Decision for Warrington Property Maintenance Ltd (OM1085590)
Written decision of the Deputy Traffic Commissioner for Scotland for Warrington Property Maintenance Ltd
IN THE SCOTTISH TRAFFIC AREA
WARRINGTON PROPERTY MAINTENANCE LIMITED OM1085590
DECISION OF THE DEPUTY TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER FOR SCOTLAND
Decision
I accept the undertaking to employ a transport manager. I direct that a transport manager should be employed within two months, by 2 April 2026.
The authorisation on the licence is curtailed from 3 vehicles to 2 vehicles with effect from 23:59 2 April 2026.
Background
Warrington Property Maintenance Ltd OM1085590 was granted a restricted goods vehicle operator licence on 09/02/2009. The current authorisation is for three vehicles. There is no previous compliance history.
The call to public inquiry
The operator was called to public inquiry by letter dated 20th May 2025. The letter set out issues of concern including:-
A vehicle had been issued with a prohibition notice by the DVSA - s.26(1)(c)(iii) of the 1995 Act.
Statements that had been made when applying for the licence had not been fulfilled – s.26(1)(e):-
- Vehicles would be inspected at 6 week intervals
- Safety inspections and maintenance and repair work would be carried out by David Sibbald Commercials
The operator had not honoured undertakings that it signed up to when it applied for its licence – s.26(1)(f):-
- Vehicles would be kept fit and serviceable
- The rules on drivers hours and tachographs would be observed and proper records would be kept
- Records of driver defect reports, safety inspections and routine maintenance would be kept for 15 months and made available on request
- Drivers would report promptly any defects or symptoms of defects that could prevent the safe operation of vehicles and any defects would be promptly recorded in writing
The factual background was set out in the Case Summary. On the 26/11/2024 vehicle KE06 FSA, during an annual test inspection, at AJH Garage Services Ltd, Bathgate, Lothian and Borders, was issued an S marked prohibition. The DVSA examiner identified that both front axle tyres were found to be over 10 years old, and date codes were not visible.
Following the prohibition notice an announced maintenance investigation took place on the 24/02/2025 by DVSA vehicle examiner (VE) Graeme Paterson. The investigation found several shortcomings in the company’s operations, with the following areas being marked as ‘unsatisfactory’ or ‘report to OTC’.
Unsatisfactory:
- Driver defect reporting
Mr Warrington had obtained a new unused driver defect book once he had learned of the proposed visit. There was no evidence of any previous driver defect recording system.
- Inspection facilities & maintenance arrangements
VE Paterson identified that the declared safety inspection providers, David Sibbald Commercials, had not been recently used to carry out the required safety inspections for the specified vehicles on the licence. Instead PLA Automotive was conducting maintenance work.
- Wheel & tyre management
There was no evidence of a system for the effective monitory in wheel security. Nor was there any system in place for monitoring tyre changes carried out by an external provider.
- Load security
The operator was unable to respond satisfactorily to questions about load security. There was no evidence of appropriate training of drivers in load security.
Report to OTC:
- Inspection/maintenance records
The operator admitted that no safety inspection records existed for any of the three vehicles on the licence.VE Paterson identified that there was no forward planning, VOR system, or defect reporting in place.
- Prohibition Assessment
The prohibition issued on the 26/11/2024.
- Responsible person assessment
VE Paterson was of the opinion that the identified responsible person, Derek Warrington, did not have the effective and continuous management control required. This was based upon the amount of maintenance related shortcomings that were identified during the maintenance investigation.
The operator responded to the maintenance investigation on 21/03/2025. VE Paterson was of the opinion that the operator had provided acceptable assurances to remedy the shortcomings identified.
The operator had seven annual tests over the last 5 years which resulted in four initial fails -an initial fail rate of 57.14% (national average: 12.14%). The operator had an Operator Compliance Risk Score of Grey.
The Public Inquiry
The Public Inquiry was held at Edinburgh on 2 July 2025. The operator was represented by Derek Warrington, a director. Stephen Notley attended as a witness for the operator. Stephen Notley was a transport manager who had been assisting the operator since the DVSA investigation. VE Graeme Paterson did not attend as the operator had not requested his attendance.
