Decision for Telford's Coaches Ltd (PM1016939)
Written confirmation of the decision of the Traffic Commissioner for Scotland for Telford's Coaches Ltd and Alistair Sholto Telford, Transport Manager
IN THE SCOTTISH TRAFFIC AREA
TELFORD’S COACHES LTD - PM1016939
AND
ALISTAIR SHOLTO TELFORD - TRANSPORT MANAGER
AND
DRIVER: SIMON HARTLEY
CONFIRMATION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER’S DECISION
Decision
I took account of the impact of any regulatory intervention and took evidence regarding current operations, including the reliance of local authorities in Scotland and in Cumbria. I therefore imposed a condition; in effect curtailing the licence authority to 25 vehicles from 23:45 tonight. I allowed 7 days for the return of the disc.
Background
Telford’s Coaches Ltd holds a Standard International Public Service Vehicle Operator’s Licence authorising 26 vehicles. The Directors are Adrienne Lunn Telford and Alistair Sholto Telford, who is also the Transport Manager.
There are two Operating Centres: Tweeden Brae, Newcastleton TD9 0QA and Auction Mart, Newcastleton TD9 0RG. Preventative Maintenance Inspections are said to be carried out in-house at Tweeden Brae at 6-weekly intervals.
The operator has responsibility for 10 registered services. There is no adverse compliance history.
Hearing
The Public Inquiry was listed for today, 3 June 2026, in the Tribunal Room of the Office of the Traffic Commissioner in Edinburgh. The operator was present in the form of Mr and Mrs Telford, represented by Neil Kelly, solicitor.
Issues
The public inquiry was called following notice that I was considering grounds to intervene in respect of this licence and specifically by reference to the following sections of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981:
- 17(3)(a) – statement to abide by conditions on the licence
- 17(3)(aa) – undertakings (vehicles to be kept fit and serviceable, effective driver defect reporting, complete maintenance records).
- 17(3)(b) – conditions on licence to notify changes including the ability of the Transport Manager.
- 17(3)(e) – material changes:
- 17(1)(a) – repute, financial standing, professional competence.
- 28 Transport Act – Disqualification.
Mr Telford was also called to consider whether he had exercised effective and continuous management and therefore whether I should make a finding under section 17(1)(b) preventing him from relying on his Certificate of Professional Competence. [REDACTED]
Driver Hartley was called to the remaining Driver Conduct Hearing to consider whether he should be permitted to continue to rely on his vocational driving entitlement. By email, he sent his apologies that he was unable to attend the hearing due to work commitments in his new career as a Driving Instructor and had thought the matter resolved. This was followed by the correspondence below.
The operator was directed to lodge evidence in support including financial, maintenance and other compliance documentation. Compliance documentation was to be submitted to DVSA by no later than 13 May 2026 with finance and any representations to be sent to my office by 20 May 2026.
Summary of Evidence
On 12 November 2025 vehicle KN20 WSX had a nearside rear wheel detachment on the B6357 road, Canonbie.
Vehicle Examiner, Gordon Montgomery, carried out a maintenance visit on 26 November 2025. His report referred to unsatisfactory compliance management and found wheel security systems to be ineffective. Mr Montgomery stated that the outer face of the nearside rear inner wheel which detached had built up corrosion where it mates to the inner face of the outer wheel, affecting the overall clamping force between the assemble mated surfaces and would be the likely cause of the detachment. Despite wheel faces being recorded as “cleaned” and studs “ok,” and quality assurance checks being documented, the presence of significant corrosion suggests the operator’s wheel security system had not been followed robustly.
The driver was said to have identified abnormal noise and vibration at around 17:10 on the day of the wheel loss incident but failed to stop the vehicle or report the defect in line with company policy, continuing to drive for approximately 29 minutes until the wheel detached. The driver later stated he had not received sufficient training on how to respond to faults during service, admitted he did not pay close attention to the defect-reporting requirements on first-use checks, and provided an interview account with notable gaps and inconsistencies. He also reported difficulty contacting management once the wheel had detached.
