Decision

Decision for Stonelodge Farm Ltd (OF2033546)

Published 30 December 2020

In the Eastern Traffic Area

Traffic Commissioner’s Written Decision

1. Background

Stonelodge Farm Ltd seeks a Restricted Goods Vehicle Operator’s Licence authorising 1 vehicles and 2 trailers. The Director is Carl Norman Foster.

There is one proposed Operating Centre: Stonelodge Farm Launde Road, Tilton on the Hill, Leicester LE7 9DF. The application proposed using Lee Hefford to carry out Preventative Maintenance Inspections of vehicles and trailers at 6-weekly intervals at the Operating Centre, using an out of date PMI form. Mr Hefford is an in-house employee. The applicant then indicated the intent to use Scania Truck East in Corby and to have roller brake tests at every PMI.

The applicant offered an undertaking for a finance review in January 2021.

OF0235043, held by Stonelodge Industries Ltd, was revoked on 18 May 2012, when it was found that the company had entered liquidation. The Directors were Carl Norman Foster and Elizabeth Tracey Foster.

This applicant previously held OF1109422. It was granted with a strong warning from the Traffic Commissioner for the shortcomings found on OF0235043. Grant was subject to the following requirements: both Directors to attend OLAT within 4 months and to provide a copy of correspondence and reports received with regards to the liquidation of Stonelodge Industries Ltd within 14 days of receipt. Stonelodge Farm lodged an application to vary in 2013. Whilst the variation was granted, concerns were raised about driver defect reporting and prohibitions notices.

In 2016, the operator was put on notice of concerns about its ability to meet the requirements as to good repute, financial standing, and professional competence etc. Mr Foster requested a Public Inquiry but failed to attend the hearing on 21 March 2017. The licence was revoked from 23:59 on 24 March 2017 and Carl Foster was disqualified from holding, or being involved, with the management of an operator’s licence for a period of three years.

OF1140109 SFL Ltd was granted on 31 January 2017 to operate 6 vehicles and 6 trailers from the same Operating Centre. The Directors were Richard Karl Norman Foster and Aneka Murphy. The licence was surrendered on 5 July 2018.

2. Hearing

The Public Inquiry was originally listed for today, 18 November 2020, in Tribunal Room 1 of the Office of the Traffic Commissioner in Cambridge. The operator was present in the form of Mr Foster alone. He was given an additional 21 days to make representations.

3. Issues

The public inquiry was called to allow the applicant opportunity to satisfy me that the statutory criteria are met and specifically by reference to the following sections of the Goods Vehicle (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995:

• 13B – that the applicant is fit to hold a licence;
• 13C(2) – that there are satisfactory arrangements to comply with the law regarding drivers’ hours
• 13C(4) – that there are satisfactory arrangements to ensure that vehicles are not overloaded
• 13C(4) – that there are satisfactory facilities and arrangements for maintaining the vehicles in a fit and serviceable condition
• 13D – that there are sufficient financial resources available to maintain vehicles in a fit and serviceable condition

Financial evidence was initially in the wrong name, but the applicant company then opened a new bank account. The applicant was directed to lodge the following with the Office of the Traffic Commissioner by 5 November 2020:

• financial evidence
• any written representations or evidence it intends to rely on
• details of the proposed vehicle maintenance system, including sample safety inspection records, the daily defect reporting system, and the maintenance contract;
• details of how the applicant proposes to comply with the laws regarding drivers’ hours.

4. Determination

I was supplied with copy of internet bank statements, which suggested sufficient available finance. I am mindful of the Upper Tribunal guidance in 2018/009 Enviro Kleen (Scotland) Limited, recently approved 2020/18 Gaskells Midlands Ltd, that it might be a breach of fair procedure to refuse an application on the basis of failure to supply information, the request for which has not been adequately itemised. Neither of those decisions addresses the fact that Statutory Document No. 2 is a publicly available document and the long-established principle that an operator or applicant can be taken to be aware of published guidance, as per 2012/030 MGM Haulage & Recycling Ltd. In this case the applicant was advised on the need for original or verified statements but failed to produce them due to other commercial pressures. The tests were fully explained to him. He gave a financial undertaking but due to the previous history I needed to be satisfied by original documentation.

