Decision

Decision for Stafford Haulage Ltd

Published 13 August 2024

0.1 WESTERN TRAFFIC AREA

1. STAFFORD HAULAGE LTD OH1141887

2. DAVID STAFFORD – TRANSPORT MANAGER

3. AT A PUBLIC INQUIRY IN BRISTOL 24 JULY 2024

4. BACKGROUND

Stafford Haulage Ltd is the holder of a standard national goods vehicle operator’s licence authorising the use of two vehicles and two trailers from an operating centre in Swanmore, Southampton. The directors are David Stafford and Joanne Stafford. David Stafford is also the transport manager.

DVSA Vehicle Examiner Timothy Collins conducted a maintenance investigation on 27 March 2024. He found a number of shortcomings:

• The former operating centre at Station Hill had not been removed from the licence;

• Tyre pressures not recorded on PMI sheets;

• PMI records not fully completed, defects not marked as rectified;

• Brake performance testing not carried out at the PMI;

• Driver defect reporting procedures in place but driver reportable defects found at PMI;

• Maintenance contract not up to date on VOL;

• Maintenance standards inadequate;

• Poor annual test history.

The operator responded out of time. A number of assurances were given but with no supporting evidence. I decided to call the operator to public inquiry.

5. THE PUBLIC INQUIRY

David Stafford and Joanne Stafford attended unrepresented. A bundle of compliance documents had been uploaded in advance and the case proceeded using the Case Center system with no paper bundles. I asked about the lack of legal representation and the operator understood the potential outcomes. The business was just two lorries with David driving one and one other driver.

Mr Stafford told me that there were two 8-wheeler tippers delivering asphalt to the local area.

5.1 Finance – in private session – see Appendix 1

Maintenance was now being undertaken by Jamie Jerome. There was undercover hardstanding and access to ramps. There was no access to covered under-vehicle inspection facilities. Jamie Jerome was ex-Scania. He was very experienced. They had moved to him just before Christmas. The first MOT prepared by him was due on Monday 29 July. Until recently, there hadn’t been any real MOT problems.

I took the operator to page 114 of the bundle, the test report. The test failures were reviewed. GK11NRU had been returned to service after two years off the road and had failed dramatically. I noted that the Vehicle Examiner had commented upon the failure. The calliper had wound off, been adjusted, had to be adjusted again, several times to get it to pass. I asked why the faulty component had not been replaced – cost was the answer. There had not been a brake performance test since so it was not possible to know whether the brake had maintained its performance.

Mr Stafford told me that the Vehicle Examiner had advised him to use a Tapley meter with an infrared thermometer. I asked why it had taken so long to implement that change; the answer was cost and the difficulty of finding calibrated second-hand equipment. For the record, I would be surprised at that advice in any other capacity than “something is better than nothing”. Before signing a declaration of roadworthiness, a technician must satisfy themselves that every part of every braking system is working as the manufacturer intended. How that can be done on the complex braking systems of a vehicle with eight separate wheel stations is beyond me.

The last roller brake test I could find as part of a preventative maintenance inspection was 2021. I referred the operator to page 44 of my brief. VE Collins reported a tyre measured at several points at 0.21mm of tread. No prohibition was issued because the vehicle was not taxed and so the Examiner assumed it was not in use. A subsequent ANPR check showed that the vehicle had actually been in use. Mr Stafford told me of his personal situation and how that had affected him at the time. There had also been financial issues. Defects on JS07DAV identified at PMI were not being corrected until the MOT.

There were two drivers, Mr Stafford and Sean. Nothing had been provided with respect to drivers hours and working-time compliance. Mr Stafford hadn’t understood the format of what had been requested but also hadn’t asked my office for assistance. The work was Monday to Friday, 7 to 4. I noted that the uploaded document was annotated “further evidence of monitor procedure to be provided at the meeting”. Nothing in addition had been provided.

Driving licence checks were every six months in line with the FORS standard.

