Decision

Decision for North Lanarkshire Council

Published 15 July 2024

0.1 IN THE SCOTTISH TRAFFIC AREA

1. NORTH LANARKSHIRE COUNCIL – SECTION 19 PERMITS

2. TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER’S WRITTEN DECISION

3. Background

North Lanarkshire Council operates Public Service Vehicles under thirty-five section 19 permits issued on behalf of the Traffic Commissioner. The record refers to 3 Transport Managers: Colin McClair, Colin James Wilson, and John Templeton. ‘Jock’ Templeton recently departed, and Scott Dewar has temporarily replaced him in the role of Fleet Manager

The correspondence address is via Environmental Services, Old Edinburgh Road, Bellshill ML4 3JF. The licensing record refers to Preventative Maintenance Inspections being carried out at 6-weekly intervals by Riverside Truck Rental, KFA Commercials Ltd, MacPhails Coach & Buys Hire and in-house. I noted the lack of Inspection Manual numbers from the latter reports. I also expressed concern at reliance on a weekly driver defect reporting form, which was part of a driver’s hours record, which appeared to allow for a defect to be reported once in the week.

The operator holds a Standard National Goods Vehicle Operator’s Licence, OM0012238, authorising one hundred vehicles and two trailers. The Transport Managers were Colin McClair and John Stewart. Scott Dewar was apparently added to the licence on 17 June 2024.

4. Hearing

The Preliminary Heating was listed for 21 May 2024, in the Tribunal Room of the Office of the Traffic Commissioner for Scotland, in Edinburgh. The operator was present in the form of the Lyall Rennie (Chief Officer for Community Operations), Scott Dewar (acting Fleet Resources Business Manager), Lynn O’Neill (Service Delivery Manager (Performance & Compliance) for Waste and Fleet), represented by Neil Kelly, Solicitor.

4.1 Issues

The Preliminary Hearing was called to determine whether I needed to formally intervene in respect of the permit operations.

Community transport is not defined in legislation I can do no better than refer to the useful summary of the law provided in Statutory Document No. 13. Where a vehicle is being used for hire or reward a PSV operator’s licence is generally required. Section 18 of the Transport Act 1985 removes this requirement where the vehicle is being genuinely used under a section 19 or section 22 permit. Section 18(5) of the Transport Act 1985 requires all operators using or applying for a permit to be an “exempt body”, by meeting one of the exemptions in Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009, before satisfying the not-for-profit and other criteria set out in the 1985 Act. The relevant exemptions from Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 are set out in Article 1(4)(b):

• “…engaged in road passenger transport services exclusively for non-commercial purposes” (the “non-commercial exemption”);

• “…which have a main occupation other than that of road passenger transport operator” (the “main occupation exemption”).

I was assured that operations under a permit continued to meet the legal requirements.

Organisations that provide transport on a ‘not-for-profit’ basis and who meet the above exemptions can therefore apply for permits under section 19 or section 22 of the Transport Act 1985. These permits allow the holder to operate transport services for hire or reward without the need for a PSV operator’s licence. A permit is not specific to one vehicle, it can be transferred between different vehicles but can only be used on one vehicle at any time.

A section 19 permit can be granted to a body concerned with education, religion, social welfare, recreation, or other activities of benefit to the community. These permits are either ‘standard permits’ for vehicles which are adapted to carry no more than sixteen passengers (excluding the driver) or ‘large bus permits’ for vehicles which are adapted to carry seventeen or more passengers (such as that photographed on page 12 of my bundle). These permits may be granted to organisations that operate vehicles without a view to profit to transport their members, or people whom the organisation exists to help. Section 19 permit vehicles cannot be used to carry members of the public.

A permit holder must continue to meet the exemption throughout the lifetime of a permit. Section 23A limits the maximum period for both section 19 or 22 permits to a period not exceeding five years. If a permit holder’s circumstances change once a permit has been granted the permit holder will need to satisfy itself that it is still meeting the requirements of the relevant exemption.

