The facts Mr. King’s licence
The facts
Mr. King’s licence
Mr. King’s licence (OC1122141) was a standard operator’s licence with a start date of 30th August 2013. The continuation application by Mr. King dated 26th June 2018 contained the standard terms as to keeping the rules on drivers’ hours and tachographs and associated records, keeping vehicles in a fit and serviceable condition and driver defect reporting. At the material times Mr. King was the nominated transport manager on the licence. He applied to surrender the licence on 20th June 2021, two days after the Company’s operator’s licence was granted, but the application was not accepted.
Mr. King was called to a public inquiry to be held on 31st January 2023 by a letter dated 22nd December 2022 which identified areas of concern which we summarise as:
The issue of prohibition and fixed penalty notices in the last five years.
Breach of the undertakings as to the condition of vehicles, drivers’ hours and tachographs and driver defect reporting.
Whether Mr. King as transport manager was professionally competent and of good repute.
The detailed evidence leading to the TC’s concerns was contained primarily in a traffic examiner visit report dated 6th December 2022 from Johannah Groom and a maintenance investigation report following a visit on 4th May 2021 from Colin Brown, both of the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (“the DVSA”). Reliance was also placed on a DVSA interview with a driver, Jason Day.
Ms. Groom explained that on 4th May 2021 she began to conduct a compliance check for drivers’ hours and systems. Her report recorded one prohibition dated 16th March 2018 in respect of a tachograph which was not fitted properly and no prosecutions or fixed penalties. On the day of the visit (4th May 2021) she downloaded some data and requested the production of further information, some of which, but not all, was received on 16th May 2021. When she downloaded that data she identified a number of occasions between 27th July 2020 and 26th January 2021 which appeared to constitute infringement of the drivers’ hours and tachograph rules. In particular it appeared that Mr. Day had been using Mr. King’s driver’s card.
On 14th June 2021 Ms. Groom wrote to Mr. King requesting further information. Appointments were made for meetings with Mr. King on 2nd July (a date which Mr. King had said he was able to make), 7th July and 19th October 2021, all of which he failed to attend. He finally attended on 12th November 2021 and was interviewed under caution. Following the interview Ms. Groom concluded that Mr. King had been in hospital when his card was used and was not aware of the use made of it, but the systems in place did not highlight that that was happening. In consequence of that and his failures to attend meetings and produce documents she considered that he was not complying with the statement of intent in relation to the undertakings on the licence.
The transcript of the interview contains the following:
When asked why he did not attend the interview on 2nd July 2021 after having confirmed that he would be available, Mr. King said, “I will be honest. I panicked. I thought I was going to lose everything. I panicked. I have not been in these situations before.”
Mr. King also thought at that time that he had surrendered the licence and so would not need to provide the required documentation.
He ignored the second letter asking him to attend for interview and to provide documentation because again he panicked. He was aware it was an offence not to provide required documentation.
He was aware of drivers’ hours rules and regulations and carried out regular checks, but not as many as he should have done.
He did not check the missing mileage reports as regularly as he should.
In relation to use of his card when Mr. Day’s driving time was close to 4½ hours, Mr. King’s explanation was that he had had a motor bike accident on 19th July 2020 and was in hospital for about four weeks. His card was in his truck with all his belongings and that was how Mr. Day had been able to use it.
The reports he had done did not flag up that his card had been used.
Mr. Brown’s maintenance report showed in the “unsatisfactory” category ineffective management of driver defect reports, inability to establish contractor arrangements for inspection and maintenance and no system for tyre management arrangements. It also showed three immediate prohibition notices not identified in Ms. Groom’s report which were such as to require report to the Office of the Traffic Commissioner (“the OTC”). Mr. Brown required from Mr. King as operator and Mr. King as transport manager a written explanation of the reasons for the reported shortcomings and what was going to be done to prevent future problems.
No such written explanation had been received by the time Mr. Brown digitally signed the report on 8th July 2021, after Mr. King had missed the appointments on 2nd and 7th July. Mr. Brown did, however, write to the OTC on 28th February 2022 stating that Mr. King had decided to co-operate with him and Ms. Groom in trying to address the shortcomings noted and he had been able to check the invoices for maintenance repairs which he required.
Mr. Day’s interview was conducted on 2nd September 2021 and was also under caution. The transcript contains the following:
Mr. Day had been employed by Mr. King as a sole driver for about a year and a half but had stopped working for him about three months earlier.
On 27th July 2021 he removed his tachograph card as he was about to reach his daily driving limit and to be due for a break and drove for 37 minutes without a card before Peter Dickinson took over. The explanation was that he wanted to get a little closer to the operating centre before calling Mr. Dickinson to “rescue” him because Mr. King “used to go mad” if someone was coming out a long distance.
Most of the times put to him when Mr. King’s card was used were occasions on which he used Mr. King’s card. These were occasions in August and September 2021. He had never done anything like that before Mr. King had his bike accident.
Mr. King gave Mr. Day his card.
Mr. Day felt pressured into driving using the two cards. Because Mr. King was off the road following the accident there were two units and two trailers to finance. Mr. King would ring him up and scream down the phone at him that they could not afford to pay for everything and would tell Mr. Day to use his card.
Mr. Day did not benefit from it. He did not get any extra pay. He did as he was told.
There was no excuse and he was sorry.
- Heading
- IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the appeal be DISMISSED
- CASES REFERRED TO: Associated Provincial Picture Houses Limited v. Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 K.B. 223; Dukes Transport (Craigavon) Limited , Appeal 68/2001; Bryan Haulage Limited (No. 2) 217/200
- Introduction
- The facts Mr. King’s licence
- Mr. King as transport manager
- The Company’s licence
- The hearing before the TC
- The TC’s decision
- The appeal
- Ground 1: the finding of fact that Mr. King pressured Mr. Day into using two digital tachograph cards was wrong, arrived at in error and was based on a lack of procedural propriety
- Ground 2: the finding of fact that Mr. King and Ms. Wallace failed to admit to misleading the Office of the Traffic Commissioner in relation to the Company licence application was arrived at in error
- Ground 3: the regulatory action taken by the TC was disproportionate
- Ground 4: insufficient reasons given
- The applicable law
- Discussion
- Ground 2 (finding of failure to admit misleading the OTC)
- Ground 3 (regulatory action disproportionate)
- Ground 4 (insufficient reasons)
- Conclusions
![[2024] UKUT 47 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png)