Decision

Decision for Warrington Borough Transport Limited and Transport Manager Steven Stringer

Published 24 June 2022

0.1 IN THE NORTH WEST OF ENGLAND TRAFFIC AREA

1. WARRINGTON BOROUGH TRANSPORT LIMITED trading as Warrington’s Own Buses

1.1 PC0001977

2. TRANSPORT MANAGER : STEVEN STRINGER

In the matter of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981

3. Public Inquiry held at Golborne on 3 May 2022

4. Background

Warrington Borough Transport Limited trading as Warrington’s Own Buses PC0001977 (“the Operator”) holds a Standard National Public Service Vehicle operator’s licence authorising the use of 125 vehicles issued in 1995.

Steven Stringer was a Transport Manager (“TM”) on the licence between 2015 and 25 November 2021.

The Operator and Transport Manager Stringer were called to Public Inquiry after the operator reported to my office that 28 buses had been operated after their MoT tests had expired. This situation also led to an investigation by the DVSA on 26 November 2021 that found a number of unsatisfactory issues relating to maintenance.

Neither the Operator nor TM Stringer had previously been called to a Public Inquiry.

5. The Call to Public Inquiry

The call to Public Inquiry was issued on 3 February 2022 with the operator’s letter citing sections 17(1)(a), 17(3)(a), 17(3)(aa) and 17(3)(c) of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 (“The Act”).

The letter to Mr Stringer cited schedule 3 of the Act.

6. The Public Inquiry

The Hearing took place at the Public Inquiry room at Golborne on Monday 3 May 2022.

By way of explanation, the interval between the Public Inquiry and issuing this decision has been a consequence of additional written evidence being received after the Hearing. This evidence was shared with the parties, so they had the opportunity to make any further representations before I reached a final decision.

The operator was represented at the Inquiry by its Managing Director, Ben Wakerley and the Chair of its Board of Directors, Catherine Mitchell. Also present were David Aspinall, Director of Engineering, and Finance Director David Woods. The operator and its directors were legally represented by James Backhouse of Backhouse Jones solicitors.

Former TM Stringer did not attend. The call up letter was issued to him on 3 February 2022, and I am told that the Royal Mail tracking service records the delivery of the letter as signed for on 4 February 2022.

After a further letter was sent to Mr Stringer on 27 April 2022, he contacted my office by e-mail. Mr Stringer claimed not to have received the earlier letter. Mr Stringer stated he would like to defend himself against the allegations that the Operator had made against him but claimed that he was unable to do so as he no longer had access to company information that would support his facts.

Mr Stringer concluded by stating that he would not be attending the Hearing and wanted to surrender his “CPC licence”. I note that he has not requested an adjournment of today’s Hearing.

I considered the guidance offered by the Senior Traffic Commissioner in Statutory Document Number 9 and specifically the contents of Paragraph 33 of the same, “In line with most tribunals there is a rebuttable presumption that a Hearing will proceed as listed even in the absence of parties provided that: the Traffic Commissioner is satisfied that the party has been given the required notice, has been served with sufficient evidence, and that there are no other factors where the interests of justice require an adjournment.”

I am satisfied that Mr Stringer has been given the required notice in view of the Royal Mail tracking information and his response to my office last week.

I am also satisfied he has been served with sufficient evidence including the detailed additional report received from the Operator’s solicitors on 27 April 2022.

Mr Backhouse on behalf of the Operator did not raise any objections to the matter proceeding in Mr Stringer’s absence and made the point that they were fully prepared for the Hearing and anxious to proceed.

I infer from Mr Stringer’s indication that he wishes to surrender his “CPC licence” that he accepts the inevitability of regulatory action against him.

It is unfortunate that I have been deprived of hearing an account from Mr Stringer in person, but I am satisfied he has been given the opportunity to attend and has made a conscious decision not to participate in the Hearing.

For all these reasons, I did not consider the interests of justice required an adjournment and I directed the Hearing proceeded in Mr Stringer’s absence.

