[2025] UKUT 217 (AAC)

The operator is issued with a clear and strong warning of the need to ensure full compliance in the future and to take action immediately to resolve the shortcomings within its maintenance provider, or to change providers.

The good repute of Anthony Brayley-Willmetts is lost and he is disqualified from acting as such for a period of one year and until he sits and passes again the Transport Manager certificate of professional competence.

The good repute of Zena Gillbard as Transport Manager is marked as tarnished.

19.Finances are satisfactory.

20.It was accepted that vehicles had been parking at an unauthorised site. From the DVSA and the operator’s evidence, it is clear that the unauthorised site was a normal place for the vehicles to be kept so I find that Section 26(1)(a) is made out. There are mitigating features in that the location was itself an operating centre and not unsuitable, and the operator still had its main site. A prompt application was made once prompted by Mr Ball.

21.One prohibition has been issued to a vehicle for three items. I discount one of them as the exhaust was planned to be repaired the same day and the item was marked as delayed. Mr Brayley-Willmetts told me that the tyre defects could have been fresh and would have been found by a driver before the vehicle went out the following day. The tyre defects are described as follows:

22.Vehicle Examiner Williams says “the tyre prohibition defects would likely have been present at the last driver walkaround check and possibly longer from the condition of the tyre”. Whilst it may just be possible that two tyre defects occurred the previous day, more likely than not, and having regard to the Vehicle Examiner’s comments, at least one, probably both, were of longstanding. Section 26(1)(c)(iii) is made out.

23.The SIPCAT identifies that 6% of safety inspections were late, meaning that 94% were on time. It is one out of seventeen inspections and it is late by precisely 6 weeks. It seems more likely than not that the record is missing. I do not find Section 26(1)(e) made out.

24.Vehicles have not been kept fit and serviceable as can be seen from the serious defects found during safety inspections. Defects such as loose wheel nuts indicate a failed driver defect process. Section 26(1)(f) is made out.

25.I find that the more serious of these adverse findings are as a result of poor transport management rather than a direct failing of the operator, notwithstanding that every operator is expected to maintain oversight over their Transport Manager. I do not find that the shortcomings require me to interfere with the business. There is no margin and there are written and binding contractual commitments to the point that a suspension order is likely to cause the business to fail.

26.There are two Transport Managers. Zena Gillbard is recently qualified and has no technical background. The partnership decided to retain the services of a second, technically-qualified, Transport Manager to act as a mentor and that would, on the face of it, seem a sensible and cautious approach. Ms Gillbard’s focus is on those elements of compliance associated with a Traffic Examiner role such as driver licensing and working time compliance. The compliance documents in this area presented at the hearing showed significant improvement. The operation operates under domestic hours but tachographs are used and there is minimal missing mileage. Emergency work is recorded although it does not appear that the limited derogations associated with that have been used. Ms Gillbard provided an explanation for the events leading to the unauthorised parking. It was clear that she had deferred to Mr Brayley-Willmetts in relation to technical matters. On balance, whilst she may benefit from attending a more practical operator licence awareness course, I find her good repute is tarnished by the parking matter but otherwise remains intact.

27.I referred in the hearing to the DVSA SIPCAT as being a sea of red and amber. Mr Brayley-Willmetts told me of his background in DVSA (VOSA or Vehicle Inspectorate I believe at the time), as fleet engineer for Somerset Council and of running a transport consultancy. The issues identified by the Vehicle Examiner are basic and fundamental. A DVSA inspection should not be finding them on a 2-vehicle licence where he had been Transport Manager since February 2022.

28.The operator trusted Mr Brayley-Willmetts to upload their compliance documentation. He failed to do so. Checks by the clerk on the day using the audit function showed no attempt to upload was made. If Mr Brayley-Willmetts thought he had done so, why did he not check that the documents were there? He had the same access to the case as I did.

29.At no time did he seek to provide any evidence of the compliance systems on the other licence for which he is Transport Manager although, in fairness, I note that the call-up did not mention Somerset Minibuses. It refers simply to “anything else which you think will show you are a compliant Transport Manager or are taking steps to address the failings identified”.

30.Mr Brayley-Willmetts told me that he only became aware of the deficiencies in the safety inspection reports when they were identified by DVSA. The Examiner visited on 27 February 2024 and his report completed on 21 March. Assurances were provided by Mr Brayley-Willmetts on 7 April and referred to a meeting with the maintenance provider on 5 April. The Vehicle Examiner was promised a “more robust approach”.

31.Inspection of the compliance documents brought to the inquiry showed minimal improvement. Five inspection reports were provided, three for GN14RXC and two for RX08GNV. None recorded tyre pressures. All three roller brake tests for GN14 recorded “insufficient load on axle 2 & 3”. Whilst tyre ages are recorded for RX08, the same is not true for GN14 where they are full recorded on one inspection, not at all on another and, curiously and very obviously, on only one side on the third inspection. There are several obvious driver defects being lights damaged, wrong colour or not working and some issue with a side-guard although the description is not such that I can know whether a driver would be aware or not. No driver defect reports were provided so I cannot cross-refer. On GN14, a tyre grows 1mm of tread between 4 May and 15 June. I asked about the technicians’ qualifications but neither Transport Manager had sought that information from the supplier. From a quick review of the records, if I were to use Pannell Commercials for inspections, I would request the work be carried out by G A Wills who seems far more likely to do more of the inspection, if still not to record all of it.

32.These are all simple shortcomings that should be identified by the Transport Manager at the time of the inspection and resolved prior to the vehicle reentering service. I was promised that they would be raised in another meeting to be had at some time in the future. Also in the compliance documents are two receipts for tyre changes. Attached to them is the retorque card.

[image]

33.So it seems the wheel was not re-torqued as it is required to be. Again, a straightforward Transport Manager control that has not been exercised.

34.I have found in this operation that the traffic matters have been the responsibility of Ms Gillbard and the roadworthiness matters the responsibility of Mr Brayley-Willmetts. The roadworthiness matters are far from where they should be. Mr Brayley-Willmetts has not exercised the most basic of control, seeking instead to rely on DVSA to identify shortcomings that he will then discuss with the maintenance provider, when he gets round to it some weeks or months in the future. That is not what is expected of a Transport Manager and it is not good enough. Mr Brayley-Willmetts has forfeit his good repute as Transport Manager.