The evidence
Mr Warrington did not dispute the evidence of VE Paterson as set out in the MIVR and summarised above at paragraphs 5 and 6. Mr Warrington explained that the business had been started by his parents. The operator had a large and varied commercial and residential property rental portfolio. It also carried out building work and repairs and refurbishment for national insurers and for shopping centres. It had about 17 light vehicles that were used on a daily basis. The operator had 3 large goods vehicles. One was a dumper truck, one was a tipper and one was a box van. The box van had been off the road for years however he accepted that there was no proper VOR system. The tipper was only used when there had been a major weather event causing structural damage. The plan for going forward was to use dumper truck and the tipper. They used a maintenance provider called PLA. The dumper truck and the tipper were being maintained by PLA who looked at them every couple of weeks. The problem was their record keeping system had not been up to the required standard. Similarly drivers were checking vehicles when they were being used, but because it was so infrequent they did not have proper records. The prohibition had been issued because the box van, which was not being used, had tyres that were over 10 years old. There should have been a proper VOR system in place.
Mr Notley had come on board at the beginning of April, before the call to public inquiry. He had created a plan to remedy the problems which VE Paterson had accepted, if implemented, would address VE Paterson’s concerns - see page 40-43 of the Brief. Both Mr Warrington and Mr Notley assured me that these changes had been implemented and the operator was now compliant. I accepted their evidence.
Findings in fact
As the VE’s evidence as set out in the MIVR was accepted by the operator I do not need to make formal findings in fact. In summary this is an operator that in the past had poor, or no systems in place. The large goods vehicles had been used infrequently which had caused Mr Warrington to be complacent about his lack of knowledge of what was required in order for his to have continuous and effective management of the transport operation. I accept that vehicles that were being used were being maintained.
Breaches of legislation
A vehicle had been issued with a prohibition notice by the DVSA see s.26(1)(c)(iii) of the 1995 Act.
A statements that had been made when applying for the licence had not been fulfilled – s.26(1)(e) as safety inspections and maintenance and repair work not being carried out by the declared maintenance provider.
The operator had not honoured undertakings that it signed up to when it applied for its licence – s.26(1)(f):-
- Proper records were not kept to comply with the rules on drivers hours and tachographs.
- Records of driver defect reports, safety inspections and routine maintenance were not kept for 15 months and were, therefore, not available on request.
- Written records of driver defects were not kept.
Relevant considerations
I am satisfied that this is an operator that can be trusted to be compliant in the future. I accept that the vehicles were being maintained and that on the infrequent occasions when they were on the road, they were in a fit and serviceable condition. The record keeping was, however, not a satisfactory standard. The problem that this operator had, in common with many other restricted licence holders, was that Mr Warrington was ignorant of the requirements to have proper systems in place to run a compliant transport operation.
I am satisfied that Mr Warrington learned from his discussions with VE Paterson. He took appropriate steps to obtain assistance from Mr Notley, who came on board within 4 weeks of the MIVR inspection. Mr Notley has assisted Mr Warrington to put the systems in place to ensure that the operator is compliant.
Mr Warrington offered an undertaking to employ a transport manager to provide me with the comfort that the operator would continue to be compliant. He explained that although they have authority for 3 vehicles, they only needed authority for 2 vehicles.
Decision
I accept the undertaking to employ a transport manager. I direct that a transport manager should be employed within two months, by 2 April 2026. If, in the future, the operator wishes to remove the undertaking I would expect the operator to provide evidence of compliance such as an independent audit.
Although this is not an operator that needs to be put out of business, I consider that it is appropriate to curtail the licence from 3 vehicles to 2 vehicles, with effect from 23:59 2 April 2026, to mark regulatory disapproval of operating without proper systems in place. Ignorance of the requirements of running a complaint transport operation, although all too common with restricted licence holders, is not excusable. If the operator needs more vehicles in the future, then I would expect the operator to put in an application supported by evidence of compliance such as an independent audit.
Hugh J. Olson
Deputy Traffic Commissioner for Scotland
5 February 2026