Decision

Decision for Paving Solution & Groundwork Ltd (OF2038934)

Published 15 August 2023

0.1 In the Eastern Traffic Area

1. Deputy Traffic Commissioner’s Written Decision

1.1 Paving Solution & Groundwork Ltd (OF2038934)

2. Background

Paving Solution & Groundwork Ltd (“Paving Solution”) holds a restricted goods vehicle operator licence, granted in March 2021, for 6 vehicles and 10 trailers. The director of the company is Vasile Teaca.

3. Reasons for revocation

3.1 Insufficient finances (Section 26(1)(h) of the 1995 Act refers)

The company presented evidence of finances which showed average available funds over three months of around REDACTED, below the £11,600 necessary to support a licence for six vehicles and far below the level to support an increase to ten vehicles which the company was applying for.

3.2 Failure to fulfil the undertaking to ensure lawful driving and operation of vehicles (Section 26(1)(f) refers)

The operator used a vehicle, NK65 LYH, not specified on the licence and not displaying a licence disc. The vehicle was stopped on 31 March 2022 but according to tachograph data had been operated since 21 October 2021. The operator did not specify it on the licence for a further four weeks, on 29 April 2022, when DVSA reminded the operator again. Mr Teaca’s reason, given at public inquiry, was that “my wife forgot to do it”.

The same vehicle NK65 LYH was found to have a missing tachograph seal when stopped on 31 March 2022. A prohibition gave the operator 7 days in which to fix it. It was not fixed until 30 May 2022, 61 days later. Mr Teaca claimed at the inquiry that it was fixed several times in the meantime but always broke again. However, he could not offer any evidence (in the form of invoices etc) for this claim.

Vehicle NK65 LXZ was stopped by DVSA on 5 April 2022. Its tax had expired on 31 March 2022, five days previously. Mr Teaca had no explanation for the failure to tax the vehicle other than that he was very busy.

The tachograph calibration on vehicle HX14 WBD expired on 28 February 2022. However, its tachograph was not recalibrated until 4 May 2022. No explanation was offered.

3.3 Failure to fulfil the undertaking that rules relating to drivers’ hours and tachographs would be observed

The operator failed to download vehicle units within the maximum permitted 90 day interval. Gaps of 112 days, 137 days and 136 days were found by DVSA. Drivers were also found to have driven without their tachograph card on five occasions. The traffic examiner concluded that the operator did not have effective systems in place to identify and deal with drivers hours infringements and missing mileage.

I found that matters had scarcely improved by the date of the inquiry (2 August 2023). Missing mileage reports presented to the inquiry were generated only on 26 June and 5 July 2023, although they covered the whole period 1 January to 31 May 2023. Reasons for missing mileage were added to the reports by Mr Teaca on 5 July 2023. Reasons included “tachograph issues” for vehicle GP15 GXL, which had more than 10,000 missing kilometres between 3 February and 2 May 2023. The operator should have identified and dealt with these “tachograph issues” (if indeed they existed) as soon as they occurred, rather than blithely listing this as a reason for substantial missing mileage more than five months after the problem started. No evidence was in fact presented to suggest that the tachograph was faulty.

“Marian Scriminti left, card not read” is the explanation for 14 other significant instances of missing miles, but this covers missing mileage over the period 4 February 2023 to 5 May 2023, during which Mr Scriminti’s card should have been read at least three times. It is clear, if this reason is genuine, that the operator was not downloading Mr Scriminti’s card at the required intervals.

I noted that driver infringement reports covering the period 1 January to 27 June 2023 were all generated on 27 June or 5 July 2023, with drivers signing on 27 June for infringements going back to 29 March. It was clear that these were the only reports generated this calendar year. I noted that both these infringement reports and the missing mileage reports were generated once the call-up letter for the inquiry had issued.

3.4 Failure to keep vehicles fit and roadworthy

The operator has a high prohibition rate (57% compared to the national average of 22%): its vehicles have been issued with 13 prohibitions from 23 encounters since the start of the licence in March 2021. 11 of these have been immediate prohibitions of which two were S-marked, denoting a significant failure in maintenance. One prohibition was given to a vehicle with a glove functioning as fuel tank cap – the vehicle was driven onto the operator’s site while the DVSA vehicle examiner was present. On the same occasion another vehicle was given a prohibition for an indicator not working after the VE watched the driver do his walk-round check and miss it. It is clear that the company’s culture does not attach sufficient importance to vehicles being fit and roadworthy. Unsurprisingly, the operator also has a high MOT failure rate of 50%, with 5 failures from 10 presentations. The national average is 12%.