The operator was directed to lodge evidence in support by 7 May 2024, including maintenance and other compliance documentation.

4.2 Determination

The permits in question were issued on behalf of the Traffic Commissioner to North Lanarkshire Council following an application completed by Lynn O’Neill, the Service Delivery Manager (Performance & Compliance) for Waste and Fleet dated 26 August 2022. The declaration committed the operator to comply with appropriate construction requirements and conditions of fitness, for vehicles to be kept in a fit and serviceable condition, regular maintenance inspections (in-house at 8 weekly intervals), the prompt rectification of mechanical faults, effective driver defect reporting, drivers to hold the appropriate entitlement and qualification to drive a public service vehicle. Those commitments were reflected in conditions attached under section 20(4) of the Transport Act 1985:

• Any vehicle used under the permit must have a certificate of initial fitness (or equivalent) and comply with the conditions of fitness prescribed for public service vehicles.

• Any vehicle used under the permit must be kept in a roadworthy condition.

• Any person driving the vehicle when used under a permit must meet the relevant driver licencing requirements.

• This permit does not authorise the carriage of passengers for hire or reward with a view to profit, nor incidentally to an activity which is itself carried on with a view to profit, or in any circumstances other than those permitted by section 19 of the Transport Act 1985.

• Any vehicle being used under this permit must be fully insured for the purposes authorised by the permit.

Information was received that vehicle SF64 NRJ, whilst being operated under permit number LB00293, suffered a double wheel loss incident whilst on school operations on 27 October 2023. Thankfully, there were no pupils on board at the time. I was assured that there were no criminal proceedings pending. I was concerned by the suggestion in email of 20 May 2024, that the operator’s investigation was still not complete. The driver, Sam Gault, is on long-term absence, but, as I heard in evidence, there was no analysis of the maintenance or wheel/tyre history preceding the incident. What was optimistically referred to as a report from the former maintenance provider (6 pages), in fact boiled down to be a one-page note dated 30 October 2023 referring to the wheel collapse and the conclusion that damage had been sustained over a period due to wheel nuts being loose causing friction and wear to studs and nuts to the point where they eventually snapped. That note suggested that the photograph (operator’s page 4) showed ‘slight rust’. That did not accord with my observation or that of the Examiner; indeed, rust appeared to extend to within the holes for the nuts.

For obvious reasons, I placed weight on the investigation by the DVSA. Vehicle Examiner, William Forsyth, attended the operator’s premises on 15 November 2023. His report (pages 15 to 29 plus productions) identified a number of shortcomings in the maintenance of vehicles.

As confirmed in the report, both nearside rear wheels had become detached from a SF64 NRJ whilst on a morning school run on 27 October 2023. Despite the legal obligations on the operator, even under health and safety legislation, there was no internal investigation by the operator until prompted by the DVSA visit. Mr Forsyth was informed that tyre management was contracted out to McConechy’s. His checks showed that the contractor attends at the roadside, but the records appeared to be lacking.

The Examiner noted missing inspection records and that some had not been completed properly with extended inspection intervals, a lack of forward planning meaning that he was unable to check the Vehicle Off-road recording. The table prepared by Mr Forsyth (page 37) shows that of the inspection records seen for the vehicles operated under section 19 permits: SF64 NPV, SF64 NRJ, BP17 TYV, SF64 NPZ, SF64 NRZ, SF64 NSN, SF64 NRO, 53% of inspections were conducted late and 60% were not completed properly.

Mr Forsyth found that the driver defect reporting system was not fully effective. This of course referred to the wheel loss incident from SF64 NRJ (nearside rear) on 27 October 2023, but he found that driver reports were not being managed effectively with gaps between the record sheets e.g. SF64 NRJ, the driver’s sheet dated for the week ending 2 July 2023 (with end mileage 10992), but the next sheet was for week ending 8 October 2023 with a start mileage 111703, suggesting mileage of 1776, without any corresponding drivers reports. The fact that the Examiner was unable to determine whether this was mileage or kilometrage appeared to further illustrate a lack of proper management. A prohibition was issued during the fleet check for a rear passenger seat loose at the floor mounting. This should have been identified during the driver’s walk round check.