His initial statement was given shortly after the incident. He later claimed that he was in shock. The formal interview under caution took place on 14 January 2026. Mr Hartley described himself as a driver and bus washer, working 42 to 46 hours per week in 4 shifts. He tried to remember the incident 2 months previous:
I left Carlisle at 5:10, picked up 6 customers drove to Longtown started to feel there was something not right and it felt to be on the front end, so, being on A7, I carried on as it didn’t seem significant, it just seemed to be vibrating and juddery but it felt to be at front, so I carried on not thinking anything untoward was going to happen, not thinking a wheel was going to fall off or anything significant, cause there wasn’t a torque sheet in the morning, so I have no reason to believe something was wrong with road wheels As I turned off the A7 onto that said road the B6357 I can’t remember what made me stop, something I thought I can’t remember if I had heard something but when I had stopped and got out I was absolutely amazed to see a man rolling a wheel back up towards me. It had came off back end. So I tried phoning Rod the mechanic, no answer I tried another 4 further people that work in office part time or full time still no answer and at 5:35/ 5:40 what ever time it had been I would have expected someone to pick up I’m a driver I wouldn’t have been phoning for a chat I would have been phoning cause something was wrong and after a short while, Mark Greeve phoned back, Marks planner in the office.
He had not encountered many other incidents before. He had always reported any defect but distinguished where there were just noises etc. There was no dedicated number to call. He tried the office number first. He suggested that there was an absence of relevant training When asked about his training, he responded:
Telford’s coaches when you’re doing your route training you’re with another driver, he pretty much tells you everything as you go along, I knew the first use checks I remember getting a contract an induction pack I can’t remember. I would say being a relatively inexperienced bus driver 2 years of driving, I feel carting passengers and if this incident that has occurred I would have liked Telford’s coaches to give you some clarity on what to do, I if you think something is wrong to stop ring up and get advice but they don’t, problem is I’ve had that many things with buses front end vibrating people asking are we breaking down, I would say not, you would be stopped, there were always something wrong, reported it got it fixed, if you have to stop every time there was something wrong you wouldn’t move.
Mr Montgomery noted that the sole transport manager Alistair Sholto Telford had qualified in 1999 and was not provided with evidence of any refresher training having been undertaken. However, Mr Kelly has subsequently provided evidence of regular attendance.
Mr Montgomery concluded his report by stating:
“The Operator has been able to demonstrate that compliance and passenger safety remain at the forefront of the business. It is agreed that the Operator has robust preventative maintenance systems in place which were evidenced during this investigation, however this incident has highlighted that the robustness of any system will fail if staff do not follow the guidance and understand their obligations laid out in said system, as the implications of their actions ultimately fall back on the Operator.
Thankfully no one was injured or even worse as a result of this incident occurring. The Operator has also provided a detailed response to the shortcomings in their systems which have led to this entirely preventable incident occurring and assurances of how they intend to prevent incidents of a similar nature occurring in the future.
Driver, Simon John Hartley, resigned from the employment of Telford’s Coaches Ltd on 12th November 2025. His recollection and responses to this incident were deemed crucial to the overall investigation. A formal interview was conducted at Galashiels MPTC, 1 Croft Street, Galashiels, TD1 3BH, on 14 January 2026 at 11:00 hrs. During this interview Mr Hartley stated he felt that he had received insufficient training to enable him to comply with all the requirements contained within the staff handbook. Also, at the time of the wheel detachment incident, he stated that despite repeated attempts to contact senior management and maintenance staff, no-one would answer his initial call at the time of the incident occurring. There appears to be contradicting accounts given by both the Operator and Driver regarding the incident and the level of driver training provided.”
