Decision

Decision for Richard Bradford t/a Bradford’s Minibus Hire (PG1035429) & Richard Bradford (Transport Manager) & Drivers: Richard Bradford, Kimberley Evans, David Woodland, Granville Price, Robert Barbero, Stephanie Bennett, Gareth Bradford

Published 12 January 2024

0.1 In the Welsh Traffic Area

1. Written Decision of the Traffic Commissioner: Public Inquiry And Conjoined Driver Conduct Hearing

1.1  Richard Thomas Michael Bradford trading as Bradford’s Minibus Hire (PG1035429) and Richard Thomas Michael Bradford (Transport Manager) and Drivers: Richard Thomas Michael Bradford, Kimberley Deima Evans, David Bill Woodland, Granville Price, Robert Dorian Barbero, Stephanie Bennett, Gareth Richard C Bradford

2. Background

The operator, Richard Thomas Michael Bradford (trading as Bradford’s Minibus Hire), holds a sole trader standard national public service vehicle licence authorising 15 vehicles, granted on 12 July 2004. Richard Bradford is also the nominated Transport Manager on the licence. The operator is primarily engaged in home to school transport for Local Authorities, the transport of students for the University of South Wales and other private hire work. The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (“DVSA”) received an intelligence report in August 2022 alleging serious drivers’ hours and record keeping offences by the operator. This led to an investigation by DVSA Traffic Examiner (“TE”) Christopher Price and a maintenance compliance investigation by DVSA Vehicle Examiner (“VE”) Steven Cooke.

TE Price’s analysis of the operator’s tachograph records revealed numerous occasions of drivers not using their cards to record journeys as required by the relevant legislation and of drivers withdrawing their cards to avoid recording drivers’ hours offences. Following a robust investigation, 7 drivers, including the operator himself, were prosecuted for a total of 40 drivers’ hours offences involving falsification either by knowingly making a false tachograph record or by failing without reasonable excuse to make a tachograph record or entry. TE Price’s report also raised serious concerns about Richard Bradford’s knowledge (as operator and transport manager) and his monitoring of drivers and drivers’ hours/WTD systems. Digital vehicles downloaded on his visit showed that tachographs had never been locked into or ever downloaded by the operator, there were no infringement reports produced and no evidence of discussions with drivers or actions on infringements. Working time data was found to be inaccurate, for example the operator told TE Price  that no nighttime working was completed, but tachograph records showed otherwise.

All seven drivers, including Richard Bradford, pleaded guilty at Merthyr Tydfil Magistrates’ court on 2 August 2023 to a total of 40 offences. Three drivers were sentenced by the Magistrates’ Court on that date (Kimberley Evans, David Woodland and Granville Price). However, the District Judge determined that the cases of Richard Bradford, Gareth Bradford, Stephanie Bennett and Robert Barbero were too serious to be sentenced in the Magistrates’ Court and committed their cases to the Crown Court, so that consideration could be given as to whether custodial sentences were appropriate. Those four drivers were sentenced in the Crown Court on 15 November 2023. Kimberley Evans was convicted of one offence of knowingly making a false record on 30 July 2022 and one offence of failing, without reasonable excuse, to make a tachograph record or entry on 7 August 2023. She was sentenced to a fine of £300 with costs. David Woodland was convicted of one offence of knowingly making a false record on 30 July 2022 and two offences of failing, without reasonable excuse, to make a tachograph record or entry on 30 July 2022 and 6 August 2022. He was sentenced to a fine of £450 with costs. Granville Price was convicted of one offence of knowingly making a false record on 5 June 2022 and two offences of failing, without reasonable excuse, to make a tachograph record or entry on 5 and 10 June 2022 and he was fined £450 with costs. Robert Barbero was convicted of two offences of knowingly making a false record and six offences of failing, without reasonable excuse, to make a tachograph record or entry on dates between 2 May and 9 September 2022. He was sentenced to two months imprisonment suspended for 12 months and a fine of £800 with costs. Stephanie Bennett was convicted of three offences of knowingly making a false record and two offences of failing, without reasonable excuse, to make a tachograph record or entry on dates between 1 July and 31 August 2022. She was sentenced to two months imprisonment suspended for 12 months and a fine of £600 with costs. Gareth Bradford was convicted of four offences of knowingly making a false record, six offences of failing, without reasonable excuse, to make a tachograph record or entry and one offence of exceeding driving time without the required break on dates between 22 May and 18 September. He was sentenced to two months imprisonment suspended for 12 months and a fine of £1000 with costs. Richard Bradford was convicted of three offences of knowingly making a false record and five offences of failing, without reasonable excuse, to make a tachograph record or entry on dates between 19 June and 30 September 2022. He was sentenced to four months imprisonment suspended for 18 months and a fine of £1300 with costs.

