Decision

Decision for RTS Bedford Ltd

Published 21 June 2024

0.1 EAST OF ENGLAND TRAFFIC AREA

1. DECISION OF THE DEPUTY TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER

2. PUBLIC INQUIRY HELD IN CAMBRIDGE ON 6 JUNE 2024

3. OPERATOR: RTS BEDFORD LTD LICENCE OF2053182

4. Background

RTS Bedford Ltd holds a standard international goods vehicle operator’s licence (OF2053182) for two vehicles and no trailers. One vehicle is currently specified on the licence, which was granted in March 2022. The sole director of the company is Cristian-Constantin Crisiarcu, who was also the nominated transport manager until 3 June 2024.

In January 2023 the company applied to increase its authority from two vehicles and no trailers to four vehicles and four trailers. During the application process, it became clear that the company was already operating trailers, as one of the vehicles then specified on its licence was a 44 tonne tractor unit. A letter was sent to the operator on 30 March 2023 pointing out that the company was not authorised to draw trailers.

On 12 May 2023, the central licensing team wrote to the company at the behest of the senior traffic commissioner proposing to refuse the application on the grounds that it did not have nearly enough finances to support an increase to four vehicles. A further letter dated 22 May 2023 proposed to revoke the licence entirely, as the company did not have sufficient finances even for its existing authority of two vehicles. The company duly requested a public inquiry.

5. DVSA investigation

On 4 April 2023, one of the company’s specified vehicles DK17 LGW was stopped at the roadside by DVSA, who issued an immediate S-marked prohibition (denoting a significant failure by the driver to ensure safety) for 12 pallets having no securing of any kind. DVSA judged the vehicle to be in a dangerous condition as a consequence. The driver of the vehicle was director and transport manager Cristian-Constantin Crisiarcu. Mr Crisiarcu was also found to have committed numerous drivers’ hours infringements over the previous 28 days: one instances of failure to use his tachograph card; one failure to take sufficient daily rest by more than two hours; one instance of exceeding maximum daily driving time by more than two hours; and two offences of exceeding 4.5 hours driving time without a break. He was issued with fixed penalties totalling £900 for the drivers’ hours offences and £100 for the insecure load. The company failed to notify any of these penalties to the traffic commissioner’s office, either within the required 28 day period or subsequently.

On 25 September 2023 a trailer drawn by the company’s vehicle DK17 LGW was given a delayed prohibition by DVSA for incomplete spray suppression equipment. The driver, Robert Coker, was found to have committed two drivers’ hours offences: one of failing to use a tachograph card and one of exceeding 4.5 hours driving time.

DVSA subsequently carried out a maintenance investigation, visiting the operating centre on 21 November 2023. The outcome was an “unsatisfactory” marking, with the following issues found:

• the preventative maintenance inspections (PMIs) were merely identifying defects, not rectifying them. The inspections were identifying numerous defects, the vehicles were not signed off as roadworthy, and there was no subsequent record of the defects being rectified;

• some of the PMIs were late, one being three weeks beyond the stated six week interval;

• the nature and number of the defects listed in the PMI reports showed that drivers could not have been carrying out effective daily walk-round checks;

• no load security systems in place (seven months after the S-marked prohibition for an insecure load);

• one vehicle, BT65 NVD, had clearly been operating in a dangerous condition as dangerous defects had been found at the PMI carried out on 2 June 2023.

6. Public inquiry

In the light of the DVSA report and of the company’s request for a public inquiry, a public inquiry was arranged to take place in Cambridge on 6 June 2024. Call-up letters to the company and the transport manager were sent out on 22 April 2024. The letters cited Section 26(1)(b), (c)(iii), (ca), (e), (f) and (h) and Section 27(1) of the 1995 Act.

6.1 Further information

Some further information had meanwhile come to light about the company’s continued use of trailers, despite lacking authority to do so. The company had originally been warned by letter of 30 March 2023 that it lacked authority to draw trailers. Mr Cristian-Constantin Crisiarcu had replied on 10 April 2023 to the effect that the trailers were third party trailers and did not belong to the company. Letters from the traffic commissioner’s office dated 22 May and 21 June 2023 stressed that the company had no authority to draw trailers (third party or otherwise) and requested confirmation that it was no longer doing so.

No such confirmation was received. However, a subsequent ANPR search found that vehicle DK17 LGW (the 44 tonne HGV) had been sighted on public roads on 2,214 occasions between 18 April and 27 October 2023 (during the whole of which period the company had been well aware that it should not be drawing trailers).

