Decision

Decision for Terry Northwood

Published 22 April 2022

1. DECISION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER

1.1 Written (and expanded) version of oral decision given at the public inquiry in Birmingham, 24 March 2022

1.2 Terry Northwood OD0263758

2. Decision

Standard national licence OD0263758 held by Terry Northwood is revoked with effect from 0001 hours on 22 April 2022, pursuant to Sections 26(1)(a), (e), (f) and (h) and 27(1)(a) and (b) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995.

Transport manager Alan Terence Austin has lost his good repute as a transport manager, pursuant to Schedule 3 paragraph 1 of the 1995 Act. Under paragraph 16(2) of that Schedule, he is disqualified, with immediate effect and indefinitely, from acting as a transport manager on any operator’s licence. If ever he wishes to act again as a transport manager, he must first retake and pass the transport manager CPC exam.

3. Reasons

The principal reason for the revocation of the licence is that the operator lacks professional competence and has lacked it since at least 2007. The nominal transport manager, Alan Austin, has never had a contract with the operator, and has not received any payment for his services. Nor has he performed any of the duties and responsibilities of a transport manager, failing to download tachograph data, failing to ensure that vehicles were given safety inspections at the stated 6 week intervals, failing to ensure that brake tests were carried out and failing to ensure that the safety inspection records were completed correctly. I find that his involvement in the business has been minimal to non-existent: he has completely failed to exercise the required continuous and effective management of the transport activities of the business. By remaining on the licence as a transport manager he has enabled the operator to display the outward sign of professional competence when in reality no such professional competence existed.

Mr Austin’s good repute cannot possibly survive such negligence and deception. I find that his good repute is lost (Schedule 3 paragraph 1 of the 1995 Act refers) and I am thus obliged to disqualify him under paragraph 16 of that schedule from acting as a transport manager under any operator’s licence. Mr Austin’s ignorance of the role of a modern-day transport manager is such that the mere passage of time will not suffice for him to re-establish his repute. He is thus disqualified for an indefinite period of time, although he may begin to re-establish his good repute (if he so wishes) by taking and passing the transport manager CPC exam.

The operator has lacked professional competence since 2007 (Section 26(1)(h) of the 1995 Act refers), as ever since then it has not had a contract with its supposed transport manager, has not paid that transport manager and that transport manager has failed to carry out any transport manager functions. Having found that the operator lacks professional competence, revocation is mandatory under Section 27(1)(a) and (b) of the 1995 Act. I am not prepared to allow any period of grace in which to find a new transport manager, as the operator has already been without one in practice for 15 years.

My perusal of the DVSA report and the operator’s records found a number of areas of concern, namely:

• the vehicle is not being given safety inspections every six weeks as promised (Section 26(1)(e) refers). I found gaps of up to three months;

• many of the safety inspection records were incorrectly or not fully completed. No form of brake test was apparent on the records; tyre tread depths were frequently missing; the reports frequently failed to sign the vehicle off as roadworthy; odometer readings were sometimes in km, sometimes in miles; there were two different safety inspection reports for 13 August 2021 each with the same odometer reading but different tyre tread depths and different defects found. The implication is that at least one of these documents is a false one;

• the operator has been seen by a DVSA traffic examiner to be parking his vehicle at his residential address rather than at the authorised operating centre on at least four different occasions (Section 26(1)(a) refers). His original explanation – that he was clearing out his vehicle just before sale – did not hold up;

• the operator was not analysing drivers hours or missing mileage at all, and downloads were taking place at irregular intervals and beyond the maximum legal deadlines. The operator has thus failed to fulfil its undertaking to ensure the observance of rules relating to drivers’ hours and tachographs (Section 26(1)(f) refers).

On the more positive side is a good recent MOT pass rate (four first time passes out of four presentations) and a relatively low drivers’ hours infringement rate once the data had been analysed by the DVSA traffic examiner.

The operator bears all the hallmarks of someone operating without the supervision of a professionally competent and reputable transport manager. Maintenance practices appear stuck in the 1970s and do not reflect modern day requirements. Ditto drivers’ hours supervision (or rather the lack of it). The transport manager did not understand the need to check driver entitlement, as Mr Northwood was “a friend”.

I have considered whether or not to disqualify Mr Northwood from holding an operator’s licence. In the end I cannot ignore the fact that he has in essence operated without a functioning transport manager for many years, thereby gaining an unfair competitive advantage over those operators who bear the cost of professional competence. I have therefore decided to disqualify him for 12 months, taking account paragraph 103 of the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Guidance Document 10. If Mr Northwood ever wishes to re-enter the industry after his disqualification period ends, he must first attend an operator licence management training course and engage the services of a competent and reputable transport manager.

Nick Denton

Traffic Commissioner

24 March 2022