Decision

Decision for Keith Cheesewright Caravans Ltd

Published 8 November 2024

0.1 WESTERN TRAFFIC AREA

1. KEITH CHEESEWRIGHT CARAVANS LTD OH1047161

2. KEITH CHEESEWRIGHT – TRANSPORT MANAGER

3. AT A PUBLIC INQUIRY IN LAUNCESTON 25 SEPTEMBER 2024

4. BACKGROUND

Keith Cheesewright Caravans Ltd is the holder of a standard national goods vehicle operator’s licence authorising the use of two vehicles and one trailer from an operating centre in St Austell, Cornwall. Keith Cheesewright is sole director and transport manager. The licence has been in force since 2005.

The operator attended public inquiry in September 2020. A summary of my findings is as follows:

• On 29 January this year, DVSA encountered the operator’s vehicle VO02ASZ and found it to be out of test. This generated a follow-up investigation by Traffic Examiner Laura Rawlings who found many shortcomings, even allowing for the small scale of the transport operation. The operator responded on 8 June 2020 and provided assurances.

• Review of the evidence today identifies that those assurances are yet to be honoured. All the deficiencies noted by Ms Rawlings in relation to the PMI sheets, the lack of tyre tread depths, the lack of brake testing, the out-of-date forms persist. Mr Cheesewright continued to drive without having completed the mandatory CPC training from 30 September 2019 until 1 July 2020.

Regulatory action was taken:

• Pursuant to a finding under Section 26(1)(f), that vehicles would be kept fit and serviceable, the licence is suspended with immediate effect and until all equipment passes a laden roller brake test.

• Pursuant to a further finding under the same section, that the rules on drivers hours and tachographs would be honoured and under Section 26(1)(h), material change in that the sole director and transport manager drove without a valid CPC over the course of 9 months, the licence is curtailed to two vehicles and one trailer.

Undertakings were added for Mr Cheesewright to attend refresher training and for regular laden roller brake testing.

DVSA encountered vehicle K27KCC on 8 May 2024 on the A30 at Fraddon, Cornwall. It was not specified on the operator’s licence and there was no margin. The vehicle was prohibited for two suspension defects and two tyres worn beyond the legal limit. The tachograph was defective and out of calibration. The driver claimed to be working for Mr Cheesewright but not getting paid. Mr Cheesewright admitted that he knew the tyres to have been excessively worn, replacements were on order but he did not consider them to be dangerous and had knowingly caused the vehicle to be used that day. The driver had no evidence of having carried out any walk-round check.

Traffic Enforcement Manager Andrew Ball carried out a follow-up visit on 25 June 2024. The report scored 39 – any score in excess of 10 points triggers a referral to my office. I cannot recall seeing a higher score than 39. Failings were basic and serious such as a lack of any downloading or analysis of digital tachograph data for two years, none of the usual compliance systems were in place and tachograph calibration had been allowed to expire as a result. Some drivers appeared to be employed on an ad-hoc basis with no systems to check they had the hours available to drive and the terms of engagement may have amounted to sub-contracting.

DVSA Vehicle Examiner David Garraway carried out a maintenance investigation, also on 25 June. Of the thirteen assessments in his report, six scored as “refer to OTC”, four were unsatisfactory and just three satisfactory. One vehicle and one trailer were inspected during the fleet check and each issued with immediate prohibitions for tyre defects and a lack of any brake lights on either the unit or the trailer. Mr Cheesewright was conducting safety inspections himself, but no inspection reports were available at the time or thereafter nor were there any driver defect reports. There were no under-vehicle facilities, the ramp previously used having been taken out of service having become dangerous. The MOT failure rate was 100% with basic and serious defects such as service brake operation, braking components and suspension defects. The undertaking for regular and effective brake performance assessments had not been complied with.

I called the operator and transport manager to public inquiry.

5. THE PUBLIC INQUIRY

Keith Cheesewright attended the public inquiry represented by Jared Dunbar, solicitor, and supported by Guy Haynes, transport consultant. Proceedings were recorded and a transcript can be produced if required. I have recorded here only the evidence necessary to support findings of fact. Finances were satisfied as a preliminary matter.

In opening, I noted that evidence reference to a 6-month driving ban for Mr Cheesewright which had not apparently been notified. I noted that I had only one inspection report for each vehicle and trailer and no brake performance testing for anything in the past year. I further noted an undertaking requiring roller brake tests to be submitted to my office quarterly but it did not seem to have happened.

