Decision

Decision for Mariusz Sliwinski (OH2047379) & Mariusz Sliwinski (Transport Manager) & Mariusz Sliwinski (Driver). Conjoined Public Inquiry and Driver Conduct Hearings

Published 11 April 2024

0.1 In the Western Traffic Area

1. Written Decision of the Traffic Commissioner

1.1 Mariusz Sliwinski (OH2047379) & Mariusz Sliwinski (Transport Manager) & Mariusz Sliwinski (Driver). Conjoined Public Inquiry and Driver Conduct Hearings

2. BACKGROUND

Mariusz Sliwinski is the holder of a standard international goods vehicle operator’s licence authorising the use of one vehicle and one trailer from an operating centre at Worle Quarry, Weston-Super-Mare. The licence was granted in November 2021. Mr Sliwinski is the transport manager.

On 24 May 2022, a DVSA encounter with vehicle BT16LBE, driven by Mariusz Sliwinski, identified mechanical issues with the vehicle and trailer, an overloaded vehicle and drivers hours and tachograph offences.

On 23 February 2023, a further DVSA encounter occurred with BT16LBE, this time driven by both Mariusz Sliwinski and Monika Sliwinska. Mechanical defects were identified along with drivers hours and tachograph matters. The prohibition issued to the vehicle in May 2022 was still in force and the relevant defect still in place.

It appeared that DVSA resource constraints prevented a criminal prosecution. The case was referred to me and I decided to call Mr Sliwinski to a public inquiry and conjoined driver conduct hearing.

On 28 February, an email was received from Mr Sliwinski. In it he explained that he had not thought it necessary to use the tachograph when the vehicle and trailer were unladen as the combination weighed less than 3.5 tonnes. He explained that the 3.5 tonne Iveco was not up to the job as it had been designed to be lightweight and so broke frequently. The licence was offered for surrender. As I was already contemplating regulatory action, pursuant to Section 16(4) of the Act, surrender was refused.

3. THE PUBLIC INQUIRY

Mariusz Sliwinski attended unrepresented. No finances or any other documentation was provided.

Proceedings were recorded and a transcript can be made available. I record here only the relevant evidence. In producing this written decision, I have both referred to my notes and listened to the recording of the hearing.

Mr Sliwinski told me that he passed his HGV licence when he was eighteen. He had driven for a range of companies, the last being a car transporter business, Acumen. They had told him to remove his card whenever he was empty. He had then been made redundant. Other drivers had told him the same, when empty if you are under 3.5 tonnes actual weight, you can remove the card.

He initially bought a 7.5 tonne lorry. It was quite old so he rebuilt it. Just before he started the business he realised that it could not go in to many cities due to the low emission zones. He had moved to the 3.5 tonne but the Iveco just wasn’t up to the job. Buying it was a mistake.

Mr Sliwinski disagreed with the prohibition in May 2022 for the vehicle to trailer coupling. He had built the body himself. After a few weeks of use, the aluminium joints had started to crack so he had reinforced it with steel. The Vehicle Examiner didn’t like the arrangement so the prohibition was issued. The trailer had a problem with the brakes but it couldn’t be seen on a driver walk-round check. One of the bolts was loose on the trailer leading to a prohibition for an insecure axle. The brake cable had a little bit of wear on it but was intact. He wasn’t aware of the low tyre pressure. The metal-to-metal brake pads was because the vehicle wasn’t up to the job. He changed brakes every single inspection. The inefficient brakes on the trailer put more load on the vehicle. He had ordered the brake pads as soon as he heard the metal-to-metal contact and before he had been stopped.

After the May 2022 encounter, his wife had taken her test and they double-manned. That worked for a few months but they couldn’t compete with the others using overloaded 3.5 tonne vehicles without tachographs. By February 2023, they were only transporting their own cars as part of a motor trade business. On that encounter, there was another problem with the brakes on the trailer. One DVSA examiner was happy with the brakes but a second examiner was very picky and didn’t like the way they worked so prohibited them.