The Examiner’s update of 18 May 2026 confirms the operator submitted a PSV112 report. 62 days had elapsed between the removal of wheels and refitment on 11 September 2025 to the detachment on 12 November 2025. The vehicle had covered around 15292Km (9502 miles) during this period, including a further Preventative Maintenance Inspection on 11 October 2025 with the mileage recorded as 81890 km. No wheels were removed and refitted during that inspection. At the time of the DVSA visit on 26 November 2025, the condition of the mated surface of the inner wheel outer face would indicate that it was highly unlikely that a proper clamping force could have been achieved between its mated surface and that and of the inner face of the outer wheel. Evidence suggested a system for ensuring wheel security, but these procedures have not been followed fully by workshop staff at the cleaning and re-assembly stage of the nearside inner and outer wheels to the vehicle at the time of its Preventative Maintenance Inspection on 11 September 2025.
Updated evidence was produced through Mr Kelly including maintenance records for X7 TEL, (X7 TCL), driver defect reports and inspection records (with brake performance tests) for HN62 DZB, X3 TCN, X7 TCL, KN20 WSX running sheet, including 12 November 2025, planners and evidence of Mr Telford’s refresher training. Mr Montgomery confirmed that inspection records had been completed to the required standard and included evidence of measured brake performance tests both decelerometer with temperature readings, and roller brake tests. Driver defect had also been completed to the required standard. The Forward Planner provided contained all the required vehicle information. There was evidence of a comprehensive wheel security monitoring system. The Operator was able to demonstrate that it had the required preventative maintenance systems in place in order to operate their vehicles in a safe condition.
Written representations suggested that “at no time did Mr Hartley advise he considered he was lacking in training in any aspect of driving the vehicles. Had he done so training would have been provided.” Representations also expressed astonishment that the driver might continue driving whilst the vehicle was vibrating or juddering. However, the operator failed to explore in any detail during the initial internal interview. The interview under caution did not really take me any further. Criticisms of the driver did not appear to be made out. Mr Telford confirmed that Driver Hartley had repeatedly raised concerns with different vehicles, but the workshop had been unable to explain the cause. Mr Telford himself had gone out with Driver Hartley. After finding nothing he had suggested that the driver might want to take some time off and there was a discussion about consulting a medical practitioner.
That said, I did not find the Driver’s suggestion of a lack of training to be made out either. I took evidence about the update training delivered after the incident and of the reaction of other drivers. I heard about the detail of the induction and other training, in addition to the engagement outlined above. The operator had taken the driver through to gain the vocational qualification. There was no opportunity for the operator to cross-examine Mr Hartley, given his decision not to attend. His last communication suggested a formal diagnosis of autism spectrum condition. The Equal Treatment Bench book advises that this is a lifelong developmental disability affecting how people communicate with others and sense the world around them. Autism is a spectrum condition and although autistic people will share certain characteristics, everyone will be different. A diagnosis may follow identification of difficulties with social communication and integration. I was told that there had been no declaration of the condition on induction and the Transport Manager was unaware that there had been a formal diagnosis.
The operator accepted that the cause of the wheel detachment was, more likely than not, due to the wheel mating surfaces not having been prepared to the appropriate standard on fitment. There appears to be little doubt given the failure to remove the wheels at the last inspection. The maintenance staff had access to a marque specific wheel fitment policy, revised 1 May 2020. Mr Mitcheson signed for receipt of a wheel procedure in February 2025. I was referred to the IRTE/ RHA Best Practice Guide on Wheel Security: “it is essential that all mating surfaces are spotlessly clean and free from damage.” Luke Mitcheson is reported as saying “In regard to the wheel for KN20 WSX, when replacing the wheel, I cleaned it with a needle gun then the buffing disc on the grinder. When I was finished, I inspected the wheel and thought it was clean enough to go back on.” He was recruited in or about February 2025. He left a year later.