The business is buying, selling and transporting mobile homes with a specialist vehicle suited to the roads in Devon and Cornwall; Mr Cheesewright had been doing this since 1976. There were two people in the business. Only one vehicle was used at a time. Two drivers had worked for him to cover his unavailability. One was paid by BACS and the other used his yard and was happy to drive on occasion. I was told of Mr Cheesewright’s medical history leaving him incapacitated for a period. He had engaged Mr Haynes since July. Mr Haynes had provided training on CPC and tachographs and introduced some new procedures.

Mr Cheesewright was prepared to have quarterly compliance audits. He considered that he ought to hand over the transport manager role to someone else. There were some interested people who were not yet qualified, others had declined, he believed because of the upcoming public inquiry.

The use of a vehicle not specified was because of a change in registration number which had not been notified. The tachograph calibration date should have been on his sheet. In relation to the lack of PMI sheets, he himself had been looking at the vehicles. He had someone lined up but he didn’t turn up. He bought some parts and fitted them himself. He was around the lorries all the time. Any problem they had he would put right.

He was assisted by “Ed”. Neither he nor Ed had any qualifications. He had now engaged an external provider. Mr Haynes now reviewed the inspection reports. He had bought concrete blocks to load the vehicles. He reviewed the brake test printouts. He wasn’t aware of the undertaking to send printouts to my office. He had bought driver defect report books but hadn’t been filling them in until the encounter in May. Or he may have started following the visit in July. He had left some additional records at home.

Tachographs had not been downloaded because he had needed to buy a download tool. He was downloading them now and could do the analysis if he needed to. He and Mr Haynes had looked at the infringement reports. He had not produced missing mileage. It was new to him and he needed Mr Haynes to train him further.

Revocation would cause a lot of issues. There were no other transport companies around who could collect and deliver where he did. He did careful site surveys and it was beneficial for the police for him to be doing the work. Sub-contracting would be possible for some of the vans but he made his money with private individuals who weren’t geared up for it and needed his guidance.

I took Mr Cheesewright to page 123 of the bundle and reminded him that he had just told me that he had been unaware of the need to send roller brake test reports to my office. Mr Cheesewright accepted that page 123 was a letter from him confirming that he would do just that. He had kept the printouts which were annual. It hadn’t always been possible to get a brake test.

I asked about the reference to a driving disqualification at page 63. Mr Cheesewright told me that twice he had been in a van doing 37 in a 30 limit, it was new cameras that he didn’t know existed. Two more were doing 70 in a van on a dual carriageway when he should have been doing 60 and finally was a mobile phone which caused him to tot. He had not notified the convictions as required.

I referred to the encounter on 8 May when Byron Pollard was driving and the photographs of the illegal tyres. Mr Cheesewright had ordered tyres a week previously but they had only turned up on the day he was stopped. The tyres were well down but they seemed OK to him. A crane was in place and he had to take the van there.

I referred to Mr Cheesewright’s explanation that he had only recently bought a digital vehicle and that was why he didn’t have downloading equipment. I reminded him that the DVSA statement showed that he had a digital vehicle for two years, which I did not consider to be recent. The tachograph found to be defective on 8 May appeared not to have been repaired until September. That was accepted.

I asked why there was only one safety inspection for each vehicle. I was told another one was being done that day. I challenged how important the operator licence really was when, in other evidence, I had been told that they had only been used a few times whilst he had been disqualified. Mr Cheesewright told me they were used more in the winter but I pointed out that the disqualification was September through to March.

Out of four MOTs there had been just one pass. I noted that, when K27KCC was presented for prohibition clearance on 29 May but failed on three items with three more marked as advisory. Mr Cheesewright confirmed that he had prepared that vehicle for test.

Guy Haynes told me that he had been engaged on 9 July. He would attend in future on a fortnightly basis. He had contacted four or five potential transport managers but all had declined due to the public inquiry. He would approach them again once the inquiry had concluded. With the right guidance and support, he felt Mr Cheesewright had the potential to be compliant in the future.

6. FINDINGS OF FACT

On 3 September 2020, the operator was at public inquiry and, supporting my decision to allow the licence to continue, Mr Cheesewright gave me an undertaking for regular roller brake testing. A DVSA investigation in May 2021 found that he had failed to honour that undertaking. I proposed to revoke the licence and Mr Cheesewright responded. As a result, the undertaking was amended to say that roller brake test reports would be submitted to my office quarterly. That also failed to be honoured, and it is clear from the evidence provided for the inquiry that roller brake tests have happened only once a year as part of the MOT or more frequently only as required to clear a prohibition. Failure to comply with a licence undertaking was not cited as a ground in the call-up. In making this finding, I record that undertakings promised by this operator can be afforded little to no weight in future and my ability to trust this operator to be compliant is adversely affected.