I asked about operating the vehicle with the prohibition still in force. In May 2022, when he had fixed the brakes on the truck, the guy came to take the cable off and thought he had removed the prohibition. He hadn’t realised that there was still a prohibition on the coupling.

I put it to Mr Sliwinski that I simply didn’t believe that he thought he did not need to use a tachograph when empty. Mr Sliwinski was adamant that was the case. I asked about recording of other work. DVSA alleged that no transport management activities were recorded on the tachograph and the need to record all other work had been explained to him by TE Comer in May 2022.  

I asked about the overload in 2022. Mr Sliwinski told me that the load was technically just about OK but the design of the truck was at fault. I reminded Mr Sliwinski that the drive axle had been overloaded by 690kgs or 30% and the vehicle gross had been exceeded by 680kgs or 20%. I was told that the car on the trailer was loaded too far forward and imposing too much load on the tow hitch. I asked Mr Sliwinski what the capacity of the two bar was. He told me 100kgs and accepted that it probably had a load of 6-700kg on it but he couldn’t check that out on the road.

I asked why he had originally denied being the driver for some of the periods with no card when that was originally put to him by TE Comer, only accepting that it was him when shown photographic proof from ANPR cameras. Mr Sliwinski told me that he had just got scared. When he was stopped, eight people came up to him and he didn’t know what to say.

Mr Sliwinski agreed that some of his driving periods were very long but 98% of that time he fully believed that he didn’t need to use his card when he was empty. There had been one or two other occasions when he had other reasons, but mostly it was empty running. I asked Mr Sliwinski how, if he had believed that the combination was exempt, how the journeys should be recorded on his tachograph. I made a parallel with a positioning journey in a car to pick up a vehicle away from base and Mr Sliwinski understood that such a positioning journey should be other work entered using a manual entry on the tachograph.

He had now stopped his own business and was driving for A1 Automotive since just a week or two after the DVSA stop in February 2023.

Mr Sliwinski was the only wage earner and had a wife and child. Losing his vocational entitlement would finish him. For all the last year, he had been perfect. Acumen were happy that he pulled his card and never said anything to him. Mr Sliwinski asked whether he could transfer his driving licence to Poland.

4. CONSIDERATION AND FINDINGS OF FACT

I have extracted a summary of the offences from the statement of Traffic Examiner Comer and included as an annex to this decision. The analysis covers the period of 28 days leading up to the DVSA encounter on 24 May 2022. I note the following from that schedule off offences:

• Mr Sliwinski had committed serious offences including falsifications on twenty-four of the twenty-eight days.

• On two occasions, he drove over fourteen hours in a day,

• On four occasions, he drove between twelve and fourteen hours,

• On the day he was stopped, he had driven nine consecutive days,

• In the week 16 – 22 May, he drove 72 hours and 43 minutes, the legal maximum being 56,

• As an illustration of what that means, on 9 May, he started driving at 07:21 and drove 14 hours and 9 minutes and was on duty for 17 hours and 48 minutes before stopping driving at 01:09 on 10 May. He starts driving again at 07:09, just six hours later and completes 11 hours and 8 minutes of driving with a duty time of 13 hours and 40 minutes before stopping driving at 20:49. 10 hours and 4 minutes of the driving were without any qualifying break.

This is drivers hours offending on an industrial scale. I have absolutely no doubt that Mr Sliwinski will have been suffering from fatigue. No individual can be on duty for such extreme periods with only 6 or 7 hours between shifts. That isn’t 6 or 7 hours rest, but 6 or 7 hours between the wheels stopping rolling and them starting again. I note that there would have been serious offending even on Mr Sliwinski’s rather unique interpretation of the rules as the “positioning journeys”, that is, those in a vehicle while empty, would have been other work not rest.

I do not accept Mr Sliwinski’s explanation for using a vehicle whilst under prohibition. He told me on the one hand that he did not think the trailer coupling was a prohibitable item. That was just minutes after arguing that the Vehicle Examiner was wrong to issue a prohibition for that item as, in his view, it was a good repair. The documentation issued at the roadside is clear on prohibition removal. As a qualified transport manager, I would expect him to check that everything was in order.

