Decision

Decision for Kyle Thomas (OH2068223), trading as Empire Scaffolding

Published 22 November 2024

0.1 In the Western Traffic Area

1. Written Decision of the Traffic Commissioner

2. Public Inquiry held over Microsoft Teams

2.1 Operator: Kyle Thomas (OH2068223), trading as Empire Scaffolding

3. BACKGROUND

Kyle Thomas trading as Empire Scaffolding holds a restricted goods vehicle operator’s licence authorising the use of one vehicle from a site at Crofty Self Stores, Redruth, Cornwall. The licence was granted in November 2023. One 18-tonne vehicle is shown as in possession.

As is normal practice following grant of a new licence, DVSA invited Mr Thomas to a new operator seminar such that he could get assistance with putting in place the necessary systems and procedures. In fact, Mr Thomas was invited on three separate occasions but failed to attend on any. That triggered a visit from DVSA Traffic Examiner Steven Raw. Mr Raw found the following shortcomings:

• No checks of driving licences

• No driver induction or other formal training

• No systems in place to manage drivers hours

• Operator unaware of working time regulations

• No vehicle monitoring systems in place

• Driver walk-round checks not recorded

• No forward planning of any description

TE Raw also noted that the vehicle had to be reversed in to the operating centre from the public road. He sent his report to Mr Thomas on 9 August asking for a response within 14 days. No response was received.

On 19 September 2024, a 3.5 tonne vehicle belonging to the operator was issued with two immediate prohibitions for load security. The issuing Examiner considered the matter to identify a significant failure of roadworthiness compliance.

I was in Cornwall on 7 November and took the opportunity to visit the operating centre. It is based near the end of a small cul-de-sac. At the time of my visit, which was around 9.30 on a Thursday morning, access to the operating centre would have been very difficult due to the number of parked cars. Whilst there are relatively few other premises around, the road was surprisingly busy. I did note that the authorised vehicle was within the operating centre which appeared locked.

4. THE PUBLIC INQUIRY

Given the operator’s location in west Cornwall, around 190 miles from Bristol, the hearing was held remotely over Microsoft Teams.  Kyle Thomas attended unrepresented. The connection was good and I am satisfied that the fairness of the hearing was not compromised.

No financial nor compliance evidence has been provided in breach of the directions within the call-in letter.

Mr Thomas told me that he had applied for the operator’s licence because the business had grown quickly. He had been very busy which is why he had not attended the seminars. Traffic Examiner Raw had explained the systems that needed to be in place and Mr Thomas had been entirely unaware of most of it. He had since spoken to another licence holder and gained more knowledge. He had decided to downsize the business, his HGV driver had left and the vehicle is up for sale. There are no plans to run another HGV.

I asked about the load security prohibition. Mr Thomas had not been aware of the need to net loose items on the body and had not been aware that the long poles resting on the H frame needed to be strapped until that encounter.

I closed the hearing and reserved my decision.

5. FINDINGS OF FACT

No finances have been provided. Access to financial resources is not satisfied. Section 26(1)(h) is made out.

A prohibition has been issued to a vehicle owned by the operator. Section 26(1)(c)(iii) is made out. Due to the Examiner having annotated it as being due to a failing in compliance systems and due to the total failure to have any training in place for drivers, I attach significant weight.

The rules on drivers hours and tachographs have been entirely ignored. Whilst it is unlikely that a local scaffolder will breach the drivers hours rules, it is not unusual for such an operation to breach weekly rest requirements and the working time regulations. Section 26(1)(f) is made out. The complete absence of any systems means that I attach significant weight.

This should have been a simple business to run compliantly. I can understand that an operator might see less need for systems when there is only one vehicle. But systems are essential to demonstrate compliance and, ultimately, the law requires tachographs and driver cards to be downloaded regularly and for records to be kept. The root cause of this gross non-compliance is the failure to attend the free new operator seminar provided by DVSA. In turn, the root cause of that non-attendance is the fact that Kyle Thomas chose to prefer commercial activities over compliance. That makes him unfit to be the holder of a restricted goods vehicle operator’s licence. Section 26(1)(h) is further made out and I again attach significant weight.

I have considered disqualification and it could be justified on the facts. However, I found his evidence straightforward. He attended the hearing. He had himself already taken the decision to stop using heavier vehicles. That shows insight and disqualification is not necessary. Any application for a licence in the future would be more likely to succeed if he was able to show evidence of relevant training or to apply for a standard licence which has the benefit of a statutory transport manager.

6. DECISION

Pursuant to adverse findings under Section 26(1) in relation to finances, prohibitions, drivers hours and fitness, the licence is revoked with immediate effect.

Kevin Rooney
Traffic Commissioner

14 November 2024