Having represented a large number of transport companies at Public Inquiry hearings before the Traffic Commissioner over the years, I have found that a number of repeat compliance failings come up again and again. Prevention is always better than cure. In most of these cases, a little action to address these problems at an early stage would have meant the difference between running a safe and reputable business and undergoing the stress, strain and expense of an Inquiry.
So, what are some of the main compliance failings that could be placing your transport company at risk?
1. Your transport manager is spread too thin
It is not uncommon in the transport industry for a director to also be the transport manager. This arrangement can work well for a small operation with just a few vehicles. The position becomes more complicated once the business has expanded, more drivers have been taken on, and the fleet is spread across a number of different operating centres or even traffic areas. What may originally have been a manageable task for a transport manager, is now increasingly difficult.
The legal requirement is for a transport manager to exercise “continuous and effective management of the transport operations of the business”. A director whose responsibilities include dealing with customers, overseeing business development projects, and managing staffing and HR issues, is unlikely to find much time to also focus on operator licensing compliance.
If this sounds familiar, the time to act is now. Options might include:
- engaging additional compliance support staff or, better still, an additional transport manager,
- replacing yourself as a transport manager with a dedicated, full time transport manager CPC holder.
Ultimately a director and transport manager who does not have their eye on the ball places their licence and their good repute at risk.
2. Your financial standing levels are in the red
Having enough finance available at all times to properly maintain your vehicles is a mandatory requirement. All too often this requirement goes by the wayside after the initial application for the operator’s licence has been granted. It can be all too easy for a business suffering cash flow problems to close its eyes and assume all will be okay once they have traded out the bad patch. This approach is of course a recipe for disaster.
The office of the Traffic Commissioner is entitled at any time to require a transport company to demonstrate that they have the minimum level of funds available to them for the number of vehicles they operate. This is usually calculated as an average over the three-month period leading up to the request. Operators who cannot demonstrate this, or who seek to rely on vague unwritten assurances from a lender or a friend are playing with fire.
One of the conditions all applicants for a licence must sign up to, is to notify the Traffic Commissioner of any material change to the finances of the business. If these are entering a rough patch, the correct approach is to:
- contact the Commissioner’s office,
- explain the problem you find yourself in
- outline what it is that you intend to do about it
- and to request a period of grace
Responsible operators who approach the Commissioner’s office in this way will usually be met with a reasonable and pragmatic response.
There are of course a great many ways a transport company can demonstrate financial standing and there is even an entire statutory guidance document on this tricky subject. When in doubt take some professional advice from a transport solicitor regulatory solicitor.
3. Your maintenance arrangements are out of sight and out of mind
As the holder of an operator’s licence, the responsibility for ensuring proper maintenance of your vehicles lands on the directors and transport managers the business. It can be all too tempting to outsource your maintenance arrangements to a third party without ensuring that you maintain robust and ongoing oversight. Robust oversight includes:
- properly auditing your preventative maintenance inspection (PMI) reports,
- cross-referencing them with your driver’s daily defect inspection reports,
- ensuring all declarations of roadworthiness are being signed off,
- investigating any MOT failures,
- checking roller brake test results
Remember, the Traffic Commissioner has no power to compel a maintenance provider to attend a Public Inquiry. If your provider is cutting corners with your maintenance, the responsibility for identifying and addressing the problem falls on you as the operator. What is more, every time a vehicle fails an MOT inspection, your operator compliance risk score (OCRS) is harmed. This increases the likelihood that your vehicles will be pulled over by the DVSA and subjected to a full maintenance inspection.
So what next?
Aside from the above, there are of course a great many other reasons operators can be called to a Public Inquiry hearing with the Traffic Commissioner. These are just some of the most common ones. In my experience, the vast majority of haulage companies that run into regulatory problems care greatly about road safety and fair competition. Problems usually arise when:
- knowledge is lacking or out-of-date,
- a business expands too fast, or undergoes a difficult restructuring,
- new and inexperienced staff members are brought on,
- cash flow problems arise
As the Traffic Commissioners will be the first to point out however, this can be little comfort to somebody killed or injured on the roads as a result of a poorly maintained vehicle.
When in doubt, consider commissioning an independent compliance audit to stress test your business. It is better to identify and fix problems at an early stage before a DVSA roadside stop or desk-based assessment takes place. If, however you are already undergoing a DVSA investigation or have an upcoming Public Inquiry hearing with the Traffic Commissioner, you really should seek legal advice from a transport solicitor straightaway.
Chris Powell was a road transport
regulatory solicitor at Rothera Bray.
