Decision

Decision for Roger Gillbard & Zena Gillbard t/as Gillbard Plant

Published 18 October 2024

0.1 WESTERN TRAFFIC AREA

1. ROGER GILLBARD & ZENA GILLBARD t/as GILLBARD PLANT  OH2029633

2. TRANSPORT MANAGERS: Zena Gillbard and Anthony Brayley-Willmetts

3. AT A PUBLIC INQUIRY IN LAUNCESTON 2024

4. BACKGROUND

Roger Gillbard and Zena Gillbard are the holders of a standard national goods vehicle operator’s licence, granted in February 2020 and authorising the use of two vehicles from an operating centre in Launceston and, since February this year, a second site at Dingle Brothers in Bodmin.

The partnership attended a public inquiry in Bristol in April 2022 where it was issued with a formal warning in relation to the unsatisfactory outcome of a DVSA desk-based assessment. At that time, Anthony Brayley-Willmetts had just been appointed as transport manager. Zena Gillbard was added as an additional transport manager in November 2022.

A DVSA traffic investigation was triggered by reports that the operator was using an unauthorised operating centre. Traffic Enforcement Manager Andrew Ball visited on 12 December 2023. He interviewed Mr Brayley-Willmetts and Zena Gillbard. Mr Ball concluded that the operator had been using two unauthorised sites being those of the National Grid in Bodmin and Liskeard. He further concluded that neither transport manager was fulfilling their obligations and there was a general lack of process formality within the business.

DVSA Vehicle Examiner Adrian Williams carried out an investigation in February 2024. Of the thirteen categories on his report, six were unsatisfactory, five were mostly satisfactory and two fully satisfactory. Mr Williams highlighted a significant number of deficiencies with respect to the completion of the safety inspection reports. Many inspections did not have brake performance figures on the inspection sheet. There were many that had driver-reportable defects and several where the vehicle was presented with apparently dangerous defects such as loose wheel nuts. The MOT pass rate was of concern and there was no wheel security or tyre management policy in place. During the fleet check, one vehicle was issued with a prohibition for two immediate tyre defects and one delayed for an insecure exhaust system. Mr Williams also concluded that the transport managers were not exercising proper control.

Both transport managers responded to the maintenance report in April. Mr Brayley-Willmetts referred to a meeting with the maintenance provider on 5 April 2024 to discuss the DVSA concerns and gave assurance of more robust audit of inspection reports in the future. Drivers had watched relevant videos on walk-round checks and gate checks were promised. Further improvements were promised.

Due to the widespread concerns across almost all management systems, I called the operator and both transport managers to public inquiry.

5. THE PUBLIC INQUIRY

Roger Gillbard, Zena Gillbard and Anthony Brayley-Willmetts attended unrepresented. I noted that there had been no response to the call-up letter and nothing had been uploaded to the case online. Mr Brayley-Willmetts told me that he had uploaded everything somewhere but he did not know where. I noted that the audit function showed no attempt to log in nor to update. I asked the operator why, on its second public inquiry in two years, there was no investment in legal representation. Ms Gillbard felt they had done everything that was asked so felt it unnecessary. The operator did not have access to the digital bundle but Mr Brayley-Willmetts had access via his iPad.

Ms Gillbard told me that they ran two lorries to transport diggers to and from site. They did all their work for National Grid replacing poles between live wires. There were three people in total within the business. I asked about the split of responsibilities between transport managers. Ms Gillbard told me that she was recently qualified and had no previous experience. For that reason, they had thought it appropriate to retain the services of Mr Brayley-Willmetts. Ms Gillbard managed the administration and Mr Brayley-Willmetts made sure she was doing it correctly.

I referred to the report of Vehicle Examiner Adrian Williams and took Ms Gillbard to it. In relation to the operating centres, National Grid had said they were OK to park their vehicles at their site in Bodmin. Since seeing Mr Ball, they had added an operating centre at Dingle, near Bodmin. Vehicles had not been at Bodmin on an ongoing basis, only when they were working there. I turned to the issue of inspection reports and asked why the shortcomings had not been identified before the DVSA visit. Ms Gillbard had no answer but had been to see the maintenance provider. She had attended some CPC courses to keep up to date but not a specific transport manager course.

I noted the PMI reports 10 May and 15 June were in the hard copy documents brought on the day. There were more recent inspections but they had not been brought as they were not in the period requested for the original date of the hearing (which had been adjourned from July). I asked why the PMI immediately before the MOT had vastly more defects than all those leading up to it. There was no answer. Ms Gillbard did not have mechanical knowledge so had to trust the staff at Pannell Commercials. She did not know what qualifications they held but would be prepared to go and ask Chris Pannell, the owner.

