of Professional Competence in July 2013. He attended a one-day Transport Manager refresher course with MDR Training on 22 May. Paragraph 56 of the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document on Transport Managers advises that a two-day course would usually be required after that period of time. He instead chose to attend the FORS practitioner day.

In addition, I noted:

• that the operator checks driver’s licences on a quarterly basis.
• it was suggested that infringement and other reporting should take place more often, necessitating Vehicle Unit downloads on a weekly and nor more than monthly basis.
• the new system provides for rolling road brake tests at every PMI but the Hoffman rollers used in house do not have load cells. The operator now has access to John Arnold and has stated that it will commit to the minimum 4 laden brake tests at John Arnold per year, excluding annual test.
• the TM has found the separate torque records in each vehicle to be confusing and difficult to audit. He has committed to a single record going forward

5. Determination

The operator has taken steps to address the concerns raised during the inspection earlier in the year. However, the new computer-based systems have not yet delivered the desired outcomes and accessible records which the operator needs. It is for the operator to provide evidence from which I can be satisfied that compliance will be met going forward. On current information I have concerns as to how any Transport Manager cannot demonstrate compliance with the statutory duty. The operator has given an undertaking to have a compliance audit and to submit that to OTC, in the following terms: full compliance audit to be undertaken by a trade association (FTA/RHA/BAR/CPT), a professional body (IoTA/CILT/SOE/IRTE) or an OCR approved examination centre offering the management CPC qualification (PCV/LGV) not less than 5 months and not more than 6 months from the date of the Preliminary Hearing. A copy of the audit, along with the operator’s proposals will be sent to the Office of the Traffic Commissioner within 14 days after the audit.

That audit must check compliance with the other commitments above. I warned the operator and Transport Manager that all Operator Licence requirements must be met, going forward.

RT/TC/3/8/20