Decision

Decision for St Margarets Coaches Limited, PF2053250

Published 15 May 2023

0.1 In the Eastern Traffic Area

1. Decision of the Deputy Traffic Commissioner

1.1 PF2053250 ST MARGARETS COACHES LIMITED

2. Background

The operator St Margarets Coaches Limited is the holder of a standard national PCV licence authorising eight vehicles granted on the 16 August 2022. The directors of the company are Terry Spurling and Tindara Ruggeri. The transport manager from the date of grant up until the 12 April 2023 was Alan Fairweather. Mr Fairweather resigned on that date and as at the date of inquiry there was no designated transport manager. When granted the licence had a condition attached that “Santo Marino will have no operational or management involvement with the operator licence PF2053250” and that “any involvement will be restricted to a financial injection to the company on the set up of the operation and the subsequent repayment of any amount lent. Any involvement other than the above must first be put to the Traffic Commissioner. “

A previous application for a licence by the current operator was refused at a public inquiry on the 26 January 2022. The reasons for refusal were stated as the need for checks to be made in relation to a proposed director, lack of financial standing, no nominated transport manager and issues over the suitability of the proposed operating centre.

A maintenance investigation was carried out by Vehicle Examiner Hudson on the 29 December 2022. The result of this investigation was marked as “report to the office of the traffic commissioner” with only two of the twelve categories marked as satisfactory.

Mr Hudson was concerned that Carmelo Marino, who described himself as the operation manager, had been carrying out work on defects found during preventative maintenance inspections and signing off the forms showing the vehicles as roadworthy. At the inspection Mr Hudson issued eleven prohibition notices and seven inspection notices in relation to a variety of defects he identified including five for defective seat belts. He also recorded in his report that when he confronted Mr Marino with some of the issues he became persistent and disagreeable arguing that the prohibitions were not necessary. In relation to vehicle YN55KVZ Mr Hudson was concerned that the vehicle had been driven for 104 kilometres when two of the three faults leading to immediate prohibition notices had not been remedied.

The operator through director Mr Spurling and transport manager Mr Fairweather wrote to the DVSA challenging some of the findings made by Mr Hudson and the validity of several of the prohibition notices.

Mr Hudson’s report was referred to the Traffic Commissioner and a decision made to call the operator and transport manager to a public inquiry.

In advance of the inquiry I researched the licensing history of Carmelo Marino and found that he had appeared before a public inquiry as a director and transport manager in December 2013. In the subsequent decision regulatory action was taken against the company he was a director of and his repute as a transport manager was marked as “severely tarnished”. He appeared before a further inquiry in November 2015 when licences for companies of which he was a director were revoked, Mr Marino’s repute as a transport manager was lost and he was disqualified for 12 months until the 26 February 2017. The issues leading to the revocation and loss of repute related to financial standing and failure to comply with local registered bus services.

3. The Public Inquiry

Mrs Ruggeri, Mr Spurling and Mr Fairweather attended the public inquiry and were represented by Ms Dooher. In advance of the hearing I had given consent for Mr Spurling and Mr Fairweather to attend virtually. Carmelo Marino also attended as did Vehicle Examiner Hudson. Written statements from Mrs Ruggeri and Mr Spurling had been submitted in advance of the hearing together with an audit from transport consultants AS Miles Consulting Limited.

I started the hearing by establishing the backgrounds of the individuals appearing before me and the roles that they played within the company operation. Mrs Rugerri said that she was the “operations director” but had only been part of the company since the 4 November 2022. She confirmed when asked by me, that she is married to Santo Marino and that Carmelo Marino is her son. She said that she was present at the operating centre every day and had “over 30 years’ experience in the industry”. In clarification she said that she not held licences for all of that time but had knowledge through her husband’s involvement in the coach industry.

Mr Spurling said that he had mobility issues so had been unable to visit the operating centre. His role was finance director and in his statement he said that he had regular meetings with Mrs Ruggeri and the transport manager so that he is aware of relevant issues.

Mr Fairweather said that he had been the external transport manager up until the 12 April 2023, his reasons for resigning were purely personal and he had been considering this since January 2023 when he had a conversation with the operator. He had originally intended to leave after the inquiry but the advice from the legal representative was that it was better to be open about his intentions and do so beforehand.
When he had been the transport manager he had visited the operating centre on one day per week and kept in regular contact with Mr Marino. He is currently transport manager on another licence but intends to resign from that position “in a month or so”.

Mr Hudson went though the detail of his report and clarified various points at my request. He said that when he first saw the PMI sheets he had presumed the rectification action notes had been completed by the maintenance providers and was shocked to learn that Mr Marino had been completing them. He explained how the seat belt mechanisms and effectiveness was tested and said that he was sure his findings in relation to those that were defective were correct. He had amended one of the prohibitions notices when he realised that there was an error in relation to what was recorded. He felt that he was being bullied by Mr Marino who wanted him to do certain things and to be allowed to fix issues on the vehicles rather than prohibition notices being issued. He also confirmed that in his opinion Mr Marino had driven vehicle YN55KVZ knowing that there were immediate prohibitions on the vehicle preventing such use. In cross examination he agreed that all prohibitions were removed by the 5 January 2023 and that he had decided to direct that two vehicles were fully tested “at MOT” rather than remove the prohibitions because there was an issue on the records arising from changes in the registration numbers for those vehicles. He also agreed that there had been “slight animosity” on the 28 December 2022 and that on his subsequent visit on the 5 January 2023 the conversation had been “heated” with some animosity initially. His conversations and contact had been with Mr Marino and Mr Fairweather, he had not seen or had contact with Mrs Ruggeri.