They had discussed the recording of tyre pressures with Pannells but I noted no material improvement, just unhelpful comments such as “reset tyre pressures”. Vehicles were sent for brake testing with their diggers on. Drivers had CPC courses that included walk-round checks. A further, specific course was in the process of being sourced. I referred to the 56% service brake imbalance on a front axle commented upon by the Examiner. The driver had made no mention of it. There had not been gate checks but they had now been introduced, every six weeks carried out by Ms Gillbard but she had not herself had any training on conducting inspections. They had introduced an electronic defect reporting system and she received defect reports by email. I noted a spreadsheet showing wheel re-torques.

I noted that driving licences were being checked online quarterly by Ms Gillbard. A typical driver day would be 8 – 10 hours and that would include all work. A record was kept of emergency call-outs.

Mr Brayley-Willmetts told me that his background was in the transport industry. He started in the workshop becoming a workshop manager. He was fleet engineer for Somerset County Council for 14 years and worked for DVSA on testing, roadside and training for 12 years. After retiring he had set up a consultancy business and then sold that to his business partner. He now worked as an external transport for this operator and Somerset Minibuses who ran 2, 16-seaters. He had not brought any evidence relating to that licence because he had not been asked. I referred Mr Brayley-Willmetts to his call-up where it requested various compliance documents and anything else that might assist him in making his case. I was told that he had uploaded everything to CaseLines but the clerk could find no evidence of any attempt to do so. He had brought a hard copy as a back-up for this operator but not for his other operator.

I put it to Mr Brayley-Willmetts that it appeared he had not cooperated with the process. He told me that he had tried, he told me that the caseworker had confirmed that what he had done should have worked but for some reason it had not. He could not explain why he had not checked to see what had been added to the case.

I took Mr Brayley-Willmetts to the maintenance failings such as safety inspection reports not signed-off as roadworthy, no brake test section completed. Mr Brayley-Willmetts told me that Ms Gillbard had passed her test with the plan that she would take over completely. When the DVSA Examiner had identified the shortcomings and he had seen the PMIs he had said that they had to have a meeting with the maintenance provider. They had then told Pannells that they needed to “up their game on this” and they wanted the tyre pressures and the tyre ages recorded and the brake figures completed. It had got better but it was still not where it should be. They had another meeting planned with them. A typical example was a brake test where it had passed when there was an imbalance. They were saying, “it’s locked, it’s passed what’s the problem?”

I confirmed he was talking about RX08GNB on 10 May. I asked whether the clear parking brake defect had been rectified? I was told that was why they were having another meeting with the provider to bring up some more of these faults and put procedures in place. I put it to Mr Brayley-Willmetts that a brake defect was not something that you discussed at some point in the future but one which should be rectified before the vehicle returns to service; it should be addressed in hours not months. I referred to the DVSA SIPCAT[1] report which was a sea of red and amber. The issues went back to 2022. I suggested that there was no evidence of any transport manager input. He told me that he had to bow to my experience. The provider just referred them to the legislation. He had made attempts with them and the next step was to write to them setting out the steps wanted.

Ms Gillbard told me that revocation would mean that the business would fold. There was a written contract and suspension would breach it and the business would be lost. Both vehicles were needed. She did not use her transport manager qualification elsewhere.

Both partners were clearly distressed. I indicated that my concerns were about transport management and, potentially apart from the impact of any action against the transport managers, that I did not intend to interfere with the operation. I reserved my decision and closed the hearing.

6. FINDINGS OF FACT

Finances are satisfactory.

It was accepted that vehicles had been parking at an unauthorised site. From the DVSA and the operator’s evidence, it is clear that the unauthorised site was a normal place for the vehicles to be kept so I find that Section 26(1)(a) is made out. There are mitigating features in that the location was itself an operating centre and not unsuitable, and the operator still had its main site. A prompt application was made once prompted by Mr Ball.

One prohibition has been issued to a vehicle for three items. I discount one of them as the exhaust was planned to be repaired the same day and the item was marked as delayed. Mr Brayley-Willmetts told me that the tyre defects could have been fresh and would have been found by a driver before the vehicle went out the following day. The tyre defects are described as follows:

• Tyre bulging caused by failure of its structure
• Tyre wall severely scuffed and cords are exposed

Vehicle Examiner Williams says “the tyre prohibition defects would likely have been present at the last driver walkaround check and possibly longer from the condition of the tyre”. Whilst it may just be possible that two tyre defects occurred the previous day, more likely than not, and having regard to the Vehicle Examiner’s comments, at least one, probably both, were of long-standing. Section 26(1)(c)(iii) is made out.

The SIPCAT identifies that 6% of safety inspections were late, meaning that 94% were on time. It is one out of seventeen inspections and it is late by precisely 6 weeks. It seems more likely than not that the record is missing. I do not find Section 26(1)(e) made out.

Vehicles have not been kept fit and serviceable as can be seen from the serious defects found during safety inspections. Defects such as loose wheel nuts indicate a failed driver defect process. Section 26(1)(f) is made out.