It appeared that the responsible officer did not have effective control, even down to keys being left in some vehicles. The Examiner found that effective management control was lacking, particularly around safety inspections. Some records were not available at the initial visit and had to be supplied later. It was noted that the in-house workshop at Bellshill had to be demolished. I saw a report from a safety advisor detailing a site visit in July 2023. Vehicles have been sent on an ad hoc basis to the council depot in Coatbridge but were not inspected at 6-weekly intervals. KFA Commercials Ltd in Mossend had also been used but with the same approach and there was no contract in place.

The operator replied to the shortcomings and gave assurances to DVSA. The absence of a contract with the external contractor was remedied (pages 59 and 60), which appears to cover vehicles across the different operations. I saw a tabulated action plan (pages 62 to 69). In advance of Mr Forsyth completing his report on 12 December 2023, Lynn O’Neill emailed on 21 November 2023 (page 74), proposing the following actions:

• Wheel markers - all Council owned fleet i.e. coaches, buses, etc will be fitted with wheel nut indicators (a combination of single and double link wheel nut retainers) including the hire waste fleet.

• Internal investigation into the wheel-loss incident to be commenced, with a meeting with KFA booked for 23 November 2023 to investigate incident and audit of workshop, procedures, etc. Driver Daily Check Logbook for the incident had been reviewed but there was no record.

• Signed contract with KFA, described as the only supplier which carried out repairs and maintenance on the operator’s vehicles.

• Key security - all Bus Section drivers had been instructed not to leave keys in unattended vehicles and where drivers use two vehicles, they will collect both vehicle packs in the morning and keep the keys on their person all day, to be handed back into the office at close.

• Toolbox talks to be rolled out to remind drivers of their responsibilities to carry these out daily and notify any defects. A process had been introduced for mangers to check books on a weekly basis. New defect sheets, including start and end of day checks had been purchased and were to be implemented. Gate check books had also been purchased.

• Both the waste manager and the new fleet manager were to be added to the operator license (described as having multiple years of experience within the industry).

• Recruitment of additional staff has commenced to include two additional supervisors for the Bus Section.

• Logistics UK had been tasked with delivering OLAT Training (Operator License Training) to sixteen employees, this includes all managers and operator license (CPC) holders.

• UK Logistics tasked to complete a full audit of all processes to identify a base line audit for improvement. In evidence I heard that this was not extended to ‘fleet’ operations (i.e. these PSV operations under section 19 permits).

• Inspection records to be forwarded in a separate e-mail. A file review was now taking place following the fire.

• Attached action plan to carry out reviews across a number of compliance areas.

Shortly in advance of the hearing, I was supplied with copies of the following documents:

• An organogram

• Bus Section Vehicle List

• A Letter from the Workshop Co-Ordinator, Richard McIntosh, who was not able to attend the hearing.

• Evidence of quarterly driver licence checks.

• Driver infringement reports.

• Vehicle unit download reports.

• CPC refresher training.

• OLAT training.

• A Disciplinary policy.

• A ‘fleet compliance audit template’.

• Defect sheets for SF64NRJ (vehicle that had the wheel loss)

• Brake test reports.

• Wheel torque records for SF64NRJ. February 2024 onwards and other retorque records

• An ‘action plan’.

• Preventative Maintenance Inspection reports at 8 weekly intervaIs (see above).

Most of that documentation referred to who and what training had been undertaken since the initial DVSA visit on 15 November 2023. The Vehicle Examiner, Mr Forsyth provided the following observations on the inspection records completed in-house. He noted that:

• Adblue and diesel usage was now being recorded.

• No records completed by KFA Commercials were supplied.