The overload incident was, on any view, serious. Mr Sliwinski tried to downplay it by telling me that it was caused by the vehicle on the trailer being loaded too far forward. As a result, it imposed a load of some 600kgs on a tow hitch rated at 100kgs. It overloaded the rear axle of the drawing vehicle, and that vehicle’s tyres, by 600 kg. One of those tyres had a very low air pressure, all contributing to heightened road safety risk. All this was avoidable through proper vehicle and trailer specification, proper loading and the ability to say no if a load was to be close to the limit. And I remind myself that the drawing vehicle, whilst overloaded, had brake pads worn down to the metal.

Mr Sliwinski seems to import his own standards for vehicle maintenance. He did not see that he, as operator, transport manager and driver, was culpable on two occasions when trailers had seriously defective brakes. No compliance documentation was made available so it is not known whether the small, non-testable, trailers were subject to preventative maintenance inspections but they were certainly not fit and serviceable. He seemed to see as mitigation that he had ordered the brake pads when they wore down to the metal, not considering that he might also need to take what was then a dangerous vehicle off the road. He displays a level of risk-taking in his judgement that is totally inappropriate for a transport manager.

I will look for positives. Mr Sliwinski passed the transport manager qualification and in the UK. He ceased operating after the second DVSA encounter. He identified that the core problem in relation to roadworthiness was the vehicle being used. After the first encounter, his wife was engaged to assist with longer runs.

These do little to offset the very many negatives of which the truly excessive driving is the most serious. As transport manager, Mr Sliwinski is expected to know the rules and to seek advice if he isn’t sure. I have been involved with the drivers hours rules for a very long time, nearly thirty years. I have never before heard a driver tell me that they only needed to use a card when laden. It is a complete nonsense. The following is an extract from the drivers hours rules on gov.uk, easily available:

Most vehicles used for the carriage of goods by road and with a maximum permissible weight (including any trailer or semi-trailer) of over 3.5 tonnes are in scope of the EU rules; unless covered by a specific EU-wide exemption or a national derogation.

I consider first Mr Sliwinski as a transport manager. I find that he knowingly caused a driver, himself as it happens, drive for highly excessive periods, to drive whilst fatigued and to falsify records. I say caused as he booked the work. He allowed a vehicle to be overloaded and used in a dangerous condition. I find that his good repute as a transport manager is lost.

I now consider the operator’s licence. No finances were provided so I find s.27(1)(a) made out on that ground. It is now further made out as there is no longer a transport manager. Revocation is mandatory.

I turn now to Mr Sliwinski’s vocational driving entitlement. Traffic Commissioners are required to consider the conduct as a driver of a motor vehicle. Section 115(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 Act states that:-

“a large goods vehicle drivers’ licence must be revoked or suspended if his conduct is such as to make him unfit to hold such a licence”

My function, as an administrative tribunal, is therefore regulatory to determine whether the licence-holder is a fit person to hold a professional driving entitlement in much the same way as other professions such as, lawyers and doctors for example are regulated. The consequences of the loss of professional driving entitlement have no relevance to the test of fitness to hold the licence. It is obvious that, without vocational entitlement, a lorry driver will be unable to pursue his chosen vocation.

I refer to the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Guidance document number 6. The starting point for more than six falsifications is to revoke entitlement and disqualify for 12 months. There is a serious aggravating feature here in the sheer extent of the driving There is some mitigation in that there was a change in conduct after the first encounter with Mrs Sliwinska assisting at times.

I have dealt with the overloading and maintenance matters, and the driving whilst under prohibition, in my decision for Mr Sliwinski as a transport manager and I further acknowledge that he was called in three ways.

Having conducted a balancing exercise, I adopt the starting point.

5. DECISIONS

Mariusz Sliwinski has lost his good repute as transport manager and is disqualified from acting as such for 12 months and until he sits and passes again his transport manager qualification.