Rod Swan was described as the senior mechanic but was not the supervisor. Both had been trained. Whilst there may have been ‘no constraint on Mr Mitcheson,’ I am unclear how the quality of work by this relatively new entrant was checked. He recorded that “Faces cleaned studs OK” on 16 September 2025, but that cannot have been the case to result in the condition described by Mr Montgomery. The statement of Rod Swan dated 20 May 2026 refers to advice given to Luke regarding wheel preparation when he started in the garage in early 2025. He was told to ensure all loose rust was removed from surfaces, including we’ll facings and finish this off using a flattening disc before inspecting condition and re fitment. Queries were to be with Mr swan. He understood that initial additional advice had been given by the transport manager, to use a soft wire wheel to clean any dirt or residue from the actual studs, in addition to the practical demonstration. In this case the endorsement does not assist. Mr Swan refers to conversations with Mr Montgomery about varying sources of advice. Mr Montgomery referred to the legal requirements under the construction and use regulations.
It was clear that the operation had grown significantly which had stretched some of the compliance systems. I was told that gate checks had been occurring, but they were not written down. The old adage: if it isn’t recorded, it didn’t happen was not lost on Mr Telford, but the position was indicative of the trust he placed in the system and his people. As he acknowledged in evidence we are “all humans, and we all mess things up” but the control measures and recording did not reflect that insight. Things have now changed and that needs to be sustained. It is important that Mr Telford scrutinise the records and standards employed if he is to exercise effective and continuous management.
Determination
Based on the evidence summarised above, I was satisfied that I should record adverse findings in respect of the following sections: 17(3)(a) – statement to abide by conditions on the licence to notify changes in respect of the Transport Manager, 17(3)(aa) – undertakings (vehicles to be kept fit and serviceable, effective driver defect reporting based on the absent gate checks, complete maintenance records).
This very serious incident resulted in the DVSA intervention. The outcome of that report identified the majority of areas where there was evidence of acceptable systems. I noted that there has been no previous intervention by a Traffic Commissioner. Unsurprisingly, the MIVR identified ineffective wheel security systems after the incident with KN20 WSX. The preceding Preventative Maintenance Inspection noted wheel off x 3 and torque by the assistant fitter. His record appeared inconsistent with findings after the event. I am satisfied that Mr Swan did not quality assure that work. The wheels were torqued and retorqued in the intervening period. The inspection on 11 October 2025 identified no issues. A month later the wheel detached. Mr Telford referred to the introduction of wheel nuts and studs on vehicles over 2 years old, and second‑hand vehicles.
Noting all of the evidence, I agreed with Mr Kelly’s assessment and that the case now fell within the MODERATE category for intervention. This was not a revocation case.
I had the opportunity to hear from Mr Telford and regarding his long history in the industry. I heard about his approach to compliance. I was assured as to his personal standards and the approach he took, but the operation had long outgrown a time when he was able to conduct all the inspections himself. He placed trust in long standing employees, but accepted in cross examination that, whilst he exercised oversight, more was required of effective and continuous management. In many ways the operator was a model, contacting the RHA after the event to conduct an objective review of its processes. Mr Telford went beyond the basic requirements where work would be recorded on the Preventative Maintenance Inspection form, creating a specific document to record the cleaning of the mating surfaces. He had recognised the risk from corrosion. He had also given additional instruction to the original fitters. However, the control measures did not extend to scrutinising human factors i.e. he was satisfied that the experienced Mr Swan was present to supervise the work of Mr Mitcheson, but there was no formality to that process or even in line management. Too much store was placed in their judgement, based on previous experience with large operators. The workshop staff has changed with the departure of Mr Mitcheson earlier this year, to be replaced by a Mr Bowman. Regulatory action is not a punishment to reflect the seriousness of an individual event. Going forward there must be checks and deterrent action was required to underpin future compliance. The Transport Manager and the operator were warned that their respective repute had been tarnished by these events.
I took account of the impact of any regulatory intervention and took evidence regarding current operations, including the reliance of local authorities in Scotland and in Cumbria. I therefore imposed a condition; in effect curtailing the licence authority to 25 vehicles from 23:45 tonight. I allowed 7 days for the return of the disc.