• Inspections record for SA70 EOK dated 29 January 2024 - tyre tread depth and pressure incorrectly recorded in wrong column; 20 March 2024 - no issues; annual test on 13 July 2023, passed with advisory note for four tyres with low tread.

• Inspection records for SA70 KXG dated 11 January 2024 and 6 March 2024 - no issues; Annual test passed on 17 July 2023

• Inspection records for SG20 KWO dated 1 February 2024 and 25 March 2024 - no issues; Annual test passed on 7 July 2023.

• Inspection records for SG20 KWR dated 9 February 2024 - tyre pressure not recorded; Annual test passed on 21 July 2023.

• Inspection records for SG20 KWS dated 7 February 2024 - tyre pressure not recorded; 2 April 2024 - no issues; Annual test passed on 7 July 2023.

• Inspections records for SL67 XSC dated 12 January 2024 - no issues; 7 March 2024 - tyre pressure not recorded; 13 Marc 2024 - repairs completed at Renault Truck for rear brake repairs which would have required wheel removal, with no documented wheel retorque.

On the driver defect records supplied, he found that reports for SA70 EOK, SG20 KWO and SL67 XSC appeared to be completed satisfactorily. Overall, he observed that they were not too bad. However, he noted inaccuracies in odometer recording, suggesting a lack of checks: SA70KXG missing mileage (61) between records week ending 10 and 17 March 2024, 31 March 2024 ends 43568 with the next week 7 April 2024 starting at 52445, suggesting use of the vehicle over 8877(?) missing, and yet the following week ending on 21 April 2024 starts with 43924 which would record 356(?) missing. The data for SG20 KWR for week ending 3 March 2024 showed two cards used, as for the week ending 14 April 2024. SG20 KWS showed missing mileage between records for the week ending 10 February and 2 March 2024 with forty-eight(?) unaccounted for.

I was referred to a letter from Richard McIntosh, Workshop Co-ordinator, who was unable to attend the hearing due to annual leave. He had been employed by the operator for more than 18 years, having worked his way to his current position in August 2023.  The facility currently employs two workshop supervisors, thirteen mechanics, a total of five apprentices. Who work in two shifts from Monday to Fridays. Two more are due to join the team in the coming weeks. There is a total of 690 vehicles, although the Iveco daily buses (26 seats) are inspected and maintained by a contractor, with coaches inspected by another contractor. He confirms that tyres and wheel replacement is covered by the contract with McConechy’s Tyres and Auto Services. He referred to a workshop procedure where any wheel is removed to be recorded on the torque register. The surfaces of the 2/3 mating areas are checked and cleaned, a non-corrosive grease is applied, studs and nuts are then checked and, if needed, the collars are oiled, fitted and initially tightened by hand or small impact gun. There is then a first torque and a retorque 30 minutes after that. New wheel markers are then fitted in the correct pattern to indicate to any driver if a wheel nut is removed. Mr McIntosh suggested that “this procedure has always been in place” but suggested that it would now be reinforced by 6-mothly toolbox talks.

Reference was made to meetings with Allan Campbell of Roads Transport Solutions. A letter suggesting engagement was also in the bundle supplied by Mr Kelly. Mr McIntosh’s note suggested that he was involved with new fleet management systems. He had also had a meeting regarding training of mechanics on “all aspects of HGV, Buys, and LCV inspection” for the coming year.

During the hearing, I was presented with several suggestions as to future operations and compliance. Management changes were very recent and only presented as a temporary arrangement. I was impressed by the acting Fleet Manager’s evidence. I was less impressed to find that the actual cause of the incident had not been thoroughly investigated. The Chief Officers were not apparently available to assist me at the hearing. I was also unclear as to how I could be reassured regarding the risk of reoccurrence when the investigation into the cause of the index incident had not been concluded. I was left asking questions about the Authority’s approach to risk management and even the basic requirements of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999. I indicated that I would allow more time for submissions to be developed and with particular emphasis on management reporting to those with ultimate responsibility under the permit regime and safety legislation.