Pursuant to adverse findings under Section 27(1)(a), loss of professional competence and lack of financial standing, the licence is revoked. No vehicles are operating so revocation has immediate effect.

Pursuant to section 115(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, the vocational entitlement of Mr Mariusz Sliwinski is revoked with effect from 23:59 hours, 6 April 2024. Mr Sliwinski is disqualified from holding vocational entitlement thereafter for a period of 12 months.

Kevin Rooney
Traffic Commissioner

20 March 2024

6. ANNEX A – EXTRACT FROM STATEMENT OF TE COMER

On 26th April 2022 vehicle registration number BT16LBE was driven from 04:49 – 07:49 for a total of 2 hours 50 minutes without a digital tachograph card. Mr Sliwinski digital tachograph card was entered at 07:51 and he drove for 4 hours 50 minutes until 15:21 where his digital tachograph card was ejected. There was no recorded breaks for Mr Sliwinski between 07:51 and 15:21. The vehicle was further driven for 2 hours 31 minutes without a digital tachograph card and Mr Sliwinski re-entered his digital tachograph card at 18:35 where he drove for a further 1 hours 12 minutes until 20:02. The vehicle was further driven for 54 minutes without a digital tachograph card until 20:57.

Therefore Mr Sliwinski commenced duty at 04:49 and finished at 20:57 and was on duty for 16 hours 8 minutes, resulting in insufficient daily rest within a 24 hr period and Mr Sliwinski had driven for a total of 12 hours 17 minutes, this being 2 hours 17 minutes over the maximum permitted driving time allowed. Between 10:44 – 20:57 Mr Sliwinski drove for 9 hours 27 minutes without any qualifying break or breaks.

On 27th April 2022 Mr Sliwinski re-commenced duty at 04:37, therefore Mr Sliwinski had insufficient daily rest of 7 hours 40 minutes.

On 27th April 2022 vehicle registration number BT16LBE was driven from 04:37 – 08:45 for a total of 3 hours 33 minutes without a digital tachograph card. Mr Sliwinski digital tachograph card was entered at 08:45 and he drove for 2 hours 51 minutes until 12:31 where his digital tachograph card was ejected. The vehicle was driven from 12:38 – 13:00 for 22 minutes without a digital tachograph card. Mr Sliwinski re-entered his digital tachograph card at 13:23 and finished duty at 16:13.

Therefore Mr Sliwinski drove for a total of 9 hours 34 minutes and without any qualifying break or breaks.

On 28th April 2022 vehicle registration number BT16LBE was driven from 05:21 – 09:29 without a digital tachograph card. Mr Sliwinski digital tachograph card was entered at 09:29 and he drove for 3 hours 28 minutes where his digital tachograph card was ejected at 15:38. The vehicle was driven from 15:38 – 16:56 without a digital tachograph card for 1 hour 18 minutes.

Therefore Mr Sliwinski drove for a total of 8 hours 22 minutes and from 05:21 – 12:24 Mr Sliwinski drove for 5 hours 44 minutes without any qualifying break or breaks.

On 4th May 2022 vehicle registration number BT16LBE was driven from 10:32 – 13:30 for 1 hour 53 minutes without a digital tachograph card. Mr Sliwinski digital tachograph card was entered at 13:30 and drove for 3 hours until ejecting his digital tachograph card at 17:10. The vehicle was drive without a digital tachograph card from 17:10 – 18:06 for 45 minutes where Mr Sliwinski digital tachograph card was re-entered at 18:11. Mr Sliwinski further drove for 2 hours 6 minutes where he ejected his digital tachograph card at 21:03.

Therefore Mr Sliwinski drove for a total of 7 hours 44 minutes and from 10:32 – 21:03 drove without any qualifying break or breaks.

On 5th May 2022 vehicle registration number BT16LBE was driven from 05:58 – 18:07 for a total of 9 hours 36 minutes without a digital tachograph card. From 08:52 – 18:07 the vehicle was driven for 7 hours 48 minutes without any qualifying breaks.