Driver
The operator paid for PCV training for Simon Hartley in 2023. There was an error in the dates supplied to DVSA. Driver Hartley was first employed from 3 May 2023 to 3 November 2023, then 31 January 2024 to 12 November 2025. The Director apparently monitored him though the induction process, undertaken by a former employee, Andrew Vlemmiks. Mr Hartley was considered to be a conscientious driver and left his employment in 2024 on good terms, returning some three months later. Mr Hartley had made specific requests for the specific vehicles, and to drive certain routes, which were accommodated. It was suggested that he provided only one driver defect report on 9 August 2025, for the 15-month period, but this did not appear to have been raised. I revert to my findings in respect of the gate checks, above.
The relevant legislation is set out in Sections 110-122 of The Road Traffic Act 1988. The legislation draws a clear distinction between Large Goods Vehicle (LGV) licence holders and applicants and Passenger Carrying Vehicle (PCV) licence holders and applicants. Section 112 of the 1988 Act provides that the Secretary of State shall not grant to an applicant a LGV driver’s licence or a PCV driver’s licence unless he is satisfied, having regard to his conduct, that he is a fit person to hold the licence applied for. It is section 121(1) which defines conduct - in relation to an applicant for or the holder of a LGV driver’s licence or the holder of a UK licence for the Community, his conduct as a driver of a motor vehicle.
As the Administrative Court, on the application of Meredith and Others EWHC 2975 (Admin) 18 explained that, whilst the personal circumstances of the driver are, at the preliminary stage of consideration of fitness, irrelevant to the question whether his conduct as a driver has been such as to make him unfit, save to the extent that those circumstances concern his conduct as a driver. Personal circumstances which go to mitigate the conduct itself (such as illness, or emergency, or momentary lapse of attention, or carelessness) will be relevant, while personal circumstances which would, in the ordinary sentencing exercise by a criminal court go to mitigation of penalty (such as loss of work, or other hardship, or the dependence of others upon the licence-holder) would not.
The Court in Meredith did not go on to consider the applicability of the principle of deterrence, which was considered by the Court of Session in Thomas Muir (Haulage) Limited v The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [1999] SC 86, but regulatory action undoubtedly contributes to achieving of the purpose of the legislation.
In his written representations, Driver Hartley claimed that there was an error in the summary of the events. He states that he first noticed the difference in vibration of the bus on the approach to the Canonbie turnoff after leaving Longtown, not in Carlisle and definitely not in the bus station there (as Telford’s do not use the bus station). There was approximately 4 miles then until the stop.
The email indicated that he had handed his notice (a month) on the advice of his medical practitioner due to symptoms caused by vibrations, apparently from driving on rural roads, which had aggravated an old injury. The stop occurred approximately a week away from finishing. He states that it really shook him up to the point that he has no interest in returning to work in the HGV or PCV industries. He further stated:
“Safety checks were always my priority on every shift I had for Telfords and not something I took lightly due to my autism. If any sheets with extra checks were left, these were done. Any issues encountered were reported either to the office or directly to the mechanic, either face to face or by phone, although if by phone it could take quite a while for someone to answer and involve ringing numerous people, as on this occasion.”
Mr Hartley also provided a character reference from his trainer. He stated that the thought that he might have done something wrong has played heavily on his mind.
On the evidence summarised above, I did not find it proportionate to take formal action in respect of the vocational entitlements. They are not being used at present. Mr Hartley indicated that he was not minded to do so, following the incident. However, I did find it appropriate to issue formal advice, reminding him that authorities, whether that be employers and/or DVLA Medical Branch, need to be notified of relevant medical conditions so that appropriate action can be taken, including consideration of reasonable adjustments which might include neuro-divergent training methods.
R Turfitt
Traffic Commissioner
3 June 2026