[2025] UKUT 071 (AAC)

As a general point we note from the transcript of the hearing that although Mr. Dhillon very understandably asked for an interpreter, he does speak and understand English to a considerable extent and at times responded in English without waiting for the interpreter. In what follows we identify the times when that occurred in relation to relevant material.

We draw attention to the following matters which emerge from the transcript.

The TC began by going through what he understood to be the reason for his having to consider three licences. At an early stage Mr. Dhillon said that he had ten vehicles, but agreed that the first licence, which had its operating centre in Hayes, authorised one vehicle and the second licence, which had its operating centre in Slough, authorised two vehicles and had been granted with a warning on issue. The TC made clear his understanding that three warnings had been issued in relation to the second licence (OH2017026). Mr. Dhillon asserted that the warnings were not mentioned and were not written in any letter. He was taken by the TC to the relevant letters and then said he was told to make improvements but not told what the improvements should be and the transport managers in the area did not know either.

The TC then turned to the maintenance investigation reports. He drew attention to the problems found on the December 2022 investigation. He then asked Mr. Forshaw about his report of the May 2023 investigation. Mr. Forshaw drew attention to the helpful links contained in his report. He outlined his concerns about the operating centre, the brake testing and maintenance standards, the driver defect reporting system and the retorque and wheels and tyres. He agreed with the TC that the shortcomings were the same as had been identified in December 2022. The TC then asked Mr. Dhillon what he had to say about the fact that it appeared that during the time between December 2022 and May 2023 he had not made the improvements he had promised. At this point Mr. Dhillon expanded on occasion on what the interpreter was saying, but the gist of his answer was that that they started making the improvements but things get missed. He agreed that a prohibition had been issued but said that the operating centre was on muddy ground which often had a foot of water standing on it and defects could not be seen. The TC put to him that the matters observed on 10^th May 2023 would not have been affected by the water in the operating centre and his response was to the effect that the tyres were dirty and the driver missed the indicator defects because the water was muddy. Mr. Forshaw was asked if he wished to comment and said if there were issues with the condition of the operating centre his advice would be to move the vehicle somewhere else where a thorough and robust first use check could be carried out. He also said that unless the vehicle was submerged the indicator should be clearly visible and there would be a warning on the dashboard to alert the driver.

The next topic was the desk-based assessment carried out on 1^st February 2024. The TC briefly identified the concerns and asked Mr. Dhillon what he had to say. Mr. Dhillon said, speaking partly in English, that the preventative maintenance inspections had improved a lot. As we understand it he said that there were some matters, such as braking and temperature checks, that they had asked the maintenance people to carry out and they had missed it. He also said that they had now moved the office to the operating centre and when they had the new operating licence all three vehicles would be in one place and they would surrender the other licences. The maintenance providers would be in the same yard. He recognised that “small things, minor things” were missing at the moment but said that they had made contact with a transport consultant company which would visit every three or four months and advise them. He also referred to difficulties as a result of English being a second language. The TC asked when the improvements had been done and the answer was after the December 2022 and May 2023 investigations.

The TC then took Mr. Dhillon to Mr. Forshaw’s report of 12^th June 2024 and drew attention to what was stated about the tyres on vehicle DX64BDO. He expressed concern that Mr. Dhillon had been warned about the tyres on 15^th April 2024 but it was not picked up in the driver defect report of 25^th May 2024 and four or five days later the maintenance inspector said the tyres were illegal. Mr. Dhillon explained that the vehicle had been parked up for 10-15 days and was only used on one day. The tyres were fine on the outside but worn on the inside. The interpreter originally got this the other way round, saying that the tyres were fine on the inside, but was corrected in English by Mr. Dhillon, who went on to say that that was what he missed. The vehicle was only used for one or two days and they were waiting for the MOT, when the tyres would have been changed.

The question of the intermittent ABS lamp was also pursued. Mr. Forshaw explained that intermittent operation could potentially indicate that a wheel bearing was starting to fail. It therefore needed to be investigated, although an aggressive wheel wash might cause the light to come on for a period. The TC commented that there were driver detectable faults coming out at inspections but some daily defect reports included noting of repairs. Mr. Dhillon agreed that if water went in it could cause the light to go on and said that if the light did not go off the mechanic “right there” would check the vehicle. He had checked it and said there was no problem.

The TC then turned to missing mileage, raising the question of the 165 kilometres on 19^th August 2023. Mr. Dhillon in effect gave (in English) the explanation which is set out in the letter of 11^th June 2024 quoted in paragraph 24 above. The TC seems to have accepted such an explanation for a missing 177 kilometres between 20^th and 25^th October 2023 on the basis that the card had not been read and there seemed to be some problem with the card.

The TC also put to Mr. Dhillon the working hours infringements, pointing out that Mr. Dhillon seemed to be taking his breaks in the wrong order and for not enough time. Mr. Dhillon’s answer was that sometimes they had to move the vehicle because of congestion, which split up the break.

The TC then began the task of balancing the negative aspects of the case with the positive aspects. He identified the positives as having a new maintenance provider in Iver, having changed the system for walk round checks and having improved in other areas. Mr. Dhillon agreed that that was correct. The move to Iver took place when the new application was made, in August 2023. The TC asked whether Mr. Dhillon had anything to say which would convince him that Mr. Dhillon would be fully compliant if the licence was allowed to continue. Mr. Dhillon said that they had worked very hard to compile the paperwork in January and February and if there was anything still that they needed to improve, they would improve further. The vehicles did not do more than 10,000 kilometres a year and each was driven only three days a week, but they needed three vehicles, one to collect the material and two to go out to deliver the concrete. We note that this passage in the evidence involved some intervention in English by Mr. Dhillon to correct what the interpreter was saying and some response from the interpreter, also in English, to the effect that he had said the opposite before.

At the bottom of page 18 of the transcript (p.409 of the bundle), the TC referred to his power to disqualify the Company or Mr. Dhillon and said:

“I want to emphasise I haven’t made my decision yet, but if I don’t ask him now, I’d be criticised because you have to give people the chance to comment. Does he want to say anything about that?”

We think the intention of the TC was to give Mr. Dhillon the opportunity to comment on the possibility of disqualification. Mr. Dhillon’s response was in English, in terms of now having everything in the record, training drivers on reporting defects, keeping AdBlue records and doing walk around checks. He also referred again to the transport consultant and promised that the preventative maintenance inspections (we think) would be made “more standard according to the requirement”. He mentioned the sum of £17,000 or £18,000 spent in the quiet time of January and February. This answer seems more obviously applicable to the issue of future compliance and does not address the possible consequences of disqualification.

The TC then asked Mr. Forshaw if there was anything else he had in mind to say. Mr. Forshaw said that if the licence were to continue, he would like a commitment to laden roller brake testing at every inspection. As he put it:

“Decelerometer testing has its place, but Mr. Dhillon has got two vehicles that are volumetrics, and they operate at the designed limit. So, any degradation in brake performance is magnified …”

There had been intermittent roller brake testing, but some of it was partially laden. Mr. Dhillon stated that roller brake testing was done three times a year and was always laden and decelerometer testing was at every inspection. The TC explained that Mr. Forshaw had said he wanted roller brake testing each time. The hearing concluded with a further assurance from Mr. Dhillon that they would implement the full rules and do everything according to the requirements.