Decision

Decision for Solid Scaffolding Limited

Published 23 November 2021

0.1 SOUTHEAST AND METROPOLITAN TRAFFIC AREA

0.2 DECISION OF THE DEPUTY TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER

0.3 PUBLIC INQUIRY HEARD AT IVY HOUSE, IVY TERRACE, EASTBOURNE ON 26 OCTOBER 2021

1. OK2027813 SOLID SCAFFOLDING LIMITED

2. Background

The operator Solid Scaffolding Limited is the holder of a restricted licence authorising two vehicles granted on the 2 January 2020.The sole director of the company is William Benson. The licence was granted subject to an undertaking to submit proof of financial standing by the 30 June 2020. Although proof was not received it appears that in error no follow up action was taken.

Mr Benson was invited to attend a DVSA new operator seminar in September 2020 but failed to do so and an employee who was nominated to attend on behalf of the operator failed to attend a further seminar on the 21 October 2020.

Because the operator had failed to attend the DVSA seminar an investigation was commenced on the 28 October 2020. Mr Benson advised the officers that he had two in-scope vehicles at that time although none were specified until the 6 February 2021.

Checks on the vehicles specified by Mr Benson showed that they were linked to Vincent Larkin who had been a director of V Larkin Limited whose licence had been revoked on the 18 February 2019. Mr Larkin was disqualified for a period of two years from holding or obtaining an operator’s licence.

Mr Larkin attended meetings with DVSA officers in November 2020 when he described himself as a manager at Solid Scaffolding Limited. Downloads of vehicle data were carried out and analysed by the DVSA examiner.

Subsequent attempts to conduct a follow-up meeting with Mr Benson were initially unsuccessful and culminated in a meeting conducted by telephone on the 26 January 2021. During that conversation the DVSA officer noted that Mr Benson was referring to Mr Larkin when information was requested. The outcome of the investigation was unsatisfactory with an absence of systems being shown in several fundamental areas. The full details of the findings are contained in the public inquiry statement completed by Traffic Examiner Sohal.

As a result of the history, the unsatisfactory outcome of the DVSA investigation and a concern that Mr Benson may be a “front” for Vincent Larkin a decision was taken to call the operator to public inquiry. Prior to the inquiry the operator was asked to submit evidence of maintenance systems and driver management. Some documentation was submitted and analysed by Traffic Examiner Sohal.

3. The Public Inquiry

Mr Benson attended the inquiry and was represented by Mr Bell. Traffic Examiner Sohal attended via video link and transport consultant Amrit Aggarwal was also present. Evidence

Mr Sohal summarised the contents of his public inquiry report and confirmed his impression that Vince Larkin was the person in charge of the transport aspects of the operation at the time he conducted his investigation. Mr Larkin was the person who provided any answers to questions and Mr Benson deferred to him. Mr Larkin’s address on his driving licence was the same as Mr Benson’s and this was the same as the company’s correspondence address. He referred to one of the authorised vehicles WU12MXD – Mr Benson had said this had been acquired in mid-2020 but was not insured until the 20 October 2020. There was a record of a driver Mr Bridle using the vehicles on the 2 October 2020. Mr Sohal accepted that the 7.5 tonne vehicle FJ64UUB was potentially exempt from the EU tachograph regulations.

Mr Benson gave evidence and accepted that he had not attended the new operator seminars when given the chance to do so. Partly this was a result of him contracting Covid and partly it was because his partner was not well. He knew Mr Larkin a few years ago when he used to work with him. Mr Larkin had joined the business in March/April 2020 and was not a manager, he was a self-employed scaffolder who sub-contracts work to Solid Scaffolding Limited. Mr Larkin is paid bonuses for work he obtains. The link between the addresses was a result of Mr Larkin using Mr Benson’s address for mail whilst he was in the process of moving.