Suspension of the licence would be a massive impact on them and Sean. Curtailing to one vehicle would not be viable. Once they had sold the house, they could survive, but not until then. Revocation would be the end of the business.

6. POST PUBLIC INQUIRY INFORMATION

I noted from the public record that vehicle GK11NRU was presented for MOT on 29 July. It passed, with three minor defects and two advisories. Several of the advisories were also present a year ago.

Nothing further was provided on finances.

7. FINDINGS OF FACT

Financial standing is not satisfied. Section 27(1) is made out. I have considered a period of grace but have in mind the Upper Tribunal’s decision in T/2014/08 Duncan McKee. Before granting a period of grace, I am entitled to look for some tangible evidence, beyond mere hope or aspiration, that granting a period of grace will ultimately deliver a positive outcome. In truth, the situation now has not materially changed and I do not have such tangible evidence. Revocation is, therefore, mandatory. However, I can allow a period of run-off such that a new application might be made if finances can be found.

The MOT history is atrocious – but there is the recent pass, albeit an unattractive one. The maintenance and compliance issues appear to arise from the finance concerns.

I am unclear why I have not been provided with tachograph and drivers hours data. My office is piloting a purely digital public inquiry experience. It is possible that this has hampered the operator’s ability to provide the evidence that it could have done, although I harbour a doubt that the software package used by the operator can actually provide the information needed. Nothing was brought on the day. Having heard about the nature of the operation, drivers hours breaches are unlikely but there will be risks with working time compliance. I find it unlikely that the drivers hours position is such that regulatory action would be justified but the failure to provide the evidence is a negative in relation to both transport manager and operator, mitigated to a small degree by the new tribunal digital system.

I turn to the two questions which the Upper Tribunal has helpfully provided to assist traffic commissioners in coming to a decision on whether an operation should be permitted to continue. The first is, “is this an operator who I can trust to be compliant in the future?”. The answer to that is, “no”. That is because of the parlous state of the company’s finances.

Having answered that first question in the negative, the second question almost always falls in the affirmative. That question is “Is the operation so bad that it deserves to be put out of business?”. Whilst there is no money, I must answer that with a “yes” but, if finances were to be found, I would not find that necessarily to be the case. Whilst noting that revocation is mandatory, this finding allows me to leave the repute of the operator intact and step away from any consideration of operator disqualification.

Importantly here, the transport manager is the director and owner and I find that transport management decisions have been influenced by financial pressures. Vehicles should not have been in use whilst not taxed and tyres should not be worn down to 0.21mm. An independent transport manager would, or should, not have allowed that to happen. The Upper Tribunal has helpfully expanded on the characteristics that go to a transport manager’s good repute. They go far beyond convictions, trustworthiness and the like. They include the straightforward ability to do the job effectively. Mr Stafford is conflicted in this role. It is for that reason that I find David Stafford’s good repute as transport manager is lost.

8. DECISIONS

Pursuant to a finding of loss of financial standing, the licence is revoked with effect from 5 November 2024, Section 27(1) refers.

Pursuant to a loss of professional competence, the licence is revoked in line with Section 27(1)(a) with effect from 5 November 2024.

David Stafford’s good repute as transport manager is lost by his conflict of interest as business owner. He is disqualified with effect from 5 November 2024 for a period of one year.

Pursuant to adverse findings under Section 26(1)(e), that vehicles would be fit and serviceable, the licence is revoked with effect from 5 November 2024

I make no order for disqualification.

8.1 Notes for any new application – not part of the decision

I do not know if a new application is to be made. If it is, it will be with a new, independent, transport manager. It is also more likely to succeed if I am offered relevant undertakings such as:

• All equipment will be subject to a roller brake test at every PMI with, as a minimum, alternate tests undertaken lade

• All PMIs will be conducted with the benefit of full facilities as set out at paragraph 5.1 of the DVSA Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness and by a person qualified, as a minimum, with an irtec Inspection Technician licence.

Kevin Rooney

Traffic Commissioner

5 August 2024

8.2 Appendix redacted