VE Cooke’s maintenance investigation visit report highlighted a number of serious concerns including that undertakings given by the operator at a public inquiry were not being fulfilled, concerns about maintenance arrangements, driver defect reporting, brake tests and prohibition notices issued by the DVSA to the operator’s vehicle, with 4 immediate prohibition notices issued at the time of the VE’s visit.

Richard Bradford was called to public inquiry as operator and transport manager in view of his convictions for the drivers’ hours offences and to explore the shortcomings identified by the DVSA. Richard Bradford and the six drivers employed by him when the relevant offences were committed were called to conjoined driver conduct hearings under the 1988 Act to review their driving conduct and determine whether they continued to be suitable persons to hold vocational driving entitlement.

3. The Public Inquiry and Conjoined Driver Conduct Hearings

The conjoined public inquiry and driver conduct hearings were listed for 21 November 2023 at Pontypridd and commenced and concluded on that date. Richard Bradford attended in his capacity as operator, transport manager and driver. Drivers Evans, Woodland, Price, Barbero, Bennett and Gareth Bradford all attended. All parties were represented by Darren Finnegan of Counsel, instructed by Rotheras Solicitors. TE Price attended from the DVSA.

I heard oral evidence from each driver, from TE Price, Richard Bradford and Anita Phillips (his office manager) and representations from Mr Finnegan on behalf of all the parties. At the conclusion of the hearing, I indicated that I was reserving my decision and would produce a written decision as soon as possible. Mr Finnegan requested that I allow time for some additional evidence to be produced and considered before I reached my decision. This consisted of a printout of a prohibition notice issued to one of the operator’s vehicles on 1 September 2023 (provided later that day) and an update statement from the DVSA commenting on the operator’s recent maintenance documents. Unfortunately, that update statement was not available for the inquiry because the examiner to whom the records had been sent had retired. It has since been produced (on 1 December 2023), has been served on the operator and he was afforded time to respond, which he did on 6 December 2023. Since the inquiry hearing I have also received a letter dated 1 December 2023 from Stephen Harvey KC on behalf of Richard Bradford advising me that he has very recently been instructed “to review the sentences imposed upon him by the Merthyr Tydfil Crown Court with a view to seeking Permission to appeal them”. Richard Bradford has asked him to notify me of this development which he regrets was not something raised by him during the Inquiry. I have noted the correspondence which essentially advises that consideration is now being given to the merits of an appeal against the sentence imposed (not the convictions) for the drivers’ hours offences to which Richard Bradford pleaded guilty.

4. Evidence

In addition to the papers in the public inquiry and driver conduct briefs I was provided with a bundle from the operator in advance of the hearing. That included an audit report from Alpha HGV Recruitment and Training, documents relating to WTD, driver downloads, vehicle recalls and driver defect reports and character references for Richard Bradford, Gareth Bradford and Robert Barbero. Financial evidence was also provided in advance and demonstrated that the financial standing requirement continued to be met. On the day of the hearing, I was additionally provided with a written submission from Richard Bradford dated 20 November 2023 entitled “RE: Business Impact/Licence Curtailment, Reduction or Loss” and with character references for Stephanie Bennett and further character references for Gareth Bradford and Robert Barbero. Recent driver records and tachograph data had been provided by the operator to TE Price in advance of the public inquiry, as requested in the call up letter. TE Price had prepared an update statement for the inquiry, dated 14 November 2023, which was served on the operator in advance of the hearing. The additional evidence referred to at paragraph 7 above has also now been submitted and considered by me, along with all written evidence referenced, prior to reaching this decision.