On 6th May 2022 vehicle registration number BT16LBE was driven from 04:13 – 08:54 for 4 hours 20 minutes without a digital tachograph card. Mr Sliwinski digital tachograph card was entered at 08:54 and drove for 3 hours 3 minutes and was ejected at 12:50. The vehicle was driven  from 13:02 – 20:00 for 6 hours 18 minutes without a digital tachograph card.

Therefore the vehicle was driven for 13 hours 41 minutes, this being 3 hours 41 minutes over the maximum 10 hours driving time and with only one break of 31 minutes between 08:54 – 09:25. Mr Sliwinski was on duty from 04:13 – 20:00 for 15 hours 47 minutes, resulting in insufficient daily rest within a 24 hr period of 8 hours 13 minutes.

On 7th May 2022 vehicle registration number BT16LBE was driven from 04:47 - 19:53 for 10 hours 30 minutes without a digital tachograph card. This was 1 hour 30 minutes over the maximum permitted 9 hours driving time.

On 8th May 2022 vehicle registration number BT16LBE was driven from 05:42 – 08:55 for 2 hours 51 minutes without a digital tachograph card. Mr Sliwinski entered his digital tachograph card at 08:55 and drove for 18:06 for 8 hours 4 minutes.

Therefore Mr Sliwinski drove for a total of 10 hours 55 minutes, this been 1 hour 55 minutes over the maximum permitted 9 hours driving time. Mr Sliwinski also drove from 05:42 – 12:48 for 6 hours 43 minutes without any qualifying break or breaks.

On 9th May 2022 vehicle registration number BT16LBE, Mr Sliwinski entered his digital tachograph card at 07:21 and drove for 7 hours 48 minutes until he ejected his digital tachograph card at 18:29. The vehicle was continued to be driven from 18:40 -  01:09 on 10th May 2022 without a digital tachograph card for 6 hours 21 minutes and without any qualifying breaks during this period.

Therefore Mr Sliwinski drove for 14 hours 9 minutes, this exceeding the permitted 9 hours driving time by 5 hours 9 minutes. Mr Sliwinski was on duty from 07:21 on 9th May – 01:09 on 10th May 2022 for 17 hours 48 minutes. The maximum permitted duty time allowed was 13 hours, therefore exceeding the duty time by 4 hours 48 minutes. This resulted in Mr Sliwinski had insufficient daily rest within a 24 hr period.

Mr Sliwinski re-commenced duty on 10th May 2022 at 07:09 after having a rest period of 6 hours.

On 10th May 2022 vehicle registration number BT16LBE was driven from 07:09 - 08:46 for 1 hour 4 minutes without a digital tachograph card. Mr Sliwinski entered his digital tachograph card at 08:46 and drove for 3 hours 33 minutes and ejected his digital tachograph card at 13:25. The vehicle was driven without a digital tachograph card from 13:26 – 15:15 for 1 hour 43 minutes. Mr Sliwinski re-entered his digital tachograph card at 15:15 and drove for 4 hours 25 minutes and ejected his digital tachograph card at 20:23. The vehicle was further driven without a digital tachograph card from 20:26 – 20:49 for 23 minutes.

Therefore Mr Sliwinski drove from 07:09 – 20:49 for a total of 11 hours 8 minutes, this exceeding the permitted 9 hours driving time by 2 hours 8 minutes. Mr Sliwinski was on duty for 13 hours 40 minutes, this exceeding the maximum permitted 13 hours duty time by 40 minutes. Between 09:41 – 20:49 Mr Sliwinski drove for 10 hours 4 minutes without any qualifying break or breaks.

On 11th May 2022 Mr Sliwinski commenced duty at 04:23, this further resulting in insufficient daily rest within a 24 hr period.

