A DVSA roadside stop identified extensive periods of “unknown driver” movements in the VU stopped and infringement’s including MSI’s on the driver card. This resulted in a formal request for driver and VU data for 3 vehicles. The transport manager failed to send the driver data and the VU data revealed significant missing mileage across the vehicles.
The drivers of those vehicles, the director and the transport manager were all called to interviews under caution as part of the investigation.
During the investigation a TEVR was conducted that resulted in a mostly satisfactory outcome, indicative of the measures that had been put in place following the commencement of the investigation.
Nevertheless the case was listed for a Public Inquiry for the Commissioner to consider the transport managers good repute and whether to take action against the licence holder. Simultaneous driver conduct hearings were also listed for 2 drivers.
The drivers had all indicated in their interviews that infringements were not being brought to their attention and no one in management ever discussed with them the periods of driving off card.
This was a clear case of failing to monitor drivers hours. Both the transport manager and the director accepted this.
Despite the improvements made the outcome of the hearing was a loss of good repute for the transport manager. In his oral decision the Commissioner stated the seriousness of the lack of driver management could not be overstated and was a clear risk to road safety. The commissioner also placed significant weight on the failure to provide all information as requested and the transport managers previous formal warning.
These negative features carried sufficient weight (when balanced against the improvements) to justify a loss of good repute and a disqualification for a period of 12 months for the Transport Manager.
Catherine Gilder had advised the operator from the outset that this was a serious case, and advised the operator to remove the transport manager, apply for a period of grace and to nominate a new transport manager.
That advice was crucial as it meant that the Commissioner could accept the new nominated transport manager on the day of the hearing and allow the operator to retain their operator’s licence (although the previous Transport Manager was disqualified).
This decision to remove the former Transport Manager also showed foresight by the operator, demonstrated that they took the matter extremely seriously and demonstrated tangible changes, not just promises.
The result for the operator was positive. The licence was not revoked. However, the directors lack of oversight (in making sure that the transport manager was exercising “effective and continuous control”) resulted in the Commissioner ordering a curtailment of authority from 14 vehicles to 8 for 3 weeks.
This followed detailed questioning on the effect of a suspension. The Commissioner was persuaded to draw back from suspension due to the operators’ contracts being subject to a condition that work could not be subcontracted to a 3rd party.