I do not set out all of the evidence in this decision because it is a matter of record within the bundle and transcript of proceedings.

5. Findings of fact

It is clear, and obviously accepted by the operator and each of his drivers (in view of their guilty pleas in the criminal court) that the drivers’ hours offences referred to at paragraph 3 above and more fully set out in the Briefs, were committed. Many of those offences were deliberate acts of knowingly creating false tachograph records that compromised road safety, including such offences committed by the operator himself. Accordingly, I find that the operator has not honoured the undertakings he signed up to when he applied for the licence, namely that the laws relating to the driving and operation of the vehicles used under the licence would be observed and that the operator would observe the rules on drivers’ hours and tachographs and keep proper records.  I find that the undertakings that the operator would keep vehicles fit and serviceable and that drivers would report promptly any defects or symptoms of defects that could prevent the safe operation of vehicles and that any defects would be promptly recorded in writing have not been honoured. I also find that the additional bespoke undertakings, agreed to by the operator at a public inquiry in 2008, relating to 4 weekly frequency of safety inspections, auditing of driver walkaround checks and rolling road brake testing have not been honoured. The statement made when applying for the licence that vehicles would be inspected at 4 weekly intervals has not been fulfilled. It is also clear on the evidence, and undisputed, that the operator’s vehicles have been issued with prohibition notices by the DVSA in the past 5 years. Accordingly, I find that sections 17(3)(a), 17(3)(aa) and 17(3)(c) of the 1981 Act are made out.

There was ineffective management control and insufficient procedures in place to prevent the operator licence compliance failings found by the DVSA. There were ineffective analysis procedures in place to detect falsification, drivers’ hours or working time directive infringements and insufficient procedures in place to ensure appropriate use of tachograph or manual records by drivers. This was despite a warning given to the operator by the traffic commissioner following one of his drivers having been issued with a prohibition notice for failing to use a tachograph card. There was ineffective driver training with ineffective monitoring and disciplinary procedures in place, particularly relating to driver walkaround checks and defect reporting. There were still issues of driver reportable defects being found at the time of the inquiry, as identified in the operator’s own audit report, still extended safety inspection intervals and concerns about maintenance recording and lack of suitably qualified maintenance staff. There were road safety critical defects on vehicles in service and a prohibition at MOT. The operator’s prohibition rate is extremely high at more than four times the national average and there is a low MOT pass rate at MOT (with his initial fail rate more than double the national average). There have been previous unsatisfactory maintenance investigations resulting in a public inquiry when detailed undertakings were agreed by the operator, specifically to address traffic commissioner concerns about maintenance, driver walkaround checks and brake testing. Despite agreeing to those undertakings, the operator was failing to adhere to them at the time of the DVSA maintenance investigation last year and the same failures persisted, showing inadequate response.

In his capacity as transport manager, presiding over this degree of non-compliance and having personally committed the offences for which he has now been sentenced, I find on the evidence and the balance of probabilities that Richard Bradford failed effectively and continuously to manage the transport activities of the business, as required by the legislation.

6. Considerations and decisions in respect of Richard Bradford as operator and transport manager

I have weighed up these adverse findings with the positive features in considering regulatory action. On the positive side, the operator co-operated with the enforcement investigations and with this public inquiry process. Richard Bradford has made some changes since the DVSA investigations which have resulted in improved levels of compliance, as evidenced by the update reports from TE Price and VE Rees (although those had not resulted in full compliance on the maintenance side by the time of the inquiry). As transport manager, he recognised his failings and had recently sought to improve his knowledge by attending a transport manager refresher training course.