ANPR data also showed that 44 tonne vehicle DK17 LWY, which had been specified on the company’s licence between 7 November 2022 and 13 March 2023, was sighted on 1,468 occasions between 12 June and 7 December 2023. The vehicle was not on any other operator’s licence during this period and was still registered to RTS Bedford Ltd. The implications were that the company was operating a vehicle not specified on its licence and beyond its authority of two vehicles; and that this vehicle too was drawing trailers (the vehicle was photographed drawing trailers on 58 separate days during the 12 June to 7 December period).

6.2 Request for adjournment

On 7 May 2024, the inquiry clerk received an email from director and transport manager Cristian-Constantin Crisiarcu requesting that the inquiry be rescheduled. He was suffering from REDACTED and felt unable to prepare for and attend the public inquiry. He attached a doctor’s note signing him off as unfit for work until 31 May 2024. I was concerned by the potential danger to road safety which yet more delay to the public inquiry would pose: I wondered how, if Mr Crisiarcu were unfit for work, he could be carrying out his responsibilities as transport manager and director. At my behest, the inquiry clerk suggested to Mr Crisiarcu that the licence be suspended until such a time as he felt well enough to attend a public inquiry. In his reply dated 28 May 2024 Mr Crisiarcu resisted a suspension of the licence, as this would have a serious impact on the company. He was “actively searching” for an external transport manager to take over responsibility for compliance. He renewed his request for an adjournment and asked that operations be allowed to continue “while we implement these changes”.

The senior traffic commissioner rejected the renewed request for an adjournment, a decision which was communicated to the operator by email on 29 May 2024. The STC noted that Mr Crisiarcu had not provided, as he had been requested to do, evidence that he was unfit to attend an inquiry (as opposed to work). Nor had he provided any of the advance documentation for the inquiry. Mr Crisiarcu replied the next day, requesting a period of grace “to address and rectify maintenance and compliance issues recently identified by the traffic commissioner”. The company “had developed a comprehensive plan to address and rectify these issues within a reasonable timeframe”.

The inquiry clerk responded, pointing out that the concept of a period of grace related specifically to the issues of professional competence and financial standing. She drew the company’s attention to the Upper Tribunal’s ruling that “there should be tangible evidence that a period of grace will be worthwhile, in other words there are reasonable prospects that the mandatory requirement will be met before the expiry of the specified period.” She asked for confirmation of the length and type of the period of grace requested and referred the company to the relevant statutory guidance issued by the senior traffic commissioner for guidance on the level of detail required on how the company intended to reestablish the mandatory requirements.

On 3 June at 0924 hours Mr Crisiarcu responded, writing that “we requested a period of grace in order to meet professional competence in the absence of a transport manager and to demonstrate financial standing”. This was the entire extent of the letter. It caused initial puzzlement as Mr Crisiarcu was still on the licence as the transport manager, but an hour later, at 1022 hours, he removed himself as transport manager via the online system. I considered that the letter fell very far short of providing tangible evidence that a period of grace would be worthwhile, either as far as reestablishing professional competence or financial standing was concerned, and decided to maintain the scheduled public inquiry. In doing so,  I also noted that Mr Crisiarcu’s unfitness to work note had now expired. The company was duly informed of my decision.

7. Public inquiry

The public inquiry duly took place in Cambridge on 6 June 2024. No one attended. I have thus proceeded to make findings and reach a decision on the basis of the written evidence available.

8. Findings

After considering all the evidence, I make the following findings:

• the company’s vehicles have incurred prohibitions (Section 26(1)(c)(iii) of the 1995 Act refers). A vehicle received an immediate and S-marked prohibition for an insecure load on 4 April 2023. Another vehicle was given a delayed prohibition on 25 September 2023 for incomplete spray suppression equipment;  

• the company’s employees have been issued with fixed penalties of £1000 in total (Section 26(1)(ca) refers. All of these fixed penalties were issued to director and transport manager Cristian-Constantin Crisiarcu;

• the company has not fulfilled the promise given on application that vehicles would be given a safety inspection every six weeks (Section 26(1)(e ) refers). There have been extended intervals of up to nine weeks;

• the company has failed to fulfil its undertakings (Section 26(1)(f)) refers –

• to ensure that the laws relating to the operation of vehicles would be observed. The company continued to operate vehicle/trailer combinations intensively for at least eight months after being told it had no authority to do so. The company has also operated an unspecified vehicle, exceeding the authority on its licence, also for many months;