Additional evidence was received from the operator in a bundle entitled “Stephen Stringer Fraud” after the Hearing on 3 May 2022. This was sent on to Mr Stringer at my direction and he was invited to comment on the contents. Mr Stringer again failed to respond.

7. The Evidence

I heard evidence from Mr Wakerley which largely confirmed the contents of two detailed reports that were submitted for my attention before the Hearing.

The Operator’s evidence was that Mr Stringer as Transport Manager was responsible for the company’s engineering function including the submission of vehicles for annual test.

The Operator assured me that it did have a robust system in place prior to the pandemic to monitor and audit vehicle maintenance and the work of Mr Stringer. This included reviewing key performance indicators as well as regular spot checks of vehicle files which was undertaken by Mr Wakerley in person.

The social distancing and other restrictions introduced in the wake of the pandemic meant that the supervisory system had to be modified and the Operator conceded it became much more reliant on individuals such as Mr Stringer passing on relevant information.

One significant change was that the vehicle files to be checked were now selected by Mr Stringer himself rather than Mr Wakerley as previously. Mr Stringer also retained control of those documents while they were checked remotely by Mr Wakerley. The Operator contended this made it more difficult to identify any discrepancies.

The Operator referred to the fact that due to the significant reduction in services during 2020 and 2021, far more of its vehicles were parked up than usual. This also served to obscure the extent of any difficulties with testing and roadworthiness.

The Operator including Mr Wakerley as Managing Director had complete faith in Mr Stringer as a long-standing employee who had established a reputation as being reliable and trustworthy.

The Operator now considers that Mr Stringer had been misleading senior management about the annual test position and other vehicle maintenance matters since at least early 2021.

The Operator stressed that had it not been for the revised working practices introduced as a result of the pandemic, its internal audits would have swiftly identified the problem with the annual tests.

The Operator presented evidence of the swift steps taken to correct and check matters in November 2021 after the scale of the issue became clear. I was assured that all the vehicles that did not have a test were immediately taken off road until they could be tested. All passed when subsequently tested. The Operator also incurred a significant financial cost as it hired vehicles to replace those that were out of service as a result. It was also clear that the Operator’s senior managers spent a considerable amount of time investigating and putting matters right including working through the night on 23 November 2021 when the storm broke.

The operator has introduced additional external auditing with support from Logistics UK and its solicitors. It has also strengthened its internal management with the appointment of Mr Aspinall as director of engineering. Mr Aspinall has an impressive record of experience within the industry and clearly has a thorough understanding of licence compliance requirements.

I also heard from Councillor Catherine Mitchell who chairs the operator’s Board as nominee of the “parent” Local Authority. I was satisfied that Councillor Mitchell and the other non-executive directors had been fully briefed on the situation in relation to annual test and were exercising proper supervision of the Operator’s executive managers.

The brief contained a copy of the email sent by TM Stringer that first alerted the Operator to the issue. It was sent on 23 November 2021 at 15:41 hours from Mr Stringer’s home (he claimed he had to leave work because of a childcare issue). The email referred to getting “some MoT dates wrong on the planner” and then referred to 4 specific vehicles as affected. It seems Mr Stringer was prompted to send the email after he became aware that rumours were circulating on social media about the problem.

The documents submitted by the Operator after the Hearing included copies of extracts from the monthly reports that Mr Stringer would submit to the Board. The reports through 2021 refer to the number of vehicles submitted for MoT and claim most, if not all, were passing first time. In July 2021, Mr Stringer used the words, “I am delighted to report that we now have a 100% first-time pass rate”. However, by this stage it is known that vehicles had already failed to be submitted for test as required. Mr Stringer did report that one vehicle had failed its test in October 2021, but he presented this an exception.

Findings of fact

I record a finding that 28 of the Operator’s vehicles were allowed to be operated when their annual test had expired. The Operator does not challenge that finding and indeed it drew the relevant fact to my attention. I note that the earliest test missed was in July 2021 but most of the vehicles were due for test between September and November 2021. At the time the issue was identified most had been operating for a month or two without test.

I find that primary responsibility for this situation must rest with TM Stringer.