Balancing these negative and positive features and having regard to the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document No. 10, I consider this case to be in the “severe” category. In determining whether the operator continues to satisfy the continuing and mandatory requirement to be of good repute in section 14ZA(2) of the 1981 Act I must have regard to paragraph 1 of Schedule 3 to that Act. Paragraph 1(3)(b) of Schedule 3 provides that I shall determine that an individual is not of good repute if he has been convicted of road transport offences. Paragraph 1(5) of Schedule 3 sets out that, for these purposes, a road transport offence includes an offence under the law of the United Kingdom relating to road transport including an offence relating to drivers’ hours of work.   Richard Bradford has been convicted of the drivers’ hours offences set out earlier in this decision, which are clearly road transport offences within the meaning of the Act. I must therefore revoke this licence pursuant to section 17(1)(a) of the Act. In view of paragraph 1(10) of Schedule 3, I must also find that Richard Bradford is no longer of good repute in his capacity as transport manager and I do not consider such a finding to be disproportionate in the circumstances. This was acknowledged by Mr Finnegan in his closing submissions on behalf of Richard Bradford as both operator and transport manager. As the Upper Tribunal has repeatedly stated, drivers’ hours compliance goes directly to road safety. These were serious offences committed not just by those driving on behalf of the licence holder, but by the licence holder himself, who is also transport manager. Some of the offences committed by Richard Bradford were offences of knowingly making false tachograph records i.e. where dishonesty was a feature, which is an aggravating factor and obviously goes to the question of trust.  

In submissions, Mr Finnegan acknowledged and accepted that Richard Bradford’s operator licence would inevitably have to be revoked due to the loss of his good repute, and that he would also lose his good repute as transport manager. His submissions went directly to the question of disqualification, which he also accepted was inevitable, and I was invited to keep the period of disqualification as low as possible. Mr Finnegan asked that the period of disqualification should reflect the seriousness of the drivers’ hours offences and that account should be taken of the improvements made since the DVSA intervention last year and the good general compliance record prior to that, as well as the local community work carried out by Richard Bradford and the high regard in which is held within the community.  It was suggested that the requirement for 4 weekly safety inspections was unduly onerous, had been complied with “in large part”, and whilst it was accepted that there were frequent examples of late inspections, those were usually only a week late and so broadly compliant with current best practice. Mr Finnegan did, however, accept that he had some difficulty with that submission given the operator’s poor MOT pass rate.

I have had regard to the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document No.10 in considering disqualification and have also reminded myself of the authority in T/2010/29 David Finch Haulage. In that case, the Transport Tribunal said: “The imposition of a period of disqualification is not a step to be taken routinely, but nor is it a step to be shirked if the circumstances render disqualification necessary in pursuit of the objectives of the operator licensing system. Although no additional feature is required over and above the grounds leading up to revocation, an operator is entitled to know why the circumstances of the case are such as to make a period of disqualification necessary…”

The Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Directions state that serious cases may merit disqualification of between 5 to 10 years and severe cases may merit disqualification for an indefinite period. For a first public inquiry, the suggested starting point is between 1 and 3 years. Richard Bradford has attended public inquiry before, where similar concerns were at issue and specific undertakings agreed to by him to address those. However, he disregarded those undertakings and their purpose and failed to heed the warning given by the Deputy Traffic Commissioner, resulting in the same maintenance failings being  at issue yet again at this inquiry. I have already set out my reasoning for determining that this case is a severe case, by reference to Annex 4 of Statutory Document 10.

Taking account of all the circumstances, I consider that a period of disqualification is necessary to meet the objectives of the operator licensing regime. Acknowledging that this is a severe case involving dishonesty by falsification of tachograph records but giving credit for the positives that I have found, I have decided to disqualify Richard Bradford from holding an operator licence for a period of five years. The disqualification order shall be in the terms set out at paragraph 2 of my Decision above.