The applicant asserted that vehicles would have a roller brake test at every six weekly PMI, at Truck East in Corby. I was concerned to note that I had been supplied with a Tachodisc produced PMI pro-forma, which was produced in 2008, with no reference to items 1 and 58 from the current testers’ manual. The current Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness dates to November 2018. The applicant needs to obtain that Guide and read it.

I was informed that the applicant intends to use Whatsapp where drivers will message the maintenance supplier: “Lee Hefford”, ahead of the vehicle returning to the Operating Centre, to enable him to obtain any parts required. There were some discussions around Truck East conducting inspections but Mr Hefford being used to rectify defects. I was unclear as to Mr Hefford’s qualifications and I had noted his proposal to rely on out of date standards for the PMI. The Whatsapp offered a quick means of communication but would not meet the requirements for record keeping of the driver detected defects and rectification. Mr Foster referred to a carbonated book which has yet to be evidenced. The walk round will also need to take account of ratchet steps and other arrangements for safe loading.

The initial email suggested that drivers’ hours would be recorded on a digi-card and that the applicant would obtain a weekly print out. There was no reference to any software, vehicle unit downloads, infringement reporting and discipline etc. The applicant referred to Tachogram but was apparently unaware of the provisions relating to the company and to the download of the vehicle unit.

The application decision was held in abeyance to satisfy me as to sections 13B, 13C(2),(3),(4) and 13D as follows:

• endorsed up to date financial evidence which demonstrates a 28-day average to meet the prescribed sum;
• contractor with Truck East to confirm maintenance arrangements, including the provision of laden roller brake tests at each PMI;
• specimen driver defect reporting book and checklist, to include safe loading straps etc;
• arrangements for drivers’ hours compliance to include vehicle unit downloads, missing mileage, and driver infringement reporting. The applicant suggested weekly downloads of the driver card;
• training to equip the sole Director to ensure compliance through a trade association (FTA now Logistics UK/RHA/BAR/CPT), a professional body (IoTA/CILT/SOE/IRTE), a JAUPT accredited training centre or an OCR-approved exam centre offering the transport manager CPC qualification in goods transport.

Mr Foster holds a Driver CPC but is not sufficiently knowledgeable of operator requirements. He suggested that his son, who holds a Transport Manager CPC might assist. He was advised that this should be formalised, and he should consider how he will demonstrate that he is fit to ensure compliance.

The applicant was therefore allowed until 9 December 2020 to address the deficiencies in the application. A maintenance contract with Truck East was provided for inspections at 6 weekly intervals, but there was no specific provision for laden roller brake tests. No evidence was provided by way of specimen driver defect reporting books and checklist or the arrangements for drivers’ hours compliance, vehicle unit downloads and driver infringement reporting. There has been no evidence supplied in respect of forthcoming training to equip the sole Director to ensure compliance. Mr Foster did provide a signed document by his son, indicating that Richard Foster would be content to assist his father in better understanding the rules and legislation. The applicant apparently experienced difficulties in obtaining verified statements for the bank account previously relied upon. He informed my office that attempts to have the statements verified by the Post Office, as other operators have done, proved fruitless. The applicant suggested ‘compromise’ of the rules as they are applied to all applicants and which reflect the appellate case law. The applicant had not considered transferring banking service providers and providing a closing balance with undertaking for a further review, despite the availability of guidance in Statutory Document No. 2.

It remains the case that I cannot be satisfied against sections 13B, 13C(2), (3), (4) and 13D, and I am obliged to refuse the application on that basis, despite having given the applicant considerable assistance. The applicant is at liberty to reapply once it is in a better position to pursue its application.

Richard Turfitt

Traffic Commissioner

10/12/20