Decision

Decision for Redgrove Scaffolding Ltd (OH2057942)

Published 31 December 2024

0.1 In the Western Traffic Area

1. Written Decision of the Traffic Commissioner

2. Public Inquiry held on 4 December 2024 at Bristol

2.1 Operator: Redgrove Scaffolding Ltd (OH2057942)

3. BACKGROUND

Redgrove Scaffolding Ltd is the holder of a restricted goods vehicle operator’s licence authorising the use of one vehicle originally from a site at 79 Bristol Road Gloucester. That was changed on 10 September 2024 to Stanboro, Stanboro Lane, Cheltenham. The licence has been in force since 20 August 2022. There are two directors, Mark Rabjohns and Connor Rabjohns.

Adverse DVSA reports were referred to me on 7 August 2024. The issues raised can be summarised as follows:

• Vehicle Examiner Terry Baker was on duty in an unmarked car on 24 May 2024. He was heading north on the M5. He became aware of a 7.5 tonne goods vehicle FG61XUS on the same carriageway. It was clearly exceeding the goods vehicle speed limit and so the limited speed. VE Baker matched his speed with that of the truck and, using both the vehicle’s speedometer and the GPS reading from his SatNav, estimated the vehicle’s speed at 70 mph.

• VE Baker was again on duty on 1 May with a colleague, Vehicle Examiner Dominic Smith, when the same vehicle was encountered. This time the officers were in a marked stopping vehicle and caused the vehicle to follow them to a safe place for examination, that being Worcester Truck Park on the A449. They quickly identified that the speed-limiter/tachograph seal on the gearbox had been broken and the wiring disconnected. The officers noted that, apart from the broken calibration seal, there was no damage indicating that the wiring had been disconnected intentionally. The effect of that was to disable both the speedometer and speed limiter.

• The driver was the director Mark Rabjohns. The vehicle was not specified on any licence.

• Apart from the defective speed limiter, the vehicle had a number of other defects. The exhaust system was cracked and broken to the extent that fumes were likely to enter the cab. The extent of the failure was such that it also rendered the exhaust brake inoperative. The offside front tyre had a deep cut with cords exposed. Two of the driver’s seat bolts were loose with the seat belt attached to the insecure seat base and in use. One of the passenger seat bolts was loose with the seatbelt in use. This encounter inevitably triggered DVSA investigations.

• VE Smith attended the listed operating centre which had been described to him by Mark Rabjohns as a derelict Indian restaurant. It was open and trading and the director confirmed that no trucks parked in their carpark.

• The maintenance investigation identified many serious shortcomings. Sixty percent of inspections had no brake performance test, eighty percent had driver reportable defects, sixty percent of inspections were late, between two weeks and three months – against a frequency of six weeks. Mark Rabjohns confirmed that he did not carry out walk-round checks. There was no wheel security policy. VE Smith concluded that the responsible person had no control over the transport operation.

• Traffic Examiner Amy Comer conducted a traffic investigation on the same day. She tells me that the vehicle had no MOT. Due to its size and the limited nature of the operation, there was no need for a tachograph. Working time records were not kept but TE Comer notes that there were unlikely to be breaches. The vehicle was not specified on the licence. An unauthorised operating centre was in use but it was suitable. Ms Comer commented “operator demonstrated willingness to learn and to put systems in place”.

The operator responded to the adverse reports within the timeframe. They had engaged the services of a transport consultant, Mariusz Szewczyk. The vehicle was specified on the licence on 22 May and an application for the correct operating centre was lodged on 5 June.

The condition of the vehicle on 1 May and the dire state of affaires on 14 May caused me to call the operator to public inquiry. I was aware that there were concurrent criminal proceedings and I directed that the inquiry await their outcome. I also called Mark Rabjohns to a conjoined conduct hearing so that I might consider his continuing fitness to hold a vocational entitlement.

Prior to the hearing, I was made aware that Mark Rabjohns was convicted in April 2021 of burglary. I added that as an additional matter, and the fact that it had not been declared at application.