• to ensure that rules relating to drivers’ hours and tachographs are observed. Both Mr Crisiarcu and another driver were found to have committed numerous and serious drivers’ hours infringements;

• to keep vehicles fit and serviceable. DVSA found that at least one vehicle was operated in a dangerous condition. Another’s load was dangerously insecure. Vehicles have left the premises of the PMI contractor in an unroadworthy condition and there is no record of the defects identified being rectified;

• to ensure that drivers report defects in writing. Drivers do not appear to have identified obvious defects with their vehicles: the defects have only been discovered at the next six week inspection;

• to notify convictions or fixed penalties to the traffic commissioner within 28 days. No notification of the fixed penalties issued to Mr Crisiarcu in April 2023 was ever received.

• the licence has undergone material change (Section 26(1)(h) refers). The company lacks financial standing – the most recent evidence provided suggested that it lacked such standing even for its existing level of authority let alone the requested increase to four vehicles. No further evidence has been provided. The company lacks professional competence: the transport manager removed himself from the licence three days ago;

• (former) transport manager Cristian-Constantin Crisiarcu is not of good repute (Section 26(1)(b) and Schedule 3 of the 1995 Act refer). He has committed several road transport offences (see paragraph 4 above), which makes loss of repute mandatory (paragraphs 2(b) and 4(a)(i) of Schedule 3 refer). He has entirely failed in his responsibility to ensure that vehicles are roadworthy and that operations are carried out within the authority on the licence.  

9. Consideration

The company lacks both professional competence and financial standing and revocation of the licence is therefore mandatory under Section 27(1)(a) of the 1995 Act. I am refusing the request for a period of grace, as no tangible evidence has been provided that such a period would be worthwhile. Indeed, the evidence points to exactly the opposite conclusion. Mr Crisiarcu has asked for a period of grace in which to “rectify maintenance and compliance issues”, seemingly oblivious to the fact that he has already had ample opportunity to do this in the wake of the DVSA’s November 2023 report. He has also had ample opportunity to demonstrate financial standing since the original “propose to revoke” letter of 22 May 2023 but has failed to do so. He originally requested a public inquiry by email of 30 May 2023, in response to the “propose to revoke” letter of 22 May 2023. He has thus had more than year in which to put matters on the correct footing, a year which has clearly been wasted.

There is nothing to put on the positive side of the balance. The fact that the company has continued to operate trailers despite several warnings not to, and has operated a vehicle in excess of its authority, means that I cannot trust it to comply in future (the “Priority Freight” question). I conclude that the company deserves to go out of business (the “Bryan Haulage” question).

10. Decisions

10.1 Operator licence – revocation

The company lacks both professional competence and financial standing. I have refused a period of grace. The transport manager until three days ago lacks good repute. I am therefore revoking the licence under Section 27(1)(a) and (b) of the 1995 Act. I am also revoking it under Section 26(1)(c )(iii), (ca), (e), (f) and (h) of the 1995 Act. Because of the serious safety and compliance concerns with this operator, I am not allowing the usual 28 days for the operator to wind down its business: the  revocation will take effect from 0001 hours on 10 June 2024.

10.2 Disqualification – operator

For the reasons outlined above, and having performed the same balancing act, I conclude that both the company and director Cristian-Constantin Crisiarcu should be disqualified under Section 28 from holding or obtaining an operator’s licence in the future and (in Mr Crisiarcu’s case) from being the director of any company holding or obtaining such a 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. This states that for a first inquiry a disqualification of between one and three years could be appropriate. This is the operator’s first inquiry, but the level of non-compliance has been high and safety and fair competition have been significantly jeopardised. The company has operated trailers throughout, when it knew it did not have authority to do so and has operated more vehicles than it had authority for. I conclude that the company and Cristian-Constantin Crisiarcu should serve a three year period of disqualification, which I consider reflects the duration and seriousness of their failure to comply with the rules relating to operator licensing and the operation of HGVs.

10.3 Disqualification – transport manager

Having removed his good repute, I must also disqualify Cristian-Constantin Crisiarcu from acting as transport manager on any operator’s licence (paragraph 16 of Schedule 3 refers). He has failed to appear at the public inquiry so I am disqualifying him for an indefinite period of time. He may request a hearing before a traffic commissioner if he wishes for the disqualification to be time-limited, although I cannot envisage – in the light of his failings - such a period being reduced to less than three years.

Nicholas Denton

Deputy Traffic Commissioner

6 June 2024