On 11th May 2022 vehicle registration number BT16LBE was driven from 04:23 – 10:00 without a digital tachograph card for 4 hours 42 minutes. Mr Sliwinski entered his digital tachograph card at 10:00 and drove for 4 hours 21 minutes without any breaks and ejected his digital tachograph card at 14:50. The vehicle was driven from 14:50 – 16:11 without a digital tachograph card for 1 hour 7 minutes. Mr Sliwinski re-entered his digital tachograph card at 16:11 and drove for 2 hours 15 minutes until 20:14. Mr Sliwinski ejected his digital tachograph card at 20:14 and the vehicle was driven for a further 1 hour 47 minutes until 22:35 without a digital tachograph card.

Therefore Mr Sliwinski drove for 14 hours 12 minutes, this exceeding the permitted 9 hours driving time by 5 hours 12 minutes. From 04:23 – 22:45 Mr Sliwinski failed to take the qualifying break or breaks and was on duty for 18 hours 12 minutes, this exceeding the permitted 13 hour duty limit by 5 hours 12 minutes, resulting in insufficient daily rest within a 24 hr period.

On 12th May 2022 vehicle registration number BT16LBE was driven from 06:36 – 20:15 for 9 hours 38 minutes without a digital tachograph card. From 11:29 – 20:15 the vehicle was driven for 6 hours 40 minutes without the correct qualifying break or breaks.

On 13th May 2022 the vehicle was driven from 03:31, this resulting in insufficient daily rest of 7 hours 16 minutes between finishing duty on 12th and re-commencing duty on 13th May 2022.

On 12th May 2022 vehicle registration number BT16LBE was driven from 03:31 – 20:14 for a total of 14 hours 21 minutes without a digital tachograph card. This exceeding the permitted 9 hours driving time by 5 hours 21 minutes. From 03:31 – 13:43 the vehicle was driven for 9 hours 10 minutes without the correct qualifying break or breaks. From 03:31 – 20:14 there was a total du:ty time of 16 hours 43 minutes, this exceeding the permitted 13 hours duty time, resulting in insufficient daily rest within a 24 hr period.

On 14th May 2022 vehicle registration number BT16LBE was driven from 07:17 – 19:15 for a total of 10 hours 13 minutes without a digital tachograph card. This exceeding the permitted 9 hours driving time by 1 hour 13 minutes. from 07:17 – 19:15 the vehicle was driven without the correct qualifying break or breaks.

From commencing duty on 4th May 2022 and finishing duty on 14th May 2022 Mr Sliwinski had worked for 11 consecutive days without a weekly rest period and had driven for a total of 126 hours 8 minutes, this exceeding the maximum permitted of 90 hours in two fixed weeks.

On 16th May 2022 vehicle registration number BT16LBE was driven from 04:12 – 10:42 for 5 hours 13 minutes without a digital tachograph card. At 10:42 Mr Sliwinski entered his digital tachograph card and drove for 8 hours 9 minutes until ejecting his digital tachograph card at 20:11, where the vehicle was driven for a further 31 minutes until 21:00 without a digital tachograph card.

Therefore Mr Sliwinski drove for 13 hours 53 minutes, this exceeding the permitted 10 hours driving time by 3 hours 53 minutes and was on duty for 16 hours 48 minutes, this exceeding the permitted 15 hours duty limit by 1 hour 48 minutes resulting in insufficient daily rest within a 24 hr period.

On 17th May 2022 vehicle registration number BT16LBE was driven from 07:45 – 08:00 for 11 minutes without a digital tachograph card. Mr Sliwinski entered his digital tachograph card at 08:11 and drove for 4 hours 30 minutes before ejecting his digital tachograph card at 13:34. The vehicle was immediately continued to be driven for a further 2 hours 4 minutes without a digital tachograph card until 16:10. Mr Sliwinski re-entered his digital tachograph card at 16:18 and drove for 4 hours 25 minutes before ejecting his digital tachograph card at 21:01. The vehicle was immediately continued to be driven for a further 1 hour 4 minutes without a digital tachograph card.

Therefore Mr Sliwinski drove for a total of 12 hours 14 minutes with one break of 20 minutes which is not qualifying amount of breaks required. Mr Sliwinski drove for 12 hours 14 minutes this exceeding the permitted 10 hours driving time by 2 hours 14 minutes.