Mr Marino gave evidence and confirmed my conclusion when looking through PMI sheets and driver defect forms that some driver detectable faults were being found at inspection. As an example, I noted the inspection on the 7 February 2023 when a bulb and three tyre were replaced and yet on the same day a driver had recorded nil defects. I also commented on the occasions when seat belt defects were being found at inspections – Mr Marino said that these were mainly the result of children putting chewing gum in the mechanisms.

Mr Fairweather and Mr Marino told me that the record of MOT failures was unfortunate because the vehicles were put for test 2 days after the licence was granted and it had been intended to have them tested as a check and repaired before the licence was in force. They were adamant that no work had been carried out in relation to many of the faults identified by Mr Hudson and yet the prohibitions were removed and vehicles tested subsequently. The vehicle that had the largest number of faults was off the road and not in use although it was not formally marked as such. Mr Marino said initially that the vehicle subject to immediate prohibition had not been driven before the prohibition was removed and later in his evidence said that it had been driven but he had not been aware that an immediate prohibition was in force.

Ms Dooher submitted that this was a case in the moderate to serious category of seriousness. It was accepted that the PMI and maintenance regime had not been robust enough but action had been taken to remedy this. PMIs and rectification work would now be done by the same provider, assistance had been sought from transport consultants and the initial audit from that company contained many positives as well as some areas for improvement. The challenges in relation to the prohibitions issued by Mr Hudson were well documented and in any event they were all removed within 6 days of issue. An undertaking for an audit in the future was offered and the impact of regulatory action summarised.

In relation to the transport manager designation Ms Dooher asked for a period of grace to be considered to allow a suitable candidate to be identified if the licence was allowed to continue.

4. Findings and Decision.

I find that this operator has breached Section 17(3)(aa) of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 in that undertakings in relation to maintenance and driver defect reporting have been breached, Section 17(3) in that prohibitions have been issued and Section 14ZA(3)(c) in that there is not a transport manager designated on the licence.

In deciding what action to take I need to decide the overall seriousness of the case and balance the negative factors with any positives I can find. On the negative side I place the overall findings made by Mr Hudson following his visit. I do not consider it necessary to make a decision on each of the prohibitions but I can say that I found Mr Hudson to be a competent and diligent vehicle examiner. I accept that the rectification of some defects such as seat belt faults may have been easily resolved possibly without the involvement of a fitter and I suspect that the approach by Mr Marino did not promote collaborative action between him and Mr Hudson. I also accept that the vehicle which had the highest number of defects should have been marked as “Vehicle Off Road”. It is nevertheless the case that several defects were found and that I noted faults being found at PMI which should have been spotted in a walk round check. I also believe that Mr Marino drove a vehicle knowing that there was an immediate prohibition in force for that vehicle and that his behaviour towards Mr Hudson was aggressive at times.

On the positive side there were some systems in place, changes have been made, transport consultants have been engaged and the conclusions from their initial audit count in the operator’s favour although it is also the case that the audit concludes that there is a considerable amount of work still to be done.

Overall I conclude that this case is in the “serious” category of cases as detailed in Statutory Document 10 issued by the Senior Traffic Commissioner and in deciding whether the operator should be allowed to continue I need 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? It is when answering this question that the background and roles of the individuals involved in the operation are relevant. I remind myself that there is a condition on the licence limiting the involvement of Santo Marino. His wife Tindara Rugguri is a director and his son Camelo who in 2017 lost his repute and was disqualified as a transport manager is the operations manager. The other director Mr Spurling has medical and mobility issues and restricts his oversight of the business to mainly financial matters. With the background and family links the issue of trust moving forward is a more difficult one to assess. I am prepared to allow the licence to continue but it is only just and the operator should be in no doubt that Camelo Marino’s failings in the past and his role and behaviour in this case will be factors in any future consideration if full compliance is not achieved.

Whilst he does not hold a position as director or transport manager it was clear to me that his role is central to the transport operation. It may be if a future inquiry is called consideration will be given as to whether he is in fact a “shadow director”.

Having decided that revocation is not to be ordered in this case I find that regulatory action is required and order a curtailment of the licence from eight to six vehicles. The repute of the operator and the former transport manager Alan Fairweather is retained but tarnished’

I accept the undertaking offered for an independent audit to be carried out in October 2023. Full details of the requirements will be sent with a copy of this decision. The operator should be aware that an unsatisfactory outcome from the audit is likely to lead to a further public inquiry.

In relation to the lack of a designated transport manager I allow a period of grace for two months to give time for a suitable candidate to be identified. I direct that any application should be referred to me for consideration and I can indicate that my expectation is that the candidate will be an experienced person with a good record in transport management and no previous connection to either Santo or Carmelo Marino.

John Baker

Deputy Traffic Commissioner

20 April 2023