Mr Benson said that driver Bridle had left two weeks after it was discovered he had previous offences on his driving licence which he had not disclosed. Mr Larkin had been paid £15000 in cash for the vehicle WU12MXD but no receipt had been given. Since Mr Brindle had left, the vehicle had not been used and was parked up. He accepted that a lot of the documents requested by Traffic Examiner had not been provided and could not explain why vehicle FJ64UUB had been operating with a disc issued to another operator in the windscreen. He had believed that everything on the operating licence front was acceptable and had left a lot to Mr Larkin whom he believed knew what was required. When Mr Benson had been absent for three months because of Covid Mr Larkin had looked after the business.

Transport consultant Aggarwal said that Mr Benson had contacted him 3 to 4 weeks before the hearing and asked him to assist. He agreed to do so with bi-weekly visits and phone calls in between. He identified the need to improve the systems for drivers’ hours’ compliance and the maintenance regime including brake testing. He had not agreed a contract yet with Mr Benson as they were awaiting the outcome of the inquiry.

Mr Bell summarised the case on behalf of the operator and asked that the licence be allowed to continue. Offers were made of undertakings that Mr Benson attend an OLAT training course and an audit of the transport operation in due course. Mr Larkin’s involvement in the company would be limited to scaffold work.

4. Findings and Decision

There have been breaches of Sections 26 (1) (e) and (f) of the Goods Vehicles Act, 1995 in this case. The outcome of the investigation by Traffic Examiner Sohal was very poor with an absence of some of the basic requirements necessary to achieve compliance. Mr Larkin who is a person with a long adverse history in operator licensing appears to have been given responsibility for the transport operation and Mr Benson deferred to him without properly checking on his background or finding out for himself what he should be doing on behalf of his company as a newly appointed operator.

In determining the seriousness of this case, I need to balance these negative aspects with any positives I can identify. There are not many although I give credit to Mr Benson for seeking the assistance of Mr Aggarwal albeit it that this was close to the date of the public inquiry. I also accept that the past 18 months have been unusual because of the pandemic and that health issues may have led to less attention being paid to some areas of business life than is usual. Evidence provided after the inquiry was consistent with the evidence given by Mr Benson that vehicle WU12MXD had not been used since Mr Bridle left.

In accordance with the guidance given by the Senior Traffic Commissioner in Statutory Document 10 I need to consider the level of seriousness in this case, and I have concluded that it is in the serious to severe category. In considering whether the licence should be revoked as a consequence I have to ask myself the question set out in the case of Priority Freight Limited & Paul Williams i.e. how likely is it that this operator will operate in compliance with the operator’s licensing regime? In other words, can the operator be trusted going forward? A part of the answer to this question rests on how much I believe Mr Larkin will be excluded from the transport operation, If I believe that he will be directly involved or influential in this area I would not be prepared to trust the operator going forward. Mr Benson assured me Mr Larkin will not be involved and I have concluded that I am prepared to give him the chance to show that he can carry through on that promise. I am therefore able to step back from revocation of the licence but nevertheless do need to take significant regulatory action bearing in mind the seriousness.

I order that the licence is curtailed to one vehicle with immediate effect. I also order that a suspension of the licence shall be in place for the month of January 2022 i.e. the authorised vehicle shall not be used on this licence or by any other operator from the 1 to the 31 January 2022. The repute of the operator is retained but is severely tarnished. I also seek agreement to the following undertakings:

a) Vincent Larkin shall play no part in the management of the transport aspects of the operation.

b) The operator shall engage the services of a transport consultant to advise and assist for a minimum of four months from the date of this decision.

c) William Benson to attend an Operator Licensing Awareness Training Course within two months of the date of this decision and provide proof of attendance to the Office of the Traffic Commissioner within 14 days of doing so.

c) An audit of the transport as detailed in the accompanying schedule shall be carried out in April 2022. A copy of the audit and the response from the operator to any recommendations to be sent to the Office of the Traffic Commissioner within 14 days of receipt.

John Baker

Deputy Traffic Commissioner

16 November 2021