On 18th May 2022 vehicle registration number BT16LBE, Mr Sliwinski entered his digital tachograph card at 08:52 and drove for 4 hours 28 minutes until 15:24. Mr Sliwinski ejected his digital tachograph card and the vehicle was driven for a further 1 hour 22 minutes without a digital tachograph card.

Therefore Mr Sliwinski drove for a total of 5 hours 50 minutes without any qualifying break or breaks.

On 19th May 2022 vehicle registration number BT16LBE was driven from 06:54 – 12:06 without a digital tachograph card. Mr Sliwinski entered his digital tachograph card at 12:06 and drove for 4 hours 14 minutes until 17:06. Mr Sliwinski ejected his digital tachograph card at 17:06 and continued to drive without his digital tachograph card for 1 hour 8 minute and re-entered his digital tachograph card at 18:15. Mr Sliwinski drove for 1 hour 51 minutes before ejecting his digital tachograph card at 20:36. The vehicle was driven for a further 1 hour 32 minutes until 22:08 without a digital tachograph card.

Therefore Mr Sliwinski drove for 13 hours 6 minutes, this exceeding the permitted 9 hours driving time by 4 hours 6 minutes. Mr Sliwinski was on duty for 15 hours 14 minutes this exceeding the permitted 15 hour duty limit by 14 minutes, resulting in insufficient daily rest within a 24 hr period.

Mr Sliwinski had driven for 13 hours 6 minutes without any qualifying break or breaks.

Mr Sliwinski re-commenced duty on 20th May 2022 at 04:48, therefore only having 6 hours 40 minutes between duty periods.

On 20th May 2022 vehicle registration number BT16LBE was driven from 04:48 – 22:02 without a digital tachograph card for a total of 14 hours 52 minutes. There was no qualifying break or breaks, with a duty period of 17 hours 14 minutes, this exceeded the permitted 13 hour duty limit by 4 hours 14 minutes, resulting in insufficient daily rest within a 24 hr period. This also exceeded with permitted 9 hour driving time by 5 hours 52 minutes.

On 21st May 2022 vehicle registration number BT16LBE was driven from 06:24 – 14:15 without a digital tachograph card for a total of 6 hours 48 minutes. There was no qualifying break or breaks during this duty period.

On 22nd May 2022 vehicle registration number BT16LBE was driven from 09:33 – 16:31 without a digital tachograph card for a total of 5 hours 57 minutes. There was no qualifying break or breaks during this duty period.

On 23rd May 2022 vehicle registration number BT16LBE was driven from 04:56 – 16:45 without a digital tachograph card for 10 hours 4 minutes and without any qualifying break or breaks. This also exceeded the permitted 9 hours driving time by 1 hour 4 minutes.

On 24th May 2022 vehicle registration number BT16LBE was driven from 04:13 – 05:57 for 1 hour 44 minutes without a digital tachograph card. Mr Sliwinski entered his digital tachograph card at 05:58 and drove for 3 hours 11 minutes until ejecting his digital tachograph card at 09:45. The vehicle was driven for 1 hour 11 minutes where Mr Sliwinski re-entered his digital tachograph card at 10:56. Mr Sliwinski continued to drive using his digital tachograph card until he was stopped at A419 Badbury check site. At the point of being stopped Mr Sliwinski had driven for a total of 8 hours 40 minutes since commencing duty at 04:13.

At the time of being stopped Mr Sliwinski had worked and driven every day since 16th May 2022 for 9 consecutive days without a weekly rest period. Mr Sliwinski had driven for 72 hours 43 minutes from 16th - 22nd May 2022 this exceeding the 56 hours driving limit within a week.

Mr Sliwinski is not only the operator, driver but is also the qualified Transport Manager for the company. Mr Sliwinski is legally trained as a Transport Manager and therefore is legally required to be aware of the regulations in relation to tachograph and drivers hours regulations.

There was no record of Mr Sliwinski Transport Manger duties recorded on his digital tachograph card.