In due course, Mr Kelly provided me with an electronic bundle of documents, including an organogram to describe the management structure and reporting for these operations. I was interested to note the record of high-level discussions within the Authority following attendance at the Preliminary Hearing including notes from the Business Management and Senior Management Teams, leading to the proposed Key Performance Indicators, which were lacking prior to my involvement. I was also supplied with minutes of weekly meetings of the Fleet/Bus Section, with operational responsibility for the permit operations. I have now had opportunity to go through proposed procedures, including driver instructions, the Driver Handbook, processes for managing Annual tests and investigating adverse findings, walk-round checks and driver defect reporting, supervisor daily gate check record, and of course, wheel security. McConnechy’s monthly depot tyre inspections were included. I noted the addition of a Passenger Transport pre/post use check. In support, I was provided with a copy of the record of spot checks carried out by Logistics UK on inspections in-house and by other service providers, with monthly and quarterly meetings to be held with suppliers and minuted, against a standard agenda. 

Mr Kelly’s written submissions helpfully confirmed the content of the expert’s report to address the absence of details from the maintenance provider’s report prepared immediately after the wheel loss incident. I was also directed to the Incident Investigation Report prepared by Steven J Brookes, the operator’s Safety and Wellbeing Advisor. The recommendations were prepared to assist “CIRIS”: the Council Incident Reporting and Information System, which is used to record health and safety incidents, and to meet its statutory reporting duty.

The documents relating to training and recruitment, not least Dagmara Lukaszek’s Transport Manager CPC, the booking of three additional employees to study for that qualification, and confirmation of the start date for the new Fleet Business Manager were encouraging. I was particularly concerned to see the outcome of the investigation into the cause of the incident which should then inform review of existing control measures. That was not available at the hearing, but I subsequently received a copy of Incident Report 6/2024 dated 10 June 2024. The author, Mr Campbell of Road Transport Solutions, revisited the photographs I considered during the hearing. He posited that the wheel loss followed settlement within the wheel fixing due to the evident corrosion and foreign matter leading to a reduction in clamping force; that reduction continued as further settlement and wear took hold; so that the wheel nuts became so loose that they exerted no effective clamping force on the roadwheels. He confirmed the evidence that there was no log of the refitting and retorque of the roadwheels on 14 June 2023. As suspected, he was able to discount the six used/worn wheel nuts supplied by KFA Commercials. By reference to the Institute of Road Transport Engineers Whelk Security Guide, it was accepted that a good maintenance regime coupled with an understanding of the issues around wheel loss can significantly reduce the risk of detachment. That requires a robust wheel check and fitment policy with an effective record system.

I was therefore particularly interested to read the minutes of the Business Management Team from, 30 May 2024, attended by D Murray (Chief Executive), A McPherson (Deputy Chief Executive), A Aitken (Chief Officer of Legal and Democratic), K Hassell (Chief Officer of Business & Digital Solutions), P Hendry (Principal Auditor), E Kemp (Chief Officer of Financial Solutions), S Penman (Chief Officer - Strategic Communications & Engagement) and F Whittaker (Chief Officer (People & Organisational Development)) and supported by S Lawrie, Mr Rennie (as Chief Officer of Community Operations) and M Hamill. That touched on the Audit, Risk and Governance Internal Audit Annual Report 2023-24. A report by the Chief Officer (Business and Digital) referred to the Strategic Governance Framework before Mr Rennie reported on the implementation of Performance Indicators for Fleet/Bus Operations, after I raised their absence during the hearing. Both the minutes of various meetings and the recent submissions risk the impression that these might be optional extras, rather than integral to effective oversight of the licence and part of health and safety management. The meeting agreed a report setting out a suite of performance indicators for fleet/bus operations be submitted to the next meeting. That was reflected in the email from Mr Rennie, which refers to areas for improvement and corrective action. It was also identified that the Executive Summary of the investigation report required updating with action to raise awareness of compliance with legislative requirements with senior council officers and to clarify roles and responsibilities for drivers, supervisors, and managers.