4. THE PUBLIC INQUIRY

Mark Rabjohns and Connor Rabjohns attended the public inquiry accompanied by Mariusz Szewczyk, transport consultant. Mark Rabjohns attended for his conduct hearing. Compliance and financial documentation had been uploaded to the case in advance and in line with the standard directions. Finances were satisfied as a preliminary matter.

Proceedings were recorded and I record here only the evidence necessary to support my findings.

5. DETERMINATION AND FINDINGS OF FACT

Mark Rabjohns told me that he did not declare his conviction on application because he did not think it was relevant. The relevant question is “does anyone you’ve named in your application have a conviction that the Traffic Commissioner must be told about?” There is a link to guidance which sets out the specific convictions that must be declared in the case of an application for a restricted licence. The guidance does not go on to refer to the “relevant activities” that a Traffic Commissioner might consider when considering whether or not an applicant meets the test of fitness under Section 13B. It is the conduct leading to the conviction which is relevant, not the conviction itself. I find it likely that a vehicle will have been involved in the robbery in some way. As the Upper Tribunal explains in T/2018/10 Ingrim t/as TIP Skips, Paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 to the 1995 Act defines “relevant activities” as “

“(a) activities in carrying on any trade or business in the course of which vehicles of any description are operated;

(b) activities as a person employed for the purposes of any such trade or business; or

(c) activities as a director of a company carrying on any such trade or business”;

so I find that the conviction arises from “relevant activities”.

However, having reviewed the published guidance, I can see how the applicant came to the conclusion that he did in deciding not to disclose the conviction nor the actions giving rise to it.

The conviction happened at a time when Mark Rabjohns had very little money available. The judge appears to have accepted that he had played a relatively minor role and took part almost on the spur of the moment. I find that the activity involved which led to the conviction is relevant to Mr Mark Rabjohns’ fitness to be the holder of a restricted licence but is not, on its own, determinative.

The listed operating centre was forty minutes away from where the scaffolding kit was stored. It very quickly became apparent that it was not suitable, adding considerably to each end of the working day. They parked the vehicle at the yard where the scaffolding was kept. The landlord was applying for an operator’s licence of their own at the same site and did not want Redgrave Scaffolding to make an application at the same time in case it complicated matters. They had since applied.

Mark Rabjohns told me that he did not know that the vehicle’s road speed limiter was not working. I do not accept that. The speedometer was not working but Mr Rabjohns had taken no steps to correct that. He is an experienced HGV driver having passed his test in 2011. He told me that he did not notice that he was passing other HGVs so comfortably. HGVs are required to be restricted to 90 kph which is 56 mph. When one overtakes another, it generally takes some considerable time. Mr Rabjohns maintains that he did not notice that, rather than creep by with 1 or 2 mph speed difference, he was comfortably passing with around a 15 mph advantage. That is not a realistic argument to be made by an experienced HGV driver, or any driver for that matter. Mr Rabjohns was caught speeding on the motorway in March this year so why would he not want his speedometer to be working? I find it is far, far more likely than not that he knew full well that his speed limiter was not working. It follows that I find that he lied to me – and I gave him an opportunity in the hearing directly to address that but he did not take it.

I am asked to believe that the operator did not know how the speed limiter became disconnected. The DVSA evidence is very clear on this point. Apart from a calibration seal having been broken off, the sender unit and the electrical connection were entirely undamaged. It is suggested that someone else in the yard may have tampered with it. I have been around this industry a very long time and I have never before heard of anyone tampering with another’s vehicle by carefully disconnecting the electrical connection from the gearbox sender unit. Such an argument, when taken with the failure to have the defect corrected over several weeks, simply does not hold water. I find it far more likely than not that Mr Rabjohns either disconnected the unit himself or engaged a third party to do so.

When the operator’s vehicle was encountered by DVSA on 1 May, it was out of MOT and not specified on the operator’s licence. The road speed limiter was disconnected. The tyre fitted to the offside front tyre, the one the driver passes every time he gets in or out of his vehicle, had a deep cut to the extent that cords were exposed. Two seats were insecure with the seat belts mounted to them and in use. The exhaust downpipe was snapped with fumes likely to enter the cab. The exhaust brake was inoperative so not only was the vehicle capable of, and seen, exceeding its restricted speed by 25%, a part of the braking system was defective. The emissions malfunction lamp was illuminated on the dashboard. Mark Rabjohns maintained that he was unaware of any of those defects. He maintained that he was “only a scaffolder”. He is not “only a scaffolder”. He is the director of a company holding a goods vehicle operator’s licence and he is a vocational licence holder of some thirteen years.