I find that the more serious of these adverse findings are as a result of poor transport management rather than a direct failing of the operator, notwithstanding that every operator is expected to maintain oversight over their transport manager. I do not find that the shortcomings require me to interfere with the business. There is no margin and there are written and binding contractual commitments to the point that a suspension order is likely to cause the business to fail.

There are two transport managers. Zena Gillbard is recently qualified and has no technical background. The partnership decided to retain the services of a second, technically-qualified, transport manager to act as a mentor and that would, on the face of it, seem a sensible and cautious approach. Ms Gillbard’s focus is on those elements of compliance associated with a Traffic Examiner role such as driver licensing and working time compliance. The compliance documents in this area presented at the hearing showed significant improvement. The operation operates under domestic hours but tachographs are used and there is minimal missing mileage. Emergency work is recorded although it does not appear that the limited derogations associated with that have been used. Ms Gillbard provided an explanation for the events leading to the unauthorised parking. It was clear that she had deferred to Mr Brayley-Willmetts in relation to technical matters. On balance, whilst she may benefit from attending a more practical operator licence awareness course, I find her good repute is tarnished by the parking matter but otherwise remains intact.

I referred in the hearing to the DVSA SIPCAT as being a sea of red and amber. Mr Brayley-Willmetts told me of his background in DVSA (VOSA or Vehicle Inspectorate I believe at the time), as fleet engineer for Somerset Council and of running a transport consultancy. The issues identified by the Vehicle Examiner are basic and fundamental. A DVSA inspection should not be finding them on a 2-vehicle licence where he had been transport manager since February 2022.

The operator trusted Mr Brayley-Willmetts to upload their compliance documentation. He failed to do so. Checks by the clerk on the day using the audit function showed no attempt to upload was made. If Mr Brayley-Willmetts thought he had done so, why did he not check that the documents were there? He had the same access to the case as I did.

At no time did he seek to provide any evidence of the compliance systems on the other licence for which he is transport manager although, in fairness, I note that the call-up did not mention Somerset Minibuses. It refers simply to “anything else which you think will show you are a compliant transport manager or are taking steps to address the failings identified”.

Mr Brayley-Willmetts told me that he only became aware of the deficiencies in the safety inspection reports when they were identified by DVSA. The Examiner visited on 27 February 2024 and his report completed on 21 March. Assurances were provided by Mr Brayley-Willmetts on 7 April and referred to a meeting with the maintenance provider on 5 April. The Vehicle Examiner was promised a “more robust approach”.

Inspection of the compliance documents brought to the inquiry showed minimal improvement. Five inspection reports were provided, three for GN14RXC and two for RX08GNV. None recorded tyre pressures. All three roller brake tests for GN14 recorded “insufficient load on axle 2 & 3”. Whilst tyre ages are recorded for RX08, the same is not true for GN14 where they are full recorded on one inspection, not at all on another and, curiously and very obviously, on only one side on the third inspection. There are several obvious driver defects being lights damaged, wrong colour or not working and some issue with a side-guard although the description is not such that I can know whether a driver would be aware or not. No driver defect reports were provided so I cannot cross-refer. On GN14, a tyre grows 1mm of tread between 4 May and 15 June. I asked about the technicians’ qualifications but neither transport manager had sought that information from the supplier. From a quick review of the records, if I were to use Pannell Commercials for inspections, I would request the work be carried out by G A Wills who seems far more likely to do more of the inspection, if still not to record all of it.

These are all simple shortcomings that should be identified by the transport manager at the time of the inspection and resolved prior to the vehicle re-entering service. I was promised that they would be raised in another meeting to be had at some time in the future. Also in the compliance documents are two receipts for tyre changes. Attached to them is the retorque card.

So it seems the wheel was not re-torqued as it is required to be. Again, a straightforward transport manager control that has not been exercised.

I have found in this operation that the traffic matters have been the responsibility of Ms Gillbard and the roadworthiness matters the responsibility of Mr Brayley-Willmetts. The roadworthiness matters are far from where they should be. Mr Brayley-Willmetts has not exercised the most basic of control, seeking instead to rely on DVSA to identify shortcomings that he will then discuss with the maintenance provider, when he gets round to it some weeks or months in the future. That is not what is expected of a transport manager and it is not good enough. Mr Brayley-Willmetts has forfeit his good repute as transport manager.

7. DECISIONS

The operator is issued with a clear and strong warning of the need to ensure full compliance in the future and to take action immediately to resolve the shortcomings within its maintenance provider, or to change providers.

The good repute of Anthony Brayley-Willmetts is lost and he is disqualified from acting as such for a period of one year and until he sits and passes again the transport manager certificate of professional competence.

The good repute of Zena Gillbard as transport manager is marked as tarnished.

Kevin Rooney

Traffic Commissioner

11 October 2024

---

[1] Safety Inspection Period Calculator and Analysis Tool