For the purposes of my decision, I have attempted to capture the key actions undertaken by the operator to ensure that it complies with its statutory obligations:

• a new MS Teams site to store all Fleet communications including procedures and training records for employees to access to relevant documents.

• Fleet Resources reviewed the Key Performance Indicators, relating to Fleet Operations, Bus Section, and service drivers to be reported against at monthly Business Management Team meetings.

• Performance management reporting to highlight driver issues, for example, speeding violations, reporting of defects, completion of pre and post vehicle checks, etc.

• A review of all procedures relevant to the use of Council vehicles, again combined into a single Teams site to improve communication and awareness of documents by making them as accessible –

• Vehicle Checks – to include videos detailing the minimum standard expected by all drivers for completing checks prior to vehicle use.

• Driver’s Handbook – applicable to all employees who might drive for the operator.

• Contact Information with various additional useful links.

• The site will permit a competency test to be undertaken and allow managers to easily track who has/has not read the documents and completed the relevant test.

• The Fleet service has introduced dedicated training within the operator’s site.

• A Fleet service single point of contact within each service area to provide the necessary information, with all Chief Officers to provide a single contact for each service area.

• Key Performance Indicators to be monitored and reported against by Fleet Resources.

• Fleet Resources will retain an overview of who has completed training, the responsibility for ensuring drivers have read and understand the appropriate procedures, will sit with service managers.

• Reports will be run and provided to the SPOC for each service who will then be responsible for ensuring all staff complete training.

• The success of measures will be demonstrated through improved access to all requirements and documentation relevant to fleet safety with a resulting improvement in the levels of awareness to driver and management responsibility and improved levels of compliance with statutory requirements and best practice.

Mr Kelly referred me to the appointment of a new Business Manager (Fleet Services). John McElhinney will commence his role on 1 July 2024 in his position within the new reporting regime. The operator also produced the PSV CPC for a qualified member of staff (as above). It was confirmed that the DVSA investigation and the hearing had compelled the operator to examine its systems and procedures for ensuring Section 19 permit compliance. I was assured that, going forward, drivers will have a greater understanding, from the new guidance, toolbox talks, and monitoring of walk round checks. The operator has and is investing in training for existing staff, following the recruitment of Mr McElhinney. That should support the clear reporting lines and accountability to the top of the organisation.

In addition to Absence Management, Overtime, and Finance, I have summarised the Key Performance Indicators with relevance to compliance under the permit conditions:

Vehicles

• Number of vehicles available

• Maximum number VOR

• Number of vehicles damaged.

• Number of vehicles in workshop and reasons

• Roadside encounters – Prohibition and clear encounter rates

• Unplanned downtime due to breakdowns and maintenance

• Fleet compliance reports addressed.

• Transport Manager monthly quality assurance checks.

• Preventative Maintenance Inspections completed.

Maintenance

• Preventative Maintenance Inspections carried out as scheduled.

• Driver defects identified at Preventative Maintenance Inspection

• First time pass rate at Annual Test

• Quality Control for Annual Test

• No. of job cards in progress, raised, closed – as against Preventative Maintenance Inspection/ Annual test, defects, accident damage.

Contractor Management

• Contractor meetings (to monitor service provision, performance, risks, financial monitoring, etc) completed as per schedule.

• Spot check inspections completed by independent examiner as per schedule.

• Annual review of outsourced contractor compliance documents

Daily Driver Debriefing

• crews debriefed every day.

• % vehicles washed as per schedule

• Number of gate checks completed as per schedule (every vehicle minimum one per month)

Vehicle /driver downloads and Driver Infringements

• Number of driver infringements (speeding violations, breaks, etc)

• Breaks taken as required.

• manual entry errors and records of missing mileage

• Working time directive/rolling average

• Overloads

• Speeding violations

• Incidents

• Fines and Penalties

Training

• staff trained as per agreed training programme.

• Driver CPC courses completed as scheduled.