The DVSA maintenance investigation found many serious shortcomings. Sixty percent of inspections had no brake performance test, eighty percent had driver reportable defects, sixty percent of inspections were late, between two weeks and three months – against a frequency of six weeks. Mark Rabjohns confirmed that he did not carry out walk-round checks. There was no wheel security policy.

Review of the compliance documents provided for the hearing shows that weaknesses persisted until very recently. On 23 August 2024, three months after the DVSA investigation, the vehicle was presented for a safety inspection with no working rear brake lights, a reverse light not working, nearside side light not working and nearside side repeater insecure. There was no corresponding driver defect report. Mark Rabjohns told me that he had reported a defective brake light to William Gilders, the maintenance provider, and arranged for it to be fixed at the next inspection. Mr Szewczyk intervened to say that Mr Rabjohns had recently moved house and it was thought that some of the defect sheets had been lost in the process. I do not know how he knows that as a fact. In any case, one defective brake light should lead to an immediate repair not to be booked in at some future time. I am forced to conclude that Mark Rabjohns was still not carrying out effective walk-round checks in August 2024.

There are positives. When stopped on 1 May, the security of the load was generally good. There had been some brake performance testing. The operating centre had been applied for shortly after the DVSA intervention. There appear to be very recent improvements with the introduction of electronic driver defect reporting and the latest inspection reports showed a better level of completion. Connor Rabjohns told me of the difficulties the family had faced in recent years; I need not repeat them here. I heard of the efforts made to grow the business from nothing.

Revocation would end the business as would disqualification. Mr Szewczyk told me that a suspension would cost the company around £15,000 a week. The company had been prosecuted and that had a financial impact.

The operator operated from an unauthorised operating centre for nearly two years. Section 26(1)(a) is made out. The length of time is an aggravating feature balanced by the fact that the alternative site used was suitable and an application to rectify the matter made promptly.

The condition of the vehicle on 1 May was appalling. It had been seen exceeding its limited speed by 25% and it had a defective exhaust brake leaving the foundation brakes to do all the work. There were multiple serious defects, four incurring immediate prohibitions. Section 26(1)(c)(iii) is made out. The seriousness of the defects and how readily apparent at least some of them must have been to the driver mean that I attach significant weight.

Vehicles have not been kept fit and serviceable, there was no driver defect reporting and the vehicle has not been operated within the speed limit of 60 mph on a motorway. Section 26(1)(f) is made out and I attach significant weight.

Connor Rabjohns has largely left his brother to deal with vehicle compliance. That was a mistake. I find that Mark Rabjohns has no place in the management of a goods vehicle operation because he simply cannot be trusted. I find he is no longer fit to be the holder of a restricted goods vehicle operator’s licence. I do not make the same finding with respect to Connor but he will need to take control and demonstrably so and clearly will be unable to have his brother as a co-director.

Redgrove Scaffolding Ltd is a separate legal entity from its constituent directors but there are only two and they clearly exert significant influence. I find that Redgrove Scaffolding Ltd, as currently constituted, is unfit to be the holder of a goods vehicle operator’s licence. Section 26(1)(h) is made out and I attach very significant weight.

In considering proportionality, I ask myself whether this is a company I can trust to be compliant in the future. With Mark Rabjohns involved, I find it is not. In making the decision that I do, I do not intend to put the company out of business and I invite an application for a standard licence with an experienced and capable transport manager. Given the appalling history, I find that requiring the extra burden of a transport manager is entirely justified.

6. DECISIONS

Having made adverse findings with respect to Sections 26(1)(c)(iii), 26(1)(f) and 26(1)(h), the licence is revoked.

To allow for a potential application for a standard licence by a reshaped company, and noting generally acceptable compliance as of the day of the inquiry, revocation will take effect from 23:45 hours on 31 January 2025.

Kevin Rooney
Traffic Commissioner

9 December 2024