How good records saved one operator's repute
Page 31
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
In a recent public inquiry in the North Eastern Traffic Area, an operator was called to a disciplinary inquiry. The calling-in letter set out the statutory provisions, which are alleged to have been breached as follows:
• Convictions; • Convictions of the operator; • Convictions of servants or agents (drivers); • Prohibition notices; • A false statement of expectation or fact; • Undertaking not fulfilled; • Question raised as to good repute; • Question raised with regard to appropriate financial standing.
This all sounds horrendous.
The evidence in support of calling a public inquiry was the report from the VI concerning the use of vehicles with defective speed limiters and, in one case, a defective tachograph, which resulted in prosecutions; the nature of the systems in place to analyse tachograph records; and the disciplinary procedures taken should tachograph anomalies be noted.
There was also a report from the police regarding a fatal road traffic accident and the examining of tachograph charts of the vehicle. It contained:
• List of vehicle roadworthiness prohibitions; • List of convictions for the operator and employees;
0 Warning letter following an overloading prosecution;
• Warning letter following a previous unsatisfactory maintenance investigation; Warning letter following a further Unsatisfactory maintenance investigation; • Warning letter following notification of previous convictions; • Convictions not notified within the statutory period: • Consideration of appropriate financial standing;
• Breach of undertakings as to drivers' hours, overloading, maintenance of vehicles, drivers' defect reporting and financial resources;
Failure to notify convictions; Failure to comply with a statement of fact or expectation contained hi the 0-licence application,
Summary of the facts
The facts were that there was a fatal road traffic accident involving a driver employed by the operator. The driver was not at fault. The tachograph was found to have a broken hinge, but was recording correctly except in respect of distance.
The police took charts for three months, and prepared a schedule of analysis detailing 300-400 offences, without specifying the detail.
The company had had 13 prohibitions over the previous five years. It had been convicted of drivers' hours offences in 1998 and, following the accident in 1998, having defective two-yearly tachograph checks, tachographs not recording properly, driver exceeding daily drivers' hours and speed-limiter offences.
When the evidence was examined, in the view of the officer none of the drivers' hours breaches was deliberate, for commercial gain, and nor was road safety jeopardised. It seemed the main problem was that drivers were not completing the centre field details—
names, destinations, odometer readings, vehicle registrations, date, mode switch moving from other work to rest; that breaks were of insufficient duration to a minor extent, such as 13 minutes instead of 15; that speed limiters were defective and not repaired; that tachographs became defective and were not repaired properly; and that the same offences were repeated over and over. He took the view that this was sloppy management and sloppiness by the drivers. This was reaffirmed by the VI.
There was no report from the VI, and it was accepted that the company's maintenance systems were satisfactory.
Decision
The Traffic Commissioner accepted that there was no mandatory loss of repute for the operator, even though he had had two court appearances, each involving a number of offences and convictions. The TC was satisfied that repute was "just saved". He called all the drivers in and gave them a warning about their fitness to drive HGVs because of the infringements. The driver in the accident received a four-month suspension.
The operator's licence was curtailed by removing the margin. The TC wanted to demonstrate the controls were in place and working. At the start of the inquiry he had been thinking of revoking it.
This case demonstrates the need for indepth investigation of any allegations so as to present the operator's best case, and that what some operators consider insignificant offences are not in the eyes of police or TCs. It also shows that operators need to comply t00% with their undertakings and obligations. If the matter had gone to the magistrates' court guilty pleas would have had to be entered, and though each offence might have carried a fine of only f25 or ko the total would have been massive.
Drivers who are not controlled can have a dramatic effect on whether or not an operator loses his business. Operators must not be complacent: infringements for minor offences, such as mode switches, centre field details and missed calibration dates, can be significant when it comes to retaining the Operator's Licence, which is a privilege, not a right.