• Training matrix to be retained and updated.

Health & Safety

• Number of vehicle incidents including new misses recorded on Corporate Incident Reporting and Information System) CIRIS: Personal Injury – employees, Personal Injury – passengers.

• Time taken to upload initial incident report to CIRIS.

• Time taken to complete full investigation (if required – timescale is dependent on complexity of investigation)

• Time taken to complete full investigation (if required – timescale is dependent on complexity of investigation)

• risk assessments reviewed against planned programme (RA, SSOW, MH, COSHH)

• to address safety defects highlighted on inspections.

On that basis I am now satisfied that there are proper systems in place to ensure compliance and ensure the safety of the passenger carrying fleet. I am also satisfied that the operator has established clear reporting lines to ensure that those standards will be implemented and continue to meet ongoing requirements. I have noted that maintenance standards will be applied in-house and to external suppliers and that those will be audited. The incident has resulted in the implementation of a specific wheel security policy, with an external tyre company to undertake third party checks. All of that will also be logged and audited.

The Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document No. 13 helpfully suggests a process for the determination of regulatory action against the holders of section 19 permits. In his submissions, Mr Kelly acknowledged my powers to vary or revoke the permit as issued. A Traffic Commissioner may also attach such conditions to a permit as they consider appropriate. For section 19 permits the conditions are specified under section 20(4) as:

• limiting the passengers who may be carried in any vehicle used under the permit to persons falling within such classes as may be specified in the permit.

• with respect to such other matters as may be prescribed.

A section 19 permit issued by a traffic commissioner may be varied or revoked by a traffic commissioner however this variation cannot substitute another body for the body to whom the permit was granted.

I have taken account of the restructuring by this Local Authority. The circumstances clearly illustrate how the operator lost focus on the safety and management of the passenger carrying fleet. Mr Kelly referred to historic deficiencies, but the truth is that the malaise in management was still present even after attendance at the Preliminary Hearing. It shouId not have proved necessary for a Traffic Commissioner to alert a Local Authority to the basic concepts of health and safety legislation and management.

It will no doubt have been of significant concern to those who entrust loved ones to be carried under these permit operations, that maintenance and compliance management had been allowed to deteriorate to the point where a long-standing issue deteriorated, and a wheel became detached from a vehicle. I share those concerns. This could so easily have resulted in tragedy and the management of safety in the Authority would have found to be lacking. The alternative would be to remove these permits, to the detriment of all those members of the pubic who rely on these services. To avoid that and in support of future safe operations, I attach conditions to the Permits to this operator issued on behalf of the Traffic Commissioner requiring:

• the engagement of a holder of a Certificate of Professional Competence covering Public Service Vehicles for the purposes of managing the operation of vehicles under those permits and in support of the management processes outlined above.

• the adoption of Key Performance Indictors which reflect at least the bullets at paragraph 31 above, for reporting via the operator’s monthly Business Management Team and through to the senior management of the Authority,     that any concerns the Commissioner had have been assuaged by the assurances given at the Hearing and the evidence produced.

I was invited to consider the appropriateness of an external audit. I accept that offer and attach it as a third condition:

• The operator will arrange an independent audit to be carried out by a DVSA-authorised audit provider, the RHA, Logistics UK or other equivalent independent body. The audit will assess the systems for complying with Public Service Vehicle operational requirements, and the effectiveness of the new structure, systems, and procedures for ensuring safe compliance. The audit should cover at least the applicable elements in the annex, to be supplied separately by the Office of the Traffic Commissioner. A copy of the audit report, together with the operator’s detailed proposals for implementing the report’s recommendations, must be sent to the Office of the Traffic Commissioner in Edinburgh within 6 months of the date of this decision.

I must warn the operator that, whilst on this occasion, I have been persuaded to issue the strongest of warnings, there can be no repeat of these failings. Any repeat or failure to meet the conditions on the permits is likely to result in their removal.

R Turfitt

Traffic Commissioner

2 July 2024