In his email dated 28 April 2022 to my office, TM Stringer stated, “As soon as I became aware of the MoT situation, I worked into the early hours in order to ensure a plan was formulated to begin working through the affected fleet. Once I was satisfied a plan was in place, I then gave my notice with immediate effect to protect the company’s interest.”

This chronology of events is not consistent with the evidence provided by the Operator and supported by copies of email correspondence between Mr Wakerley and Mr Stringer on 23 and 24 November 2021.

TM Stringer offered his resignation in the initial email he sent Mr Wakerley on 23 November 2021 informing him of the MoT situation. I note that email said only 4 vehicles were affected which was a considerable underestimation of the extent of the issue and is indicative of his continuing efforts to mislead the Operator as to the true picture.

The Operator initially declined to accept the resignation and it is correct that Mr Stringer than worked into the night as part of the team tasked with urgently rectifying the position. I do not consider that Mr Stringer should be given any credit for his part in those efforts as he was the cause of the issue in the first place.

Mr Stringer was suspended the following morning after the extent of the problem became apparent and his resignation was then accepted.

I am not convinced that Mr Stringer offered his resignation to protect the company’s interests. I think it is more likely that he realised the extent of his failures would result in inevitable dismissal.

I find that not only did Mr Stringer fail to ensure the vehicles were submitted for annual test as required, but it is also clear from the evidence that I have seen that he actively and dishonestly sought to conceal the true position on testing from his senior managers for several months.

I find that Mr Stringer’s good repute is forfeit for the purposes of Schedule 3 of the Act.

My findings in relation to Mr Stringer do not exculpate the Operator.

The issue with annual testing persisted for several months. It affected 28 vehicles which represents over a quarter of the Operator’s current fleet. It is not a situation that should have been allowed to arise in a competently run business, especially one of this size.

I find that the grounds for regulatory action in relation to the Operator in section 17(3)(aa) of the Act are satisfied in relation to the failure to fulfil its undertakings to observe the laws relating to the operation of vehicles used under the licence and to keep those vehicles fit and serviceable.

There was evidence presented that an “s” marked prohibition had been issued to the operator during the DVSA inspection visit on 26 November 2022. The Operator believed this had been withdrawn by the DVSA although subsequent inquiries suggest that may have been a misunderstanding. There was also some confusion as to whether the vehicle concerned was recorded as being off road at the time of the inspection. I was directed to evidence of a check of the vehicle by external service providers shortly before the DVSA visit where the defect was not found and that suggests it was not long standing. I do not consider that I need make a finding in relation to that prohibition. It is not central to the main concern of this inquiry about the annual test position the Operator’s prohibition rate over the last 5 years is well below the national average.

8. Relevant considerations

8.1 The Operator

The initial starting point for a situation where an operator has allowed 28 of its vehicles to be operated without a valid annual test must be considered as falling into the most severe category for regulatory action.

However, in order to reach a considered decision on the specific facts of this case, I have examined the guidance offered to me in the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document Number 10 (“SD10”) and have balanced the positive and negative features of this case in considering the appropriate starting point for regulatory action.

As positive features I have identified the following:

• The issue with the tests (whilst serious) can be said to be confined to a specific period of time and a specific aberration on the part of the then Transport Manager. Whilst it is a stretch to describe this as an isolated incident, I do not consider it would be right to describe the issues as persistent or long standing;

• SD10 refers to the need to give credit to Operators where drivers have deliberately disregarded appropriate instruction. In this case the issue lies with the Transport Manager, but I consider the principle is similar;

• I am satisfied there is now effective management control and appropriate systems and procedures in place to prevent operator licence failings, including those in relation to annual test.

Additionally, I have taken account of the fact that this issue arose during the unprecedented challenges of the pandemic. I give the Operator credit for its swift notification to my office of the issues once identified and the rapid action taken to rectify matters.

I also note that this is the Operator’s first call to a Public Inquiry in the 27-year life of the licence.