Richard Bradford has lost his repute as transport manager, and I must therefore disqualify him from acting as such. I see no reason to depart from the period of disqualification ordered in relation to his capacity as an operator. Should Richard Bradford wish to be appointed as a transport manager in the future, I direct that he must appear before a traffic commissioner to determine whether his repute should be restored.

7. Considerations and decisions in relation to vocational driving licences

The legislation in relation to driver conduct is not the same as that applicable to the operators of public service vehicles.

Section 115(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (“the 1988 Act”) provides that a large goods vehicle or passenger-carrying vehicle driver’s licence – (a) must be revoked if there comes into existence, in relation to its holder, such circumstances relating to his conduct as may be prescribed; (b) must be revoked or suspended if his conduct is such to make him unfit to hold a licence; and where the licence is suspended under paragraph (b) above it shall during the time of the suspension be of no effect.

Section 116(1) of the 1988 Act provides that any question arising under section 115(1)(b) of this Act as to whether the person is or is not, by reason of his conduct, fit to hold a large goods vehicle or passenger carrying vehicle driver’s licence, as the case may be, may be referred by the Secretary of State to the traffic commissioner for the area in which the holder of the licence resides.

Section 116(2) of the 1988 Act provides that where on any reference under subsection (1) above, the traffic commissioner determines that the holder of the licence is not fit to hold a large goods vehicle or passenger carrying vehicle driver’s licence, as the case may be, he shall also determine whether the conduct of the holder of the licence is such as to require revocation of his licence or only its suspension; and if the former, whether the holder of the licence should be disqualified under section 117(2)(a) of the Act (and, if so, for what period) or under section 117(2)(b) of this Act.

Section 121 of the 1988 Act defines conduct as meaning (a) in relation to the applicant for or the holder of a large goods vehicle driver’s licence, his conduct as driver of a motor vehicle, and (b) in relation to an applicant for or the holder of a passenger carrying vehicle driver’s licence, his conduct both as a driver of a motor vehicle and in any other respect relevant to his holding a passenger carrying vehicle driver’s licence.

In making my decision in relation to the vocational licences for the seven drivers I have taken into consideration the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document No.6 in relation to Vocational Driver Conduct and the case of Meredith and Others v Traffic Commissioner for the Western Traffic Area EWHC 2975 (Admin). Essentially, when considering what action to take, if any, the personal circumstances of the offender are not relevant in my jurisdiction save in very limited circumstances. However, I must take into account the circumstances of the relevant offences.

Drivers are expected fully to acquaint themselves with the relevant legislation before undertaking employment as a professional driver. They cannot evade their personal responsibility by stating that they bowed to pressure from or orders of others on issues related to their obligations under the regulations. It would send entirely the wrong message to professional drivers that they can drive vehicles knowing that they have falsified records. The drivers’ hours, working time and tachograph rules assist in keeping the public safe when using public roads and it is always serious when the drivers’ hours rules are breached, particularly where a deliberate false record is made by a vocational driver. The concealment of evidence required for effective regulation of drivers’ hours is serious and I regard such falsification as more serious than the offences that it was designed to conceal. The Senior Traffic Commissioner’s statutory guidance sets out that those who commit offences of this kind must understand that there will be serious consequences if and when the matter comes to light and that a cumulative and significant period of disqualification is the likely outcome. Subsequent conduct is also likely to be of limited weight.

Guidance in Statutory Document 6 on vocational driver conduct includes starting points for regulatory action and case examples involving falsification of records. I have had regard to that guidance in reaching my decisions in respect of each of the drivers and have carefully considered the nature of the offending by each driver, treating deliberate falsification of tachograph records by deliberately driving without a tacho card or deliberately pulling a card as more serious than offences involving falsification without intent to deceive.