3.5 Failure to effect promised improvements

The DVSA maintenance investigation carried out in November 2021 reported that no roller brake tests were being carried out – just unladen decelerometer tests. The operator’s reply in January 2022 reply said that roller brake tests would henceforth be carried out. However, records presented to the public inquiry showed that only decelerometer tests are still being out. Mr Teaca claimed that roller brake tests were carried out at every second preventative maintenance inspection, but there was no documentary evidence of this.

DVSA’s November 2021 investigation reported ineffective driver defect reporting. Mr Teaca replied in January 2022 that he was instituting gate checks and driver training. DVSA’s follow-up investigation in January 2023 reported the same shortcoming however. Records presented to the inquiry in August 2023 show driver defect reporting is still ineffective: eg the PMI records for vehicle GN15 OAJ on 26 June 2023 show 17 driver detectable defects. The immediately preceding driver defect report identifies low tyre tread only. Almost all PMIs continue to show driver detectable defects. Mr Teaca was unable to evidence any gate checks. It is clear to me that driver defect reporting remains dysfunctional.

In November 2021 one of DVSA’s recommendations was that the operator purchase a suitable calibrated torque wrench and keep a wheel torque log. Mr Teaca’s assurances in January 2022 stated that the company’s St Albans depot already had torque wrench which would be recalibrated and a torque log kept. But the DVSA’s report in January 2023 records that the torque wrench, although in working order, was uncalibrated. No retorque record was being kept.

3.6 Operator’s evidence

Mr Teaca said that he had engaged a consultant to handle the transport compliance side of things but that he had not proved effective. It was very hard to find a competent person to deal with these matters.

4. Balancing exercise, Priority Freight and Bryan Haulage questions

Before concluding that the licence needed to be revoked I conducted a balancing exercise. On the negative side were the issues described in paragraphs 2 to 14 above. There was little to put on the positive side of the balance.

I asked myself the Priority Freight question of how likely it would be that the operator would comply in future. Given that the operator’s assurances of future better compliance given in January 2022 had turned out to be largely worthless, the answer was “highly unlikely”. A negative answer to the Priority Freight question often entails a positive answer to the Bryan Haulage question of whether the operator deserves to go out of business. In this case we are talking of a restricted licence holder, and the company was in fact in business long before it found it desirable to acquire an operator’s licence, so the revocation of its licence might not mean that the company has to fold. But this would not be an undeserved outcome. It was clear to me from the DVSA reports and the evidence presented at the inquiry that Mr Teaca has set forth into the world of HGV operations without taking sufficient trouble to find out what the rules and regulations which pertain to that activity are. Even when confronted with three separate reports from DVSA which report a high degree of non-compliance he has failed to take the necessary urgent action. The operator is still in a poor state of compliance today.

5. Conclusions

Having answered the Priority Freight and Bryan Haulage questions in the way which I have, I am revoking the licence under Section 26(1)(c)(iii), (f) and (h) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995. The revocation will come into effect at 0001 hours on 4 September 2023, to give the operator time to wind down its HGV operations.

Having revoked the licence, I then considered whether to disqualify the company and Vasile Teaca under Section 28 from holding or obtaining an operator’s licence in the future and from being the director of any company holding or obtaining such a licence. For the same reasons set out above I have decided to do so. Mr Teaca needs some time out of the industry in order to consider what went wrong and (if he wishes to re-enter it) acquire a greater understanding of what is required to manage a compliant operation, and in particular adopt a more formal and structured approach to managing an operator licence. In deciding upon the length of the disqualification, I have taken account of paragraph 108 of the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Guidance Document 10 which suggests a disqualification period of between one and three years for a first public inquiry. I have opted for a disqualification period at the mid-point of this scale, as being proportionate with the scale and length of the non-compliance.

Nicholas Denton

Deputy Traffic Commissioner

4 August 2023