I balance these with the following negative features:

• I find the actions of the Operator’s Transport Manager in allowing vehicles to be operated without annual test to be deliberate as he was clearly aware of that situation and allowed it to continue. That did lead to an undue risk to road safety. I further find that the Operator must take accountability for its failure to properly oversee the Transport Manager;

• The fact this situation arose and to such an extent must inevitably lead to a finding that at the relevant time there was ineffective management control and insufficient systems and procedures in place to prevent operator licence compliance failings

In closing submissions, Mr Backhouse argued that it was not unreasonable for an Operator to place some trust in its staff such as Transport Managers. I accept that trust must play a part and that indeed it could be counter-productive to have an overly intricate and inefficient system of double or triple checking each individual’s decisions and actions. On the other hand, a responsible operator should ensure it properly assesses the risk of reliance on one individual and has appropriate checks and balances in place to address any risk of impropriety or incompetence by that individual.

It is evident that the Operator’s systems in 2021 were not adequate for that purpose. I accept that this was in part a consequence of the pandemic. However, by the time these issues arose over a year had passed since the first restrictions were introduced and I would have expected the operator to have re-implemented at least some of the compliance and assurance measures it had in place prior to the pandemic. This is especially so as the recovery of its operations had increased in pace in the latter part of 2021.

I would add that I was impressed by the evidence of Mr Wakerley as the Operator’s Managing Director. He is clearly a conscientious individual who cares deeply about his company’s reputation and compliance and is very embarrassed by these events. Whilst Mr Wakerley’s desire to personally be involved in managing the compliance of the operator is admirable, he may wish to discuss with other senior managers how that burden can be shared to ensure the most effective systems of assurance are in place.

Having balanced the positive and negative features set out above, I consider the operator’s position calls for action in the moderate to serious category. I have then additionally considered the impact of any regulatory action on the operator’s recovery after the pandemic and most importantly the passengers and community it serves.

The irony is not lost on me that it is those passengers who were exposed to potential risk by the operation of untested vehicles. However, I consider it would be inappropriate to impose a suspension or limit the current number of vehicles being operated as that would cause disproportionate disruption to the members of the public who rely on the operator’s services.

For that reason I determine that the events that led to the Public Inquiry should be appropriately marked by direction limiting the number of authorised vehicles to those currently in possession for a period of 28 days.

I also record a Formal Warning on the Operator licence.

8.2 TM Stringer

I am satisfied from the evidence that I have heard and seen, that Mr Stringer failed in his responsibilities as Transport Manger to ensure that the Operator’s vehicles were kept in a fit and roadworthy condition and subjected to properly recorded periodic inspections and annually tested as required. For a Transport Manger to allow 28 passenger carrying vehicles to be operated without a valid MoT is inexcusable.

I also find that this failure is aggravated by the reassurances about compliance that Mr Stringer provided to the Operator’s senior leadership over several months. I am satisfied those reassurances were false and Mr Stringer knew fully well he was misleading the Operator. His actions have properly been described by his former employer as deceitful.

Mr Stringer appears to have been a highly respected employee with external plaudits for his work as well as earning the trust of his senior managers and colleagues. Without hearing from Mr Stringer, it is difficult to understand why there was such a catastrophic change in his approach in 2021.

I have undertaken the balancing exercise as guided by SD10, but there are limited positive features I can identify in the absence of hearing evidence from Mr Stringer. I give him some credit for his previously unblemished record and the fact he appears to concede that he cannot continue to act as a Transport Manger. However, these do little to outweigh the significant aggravating features here.

I find that Mr Stringer’s good repute as Transport Manager is lost. It follows that I must order his disqualification from acting as a transport manager.

I have further considered the guidance in Statutory Document 10 which suggests a starting point of a minimum one year. The gravity of Mr Stringer’s conduct is such that I consider that a longer period to be justified and I set this at 2 years.

Having not been able to understand the reasons for Mr Stringer’s failings in relation to this licence it is difficult to identify what rehabilitation steps I would expect to see if he sought to restore his good repute after the disqualification had ended. At the very least I would wish to hear a full explanation about the events in 2021 together with tangible evidence of any relevant rehabilitative steps taken since.

Gerallt Evans

Traffic Commissioner for the North West of England

15 June 2022