Decision

Decision for R G D Recovery

Published 21 July 2021

0.1 WEST MIDLANDS TRAFFIC AREA

1. DECISION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER

2. PUBLIC INQUIRY HELD IN BIRMINGHAM ON 9 JUNE 2021

2.1 OPERATOR: ROBERT GODFREY DAVIES TRADING AS R G D RECOVERY

2.2 LICENCE OD1124174

3. Background

3.1 Operator details

Robert Godfrey Davies t/a R G D Recovery holds standard national licence OD1124174, granted in 2014, authorising two vehicles and two trailers. Mr Davies is also the nominated transport manager on the licence.

3.2 DVSA investigation

On 15 August 2020 DVSA stopped vehicle BX54 OWH which was being driven by Robert Godfrey Davis (“RGD”). The traffic examiner found that RGD’s driver CPC qualification had expired on 16 September 2019, eleven months previously. RGD stated under caution that he had not realised that it had run out.

A subsequent DVSA investigation found that:

i) RGD’s vehicles had a very high MOT failure rate (100%);

ii) there were very few preventative maintenance inspection records for the vehicles specified on the licence;

iii) no driver defect reports could be produced at all for one of the vehicles, despite the fact that it had covered over 5,700 km during the period looked at;

iv) RGD lacked knowledge of the responsibilities and duties of a modern-day transport manager.

4. Public inquiry

Concerned by this report, I called RGD to a public inquiry in his capacity both as operator and transport manager, to consider his good repute. I also called him to a parallel driver conduct hearing to consider his vocational driving entitlement.

Call-up letters were issued on 29 April 2021, with the public inquiry to be held on 9 June in Birmingham. On 2 June 2021 my clerk received a short letter from RGD stating that he would not be attending the public inquiry and that he would therefore accept the ruling of the traffic commissioner. My clerk replied to the effect that it would still be advisable to attend, as revocation of the licence and possible disqualification could not be excluded. RGD replied at greater length by letter of 6 June, saying that he had been under immense pressure as a result of the inquiry and that he had reluctantly decided that he could no longer meet the regulatory requirements associated with operating HGVs. He suspected that his operator’s licence might be revoked but he asked to be able to keep his LGV driving entitlement.

As expected, RGD did not appear at today’s inquiry. I have therefore made findings based on the written evidence before me.

5. Findings

The operator has failed to produce any evidence of finances. I am therefore unable to conclude that he has the required appropriate financial standing (Section 27(1)(a) of the 1995 Act refers).

It is clear from the DVSA report that vehicles have not been given the promised six-week safety inspections, or anything remotely approaching that. This is borne out by the 100% MOT failure rate (from the nine most recent presentations). The operator has failed to fulfil its undertaking to keep vehicles fit and serviceable (Section 26(1)(f) of the 1995 Act refers).

The operator has also failed to fulfil its undertaking to ensure the lawful driving of vehicles. RGD drove HGVs frequently for 11 months after his driver CPC had expired.

The operator has failed to fulfil his undertaking to ensure that drivers reported defects in writing. The driver defect reporting system was sparse and sporadic at best.

In the light of the above findings it is clear that RGD as transport manager was completely failing to exercise the required continuous and effective management. The loss of his good repute as a transport manager is inevitable.

6. Conclusions

It is clear to me that RGD had no systems in place to ensure that his vehicles were in a roadworthy condition and being driven by drivers who were entitled to drive. He has wholly neglected the responsibilities and duties of both operator and transport manager. I was unimpressed with the claim, in his letter of 6 June 2021, that it is impossible to do everything required without substantial support from administrative staff. It was not through lack of staff that he drove for 11 months without a CPC or that he failed to fill in driver defect reports. It was not a lack of staff which prevented him from putting in his two vehicles for regular safety inspections. Failure on such a scale is attributable to Robert Godfrey Davies alone.

6.1 Revocation of the licence

The operator lacks financial standing and (now) lacks professional competence, since I have found that the transport manager lacks good repute (and hence must be disqualified). Revocation of the licence under Section 27(1)(a) and (b) of the 1995 Act is therefore mandatory. It will take effect on 1 July 2021.

6.2 Disqualification – operator

I have considered whether to disqualify RGD under Section 28 of the 1995 Act from holding an operator’s licence in the future. Because of the serious, widespread and long-lasting nature of the non-compliance found by DVSA I have decided to do so. I am disqualifying him for an indefinite period of time, but he is free to request a hearing before a traffic commissioner if he wishes to argue that this disqualification be time-limited or cancelled.

6.3 Disqualification – transport manager

Having concluded that RGD has lost his good repute as transport manager I am also obliged to disqualify him from acting as a transport manager under any licence. Because his failures as a transport manager were such that they will not be cured by the mere passage of time, I am making the disqualification indefinite. If ever RGD wishes to apply to act as a transport manager again in the future he must first take and pass the transport manager CPC examination.

Nicholas Denton

Traffic Commissioner

9 June 2021