PROHIBITION NOTICES
Page 46
Page 47
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A growing number of operators believe that the Vehicle Inspectorate's vehicle examiners issue prohibition notices like guests throwing confetti at a wedding. The VI, not surprisingly, takes a rather different view...
Douglas Chadwick, managing director of container operator DT&P Chadwick in Liverpool, is among haulage insiders who support the activities of the Vehicle Inspectorate's vehicle examiners. "It is well known that the VI has become increasingly active," he says. "Operators have to ask themselves why the results continue to be so poor. If the VI keeps finding operators carrying on the way they do, I don't think you can criticise these activities." But that view is far from universal—a number of hauliers have told CM they believe the VI's targeting procedure is missing the target, leading to an increasing number of vehicle prohibitions (PG9s) being issued at the roadside.
One, with depots throughout the country, says: "There is a lack of flexibility when it comes to the VI's attitude towards some companies. It no longer has the level of staffing, and the district offices no longer have the time, to absorb the ethos of the companies in their area. You can find yourself before a public inquiry suspected of actions that nobody who knows anything about the company would ever consider to be true.
"To be fair to the VI," he adds, "I think the problems are a result of a serious skills shortage and a lack of resources to provide the proper training," Another haulier believes this inflexibility leads to the imposition of unnecessary PG9s: "Some of the minor defects that they are handing out, either immediate or delayed, are for reasons that are a little irksome to say the least. You get one for a tail-light bulb or something like that and then you find yourself facing either a full test or a partial test depending how they feel," Many operators genuinely believe that they are victims of unfair targeting by VI personnel. One of them reports: "If there's a nationwide check going on, you can be sure that one of mine will be pulled somewhere in the country. I've only got 10 vehicles and on average they're pulled over to the roadside about two or three times a month. My feeling is that if a vehicle advertises itself as being from some parts of the country, it's more likely to be considered worthy of further investigation than if it came from another, and it makes you wonder why."
Immediate prohibition
As every operator knows, there are two kinds of PG9. The PG9(I) is an immediate prohibition which means the vehicle cannot move. It can be issued by a VI vehicle examiner or by a police officer 'authorised to do so by a Chief Constable", The PG9(D) is a deferred prohibition. This allows the vehicle to proceed to a place where the defect can be rectified but it must follow the most direct route. Only vehicle examiners can issue PG9(1))s. A vehicle will normally be required to pass a new annual test to clear either type of PG9. The Vehicle Defect Rectification Scheme covers light vehicles; under this scheme no prosecution will be made if the fault is rectified within a specified period.
VI figures indicate that during the enforcement period 1995-6 around 15% of the vehicles stopped at roadside tests were issued with prohibitions; the figure was almost unchanged during 1996-7 (see table 1). That consistency extended to the latest Operation Mermaid, a co-ordinated series of HGV checks staged on 10 September, when PG9s were issued to some 14% of the vehicles stopped (see table 2).
Not surprisingly, the VI does not believe that its examiners are biased towards operators from particular parts of the country. It says that, far from being under-resourced, it has enjoyed increased funding in recent years. At the same time more accurate targeting, made possible by new intelligence gathering units, has focused its resources to make it , more effective.
So how are operators "targeted"? PC Bob Nockalls of the West Midlands Police Traffic Intelligence Unit co-ordinates the regional checks which comprise each Operation Mermaid. At a roadside check some vehicles are randomly selected and others are seen to be overloaded or in obvious breach of some other regulation. But the vehicle examiners are also made aware of the local operators who merit close attention.
The police are not the only source of such information. The Freight Transport and Road
Haulage Associations are also keen to finger the cowboys, and Traffic Area Offices are a major source of accumulated evidence. One TAO administrative director says: "Every Traffic Area has a Licensing Review Board (LRB) which might meet every three to four weeks. Typically, it might deal with 20 cases a month. It is chaired by an administrative director, the VI has a representation and so does the licensing secretariat. This secretariat provides the intelligence from any agency which has a finger in the pie of road transport enforcement." These authorities include Customs & Excise, the DVLA, •the Police and the Vehicle Registration Office. "Whether the PG9 is issued by the police or a vehicle examiner, we receive copies of the most serious ones," he adds. "The "S" means the fault is considered the result of a serious breakdown in maintenance procedures. All of these are entered into a disciplinary file and acted upon in context— for example, if there have been several over a period of three or four weeks."
But he stresses that action at LRB level is not cut and dried: "We don't add up the prohibitions and get a certain result. It might lead to a written warning; we might call them up for an interview, or we could call for an inspection. It could also lead to a public inquiry."
Vehicle examiners However, he agrees that there has been a narrowing of the framework in which the vehicle examiners are allowed to operate. The VI publishes a guide called The Categorisation of Defects which defines the actions of the vehicle examiners when confronted with certain defects. A major revision of this guide was published at the beginning of November.
"It tells the vehicle examiner at the roadside what must be done in black and white," he explains, "whereas the examiner of old might not have been so tight. The cynic might say that this has been introduced to drive the prohibition rate up, but at the end of the day the guide is also available to operators as well." At just over £20, it sounds like a worthwhile investment. The perception that enforcement is increasing will be reinforced next May when the VI's computerised TARDIS system finally comes on line. According to the TAO administrative director, it will establish an "intricate computer communication and data transfer network accessing over 90 site locations and 450 mobile data users".
It's hard to say how the new TARDIS system will affect the issue of PG9s, but it is sure to revolutionise the compilation of evidence available to the VI and the LRBs. Anything which sharpens the focus on operators who regularly threaten the commercial activities of the legitimate majority, as well as the safety of other road users, has to be perceived as a good thing.
0 by Steve McQueen
Do not pass go...
VI figures: 1995-6
Vehicles stopped 36,266 Prohibitions issued 5,702 Proportion 15.72% VI figures: 1996-7 Vehicles stopped 40,455 Prohibitions issued 6,795 Proportion 16.79% In 1996-7 4,189 more vehicles were stopped, producing an extra 1,093 prohibitions. This is 26.09% of the increase, which could suggest targeting is working.
Police figures: Operation Mermaid, 10 September 1997.
Vehicles stopped 5,926 Immediate prohibitions 449 Delayed prohibitions 386