[2025] UKUT 062 (AAC)

The present public inquiry call-up letter informed the Appellants that reports prepared by DVSA Traffic Examiner (TE) Jarvis, and DVSA Vehicle Examiner (VE) Mackie, would “form the basis of the inquiry”. The key issue, as subsequently identified in the Traffic Commissioner’s reasons for her decision, was Mr Bain’s co-operation with regulatory officials, including whether certain reports had been falsified (prepared after the stated date of preparation). We shall therefore set out the written evidence before the Commissioner about these matters.

VE Mackie’s report included the following:

“During the investigation I had to visit the operator 3 times, and it was clear that some remedial action was taking place between visits.

This meant that the final outcome was undoubtedly better than it would have been [had] I been able to gather all of the information during my first visit. Bearing this in mind I have concerns that the operator was aware of shortcomings in the maintenance processes at the time.

Response was a short general statement that advice regarding shortcomings would be complied with going forward and some blame apportioned to assistant TM who no longer works for the operator.”

TE Jarvis’ report included the following:

“On 20^th June 2022 I issued the company with a Section 99 request…for data and documents to establish what systems the company have in place and to investigate the driving without a card issues. The operator called on the 4^th of July 2022 to request further time to submit the data requested.

The data and documents were received on 25^th July but was out of date and several driver and vehicle data was missing. A further request to the operator was submitted on 20^th September. As I was unable to obtain the required data an unannounced visit was carried out with VE Mackie present on 23^rd September. Having discussed the issues with Mr Bain it was clear that he had limited knowledge with regards to the companies’ systems and did not know how to submit the requested data to me. During the visit I spoke to Billy (William Davidson) who had some involvement with the general systems within the company, but he also did not know how to access the software used by the company to submit data. There seems to be insufficient systems in place and seemed quite erratic. As Mr Bain is the nominated Transport Manager stated on the licence, he should to some degree have insight as to how the Operating licence requirements are being managed. I explained to Mr Bain that I would send a further request by email for the digital data and further information relating to the vehicles and service runs and that the request was due by 3^rd October 2022. Yet again no response to my request for the information that I have asked for.

…Driver’s journeys and duties are planned by Mr Bain. Due to being unable to produce the requested data to this there is not an effective system for the downloading and analysing of both VU and driver card data. No infringement reports were issued to me when requested. I am not certain that anyone knows how to access the software being used by the company…

…A request was made to Mr Bain to send me copies of drivers CPC certificates and there has been no reply to this request.

…I had requested the operator to submit to me which drivers were currently employed by the company, and this was not received until a later date. I did not receive any digital data for the Operator Mr Douglas Bain who I believe also carries out driving. I also requested copies of drivers CPC certificates and to date they have not been submitted to me…

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Due to the lack of sufficient up to date data and lack of documents this has been a difficult case to complete. The delays with requests that were made have also hindered the timeline in being able to establish the full facts. There are signs that the Operator has little knowledge on the importance of the undertakings involving the requirements to remain compliance with the driver’s rules and regulations.”

We note that there was no indication in the call-up letter’s case summary, nor in the reports of TE Jarvis and VE Mackie, that either examiner doubted the veracity of regulatory documentation prepared by the Appellants.