Richard Bradford has been convicted of 8 drivers’ hours offences, three of which are offences of knowingly making a false record, with the offending covered a period of over 3 months. He has been sentenced in the criminal court to a period of four months imprisonment suspended for 18 months and fined £1,300. In evidence, he could not really explain the circumstances of his offending and appeared to suggest that it had all been unintentional or inadvertent. His responses during his interview under caution, included in the Brief, are similarly vague although he does concede in respect of two of the offences that it is possible that those offences of knowingly making false records (by deliberately driving without a tachograph card) were committed to circumvent the drivers’ hours rest requirements. However, he fully accepted his guilt before the criminal court where he was legally represented and, when reminded of his guilty pleas, before me at the hearing. These are very serious offences, three of which are deliberate falsifications and the offending persisted over a period of more than three months. Having regard to all these factors, the mitigation put forward on his behalf and the guidance in statutory document 6, I make a finding that he is not fit to hold a vocational licence under section 115(1)(b) of the 1988 Act. Having regard to the starting points in Statutory Document 6, I revoke his vocational driving licence with effect from 00:01 hours on 23 December and disqualify him from holding or applying for any vocational licence for a period of 12 months.

Kimberley Evans has been convicted of one offence of knowingly making a false record by pulling her driver’s card on 5 August 2022 and one offence of failing, without reasonable excuse, to make a tachograph record or entry on 7 August 2022. She pleaded guilty and was sentenced to a fine of £300 in the Magistrates’ Court. Kimberley Evans fully and freely admitted the offences from the outset when interviewed by TE Price under caution. She pulled her card on 5 August 2022 to avoid taking her rest break as required by the rules in order to get home for family reasons, driving for a further hour and 10 minutes, so for a total of 5 hours and 43 minutes without the required 45 minutes rest. She has not previously committed any drivers’ hours offences and holds full LGV and PCV entitlement (despite the call-in letter suggesting that only provisional entitlement is held). In the circumstances and having regard to the guidance in statutory document 6 and the mitigation put forward on her behalf, I make a finding that she is not fit to hold a vocational licence under section 115(1)(b) of the 1988 Act and must either revoke or suspend her licence. I consider it appropriate to suspend her vocational licence for a period of 5 weeks with effect from 00:01 on 23 December 2023.

David Woodland has been convicted of one offence of knowingly making a false record by pulling his driver’s card on 30 July 2022 and two offences of failing, without reasonable excuse, to make a tachograph entry or record on 30 July 2022 and on 6 August 2022. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to a fine of £450 in the Magistrates’ Court. In evidence, he explained that he pulled his card on 30 July 2022 because his wife, who has MS, had fallen down the stairs and he needed to get home to help her. This was to avoid taking the full rest period, as required by the drivers’ hours rules. He was unable to explain the other two offences, one of which was on that same day. In the circumstances and having regard to the guidance in statutory document 6 and mitigation put forward on his behalf, I make a finding that he is not fit to hold a vocational licence under section 115(1)(b) of the 1988 Act and must either revoke or suspend his licence. I consider it appropriate to suspend his vocational licence for a period of 6 weeks with effect from 00:01 hours on 23 December 2023.

Granville Price has been convicted of one offence of knowingly making a false record by pulling his driver’s card on 5 June 2022 and two offences of failing, without reasonable excuse, to make a tachograph entry or record on 5 and 10 June 2022. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to a fine of £450 in the Magistrates’ Court. When asked about the offending his response was that he was not “technical” and not good with tachographs. He was unable to explain the circumstances of the offences, including the deliberate falsification, either at the hearing or during his interview under caution. In the circumstances and having regard to the guidance in statutory document 6 and mitigation put forward on his behalf, I make a finding that he is not fit to hold a vocational licence under section 115(1)(b) of the 1988 Act and must either revoke or suspend his licence. I consider it appropriate to suspend his vocational licence for a period of 6 weeks with effect from 00:01 hours on 23 December 2023.