Mr Cheesewright made a conscious decision on 8 May this year to send out a vehicle with two seriously defective tyres because there was a crane waiting to unload a caravan. That was a purely commercial decision. The photographs of the tyres are in my bundle. The Vehicle Examiner does not record a measured tread depth because there is no tread to measure. Mr Cheesewright did not think the tyres were that bad. His judgement as transport manager is clearly badly awry.

There were no safety inspection reports available for the Vehicle Examiner in July this year as none had been completed. Mr Cheesewright claimed to have conducted inspections himself but with no qualifications and no facilities, it is difficult to see how such a check would qualify. DVSA’s Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness says that safety inspections should include all items at the annual MOT which includes such matters as emissions and brake performance, and that they should be carried out with suitable under-vehicle inspection facilities. None of that has happened so I find that safety inspections have not been conducted at the 8-weekly interval specified on the licence. Section 26(1)(e) is made out and I attach significant weight.

Mr Cheesewright’s lack of competence to conduct inspections is highlighted by the performance of vehicles at annual test with a 100% recorded failure rate – although the analysis is for this year only as the vehicles had not been correctly specified on the licence prior to the DVSA encounter. (Note I had said 75% failure rate during the hearing but further review shows that the one recorded clear “pass” came a week after that vehicle had been refused a prohibition clearance). Prohibitions have been issued for the bald tyres previously mentioned, no stop lights at all on an articulated combination, a deflated tyre, suspension levelling valves and an exhaust. Section 26(1)(c)(iii) is made out. Given that one of the instances was a deliberate use of a vehicle in an unroadworthy condition, I again attach significant weight.

It emerged from the response to DVSA that Mr Cheesewright had been disqualified from driving for six months. I was told that was the result of four speeding and one mobile phone offence whilst in a heavy goods vehicle. That again reflects extremely poorly on his ability to be a transport manager as does his failure to notify those convictions as he was required to do.

The operator had two digital-equipped vehicles in possession, the first of which was specified on his licence on 18 May 2021. By June 2024, he had still taken no steps at all to be able to download the equipment. The tachograph found defective in May this year was not repaired until September. There is still no analysis of driving time despite driving obviously having been carried out by drivers other than Mr Cheesewright. This operator and transport manager are slow to take action.

The driving conviction and the failure to notify them, the lack of action and the decision to knowingly use a vehicle with two defective tyres demonstrate a degree of recklessness so extreme that I am caused to find that the good repute of the transport manager is lost. The operator is without professional competence. Sections 27(1)(a) and (1)(b) are made out.

I turn now to the questions designed to help traffic commissioners make decisions in relation to the good repute of an operator. The first is, “is this an operator I can trust to comply in the future”? The failure to honour the undertaking given at public inquiry and again in writing indicate that it is not. The preference to deliver a caravan rather than declare an unroadworthy vehicle off the road further indicates against future compliance. The slowness to take action in relation to the tachograph matters and the failure to notify of his convictions all indicate against trust. I can find nothing in the positive. Nothing at all. So I cannot trust this operator to comply in future.

Is the operation so bad that it needs to be put out of business. First, I note that the business appears to have operated reasonably well when the use of the vehicles was extremely limited whilst Mr Cheesewright was disqualified and then subsequently unable to drive for health reasons. I was told that the other drivers had driven only two or three times each over that lengthy period. The primary business is buying and selling caravans with collection and delivery ancillary to that. I reject outright the assertion that no-one else in Devon or Cornwall has the skills to do this work.

That said, I go on to make my assessment against the assumption that this is a business that will come to an end if the operator’s licence is revoked. It is the multiple and serious non-compliances set out above, including the lack of the most basic tachograph compliance systems, the lack of preventative safety inspections and the prohibitions and MOT failures resulting from that mean that I find it is a business that public safety requires to be brought to an end. The good repute of Keith Cheesewright and of Keith Cheesewright Caravans Ltd are both lost. Section 27(1) is again made out.

Disqualification is not automatic nor does it require any additional feature. In this case, Mr Cheesewright has unfortunately demonstrated that promises made by him in relation to compliance will not be honoured. Operator licensing is built on trust and it is not possible to have trust in Mr Cheesewright. He does not seem to appreciate that. It is for that reason that I find that a short period of reflection outside the transport industry is necessary.

7. DECISIONS

Pursuant to findings of loss of good repute and professional competence, the licence is revoked in line with Section 27(1)(a) and Section 27(1)(b). To allow for an orderly winding-down, revocation takes effect from 23:59, 16 November 2024.

Keith Cheesewright is disqualified from holding a goods vehicle operator’s licence for twelve months from 17 November 2024.

The good repute of Keith Cheesewright as a transport manager is lost and he is disqualified from acting as such for a period of one year and until he sits and passes again the transport manager certificate of professional competence.

Kevin Rooney

Traffic Commissioner

18 October 2024