Robert Barbero has been convicted of 8 drivers’ hours offences, two of which are offences of knowingly making a false record, with the offending covering a period of over 4 months. He has been sentenced in the criminal court to a period of two months imprisonment suspended for 12 months and fined £800. In evidence, he explained that prior to working for Richard Bradford he had worked for an operator with older vehicles which did not have digital tachographs and he was unused to using these which is why the offences had been committed i.e. through inexperience and inadvertence. I pointed out that he had also pleaded guilty to two offences of deliberate falsification, which he did acknowledge. Those two offences both involved Mr Barbero knowingly creating false records by driving without his card at night, in breach of the requirement to take a minimum of 9 hours rest in a 24-hour period. On 16 June 2022 he drove between 22:45 and 03:01 on 17 June 2022, then commenced work again at 07:00 that same day. Similarly, on 19 July 2022 he drove for around 3 hours until 22:38 and then commenced driving the following morning at 07:00, without having taken the minimum daily rest period. These are very serious offences which give rise to an obvious road safety risk and, specifically, to the passengers being carried in vehicles driven by Mr Barbero at the time. The offending also persisted over a period of more than four months, which is an aggravating feature. Having regard to all these factors, and the guidance in statutory document 6, I make a finding that he is not fit to hold a vocational licence under section 115(1)(b) of the 1988 Act.   Having regard to the starting points in Statutory Document 6 and mitigation put forward on his behalf, I revoke his vocational driving licence with effect from 00:01 hours on 23 December and disqualify him from holding or applying for any vocational licence for a period of 12 months.

Stephanie Bennett has been convicted of 5 drivers’ hours offences, three of which are offences of knowingly making a false record, with the offending covered a period of 2 months. She has been sentenced in the criminal court to two months imprisonment suspended for 12 months and fined £600. During her interview under caution, and again in evidence before me, she explained that she deliberately pulled her drivers’ card to avoid taking the legally required rest break when driving a group of men back from Manchester. One of the passengers wanted to be sick and she also felt intimidated as the only female on the bus. She drove for 5 hours and 47 minutes and pulled out her card knowing that to be a clear breach of the rules and placing the lives of other road users and the passengers on her bus at risk. The other two deliberate falsification offences also involved pulling her card to avoid taking the rest breaks which are required by law, for obvious safety reasons. Having regard to all these factors, the mitigation put forward on her behalf and the guidance in statutory document 6, I make a finding that she is not fit to hold a vocational licence under section 115(1)(b) of the 1988 Act. Having regard to the starting points in Statutory Document 6, I revoke her vocational driving licence with effect from 00:01 hours on 23 December and disqualify her from holding or applying for any vocational licence for a period of 12 months.

Gareth Bradford is the operator’s son. He is 24 years old and had only been driving professionally for less than 3 years at the time of these offences. He has been convicted of 11 drivers’ hours offences, four of which are offences of knowingly making a false record, with the offending covered a period of over 4 months. He has been sentenced in the criminal court to a period of two months imprisonment suspended for 12 months and fined £1,000. In evidence before me and during his interview under caution Gareth Bradford could only explain the circumstances of one of the occasions when he deliberately pulled his card during a journey with passengers returning from Liverpool when there were traffic delays. Rather than taking the legally required break and having already driven for 4 hours and 45 minutes, he pulled his card out instead of pulling over. He didn’t think he would get caught and did so despite being aware of the effect that tiredness or fatigue can have when drivers fail to take the statutory breaks. This clearly placed other road users and the passengers being carried on Bradford’s bus at risk and had potentially serious consequences. The other offences that he has pleaded guilty to are numerous. Some involve knowingly making false tachograph records, some involve failing, without reasonable excuse, to make a tachograph record or entry and one is an offence of exceeding the 4.5 hour driving limit without taking the required break. Having regard to all these factors, the mitigation put forward on his behalf, including his age and inexperience as a professional driver, and the guidance in statutory document 6, I make a finding that he is not fit to hold a vocational licence under section 115(1)(b) of the 1988 Act. I revoke his vocational driving licence with effect from 00:01 hours on 23 December and disqualify him from holding or applying for any vocational licence for a period of 12 months.

Victoria Davies
Traffic Commissioner for Wales

14 December 2023