We recently represented a commercial vehicle operator at a public inquiry before the Traffic Commissioner (TC). The operator faced a number of serious compliance concerns that had triggered regulatory scrutiny, including:

* Failure to present vehicles for MOT testing on time

* Breaches of drivers’ hours rules

* Inadequate vehicle maintenance procedures

* Operating more vehicles than the licence authorised

While the issue of exceeding the authorised number of vehicles was primarily a technical error rather than a deliberate or flagrant breach, the cumulative effect of the operator’s compliance history had understandably raised alarm bells with the Office of the Traffic Commissioner.

Fortunately, we were instructed approximately four weeks before the scheduled hearing — allowing enough time for meaningful intervention. From the outset, we emphasised to the operator that significant work would be needed to prepare properly for the hearing and to demonstrate that lessons had been learned.

The operator was cooperative and proactive in acting on our advice. Key improvements were implemented swiftly, including:

* The company director attending a full-day Operator Licence Awareness Training (OLAT) course

* The transport manager undertaking a two-day Transport Manager refresher course

* A full review and restructuring of the company’s compliance systems

* Investment in upgraded compliance software and hardware to better manage maintenance records and driver hours

In addition, the company adopted straightforward and cost-effective practices for tracking key compliance items, such as drivers’ hours monitoring and wheel removal/retorque checks. As part of our ongoing approach, we always aim to keep our clients’ compliance costs proportionate and manageable, particularly where they are willing to act quickly and follow our expert guidance.

We also explained a central principle of the operator licensing system: "trust". The TC’s decision-making framework is rooted in whether the operator can be trusted to operate compliantly going forward. In practice, this means two things:

1. Documentary evidence - submitted in advance of the hearing must be comprehensive, properly ordered, and clearly explained. We managed the submission of this evidence electronically, ensuring deadlines were met and the material was easy for the TC to follow.

2. Presentation at the hearing - is equally important. We prepared the director and transport manager by briefing them on what kind of issues would come up during the hearing.  We carefully planned what evidence and submissions to use during the hearing and how to set out the case efficiently.  

On the day of the hearing, which lasted approximately two hours, the operator was able to present a well prepared and transparent account of the steps taken to rectify past failings. The TC tested the evidence carefully through questioning but appeared satisfied with the company’s current level of compliance and the seriousness with which the issues had been addressed.

Ultimately, the Traffic Commissioner issued a formal warning rather than taking regulatory action against the licence. The warning made clear that any future non-compliance or further appearances before the TC would likely lead to much harsher consequences.

Our client was relieved and pleased with the outcome and expressed their appreciation for the support and direction we provided throughout the process. They confirmed that they would not hesitate to engage us again should the need arise.

It is easy to fall foul of technical aspects of operator licencing. Whether of goods vehicles or passenger service vehicles. One commonly seen relates to disc loaning or licence lending.

An operator is generally not permitted to allow other businesses to ‘use’ the O Licence. And to deliberately do so would likely lead to revocation of the licence, and possible disqualification (perhaps indefinitely) of the legal entity or person behind the licence from holding or even applying for a licence.

Some operators, while not acting with deliberate intent, inadvertently blur the lines of who is ‘using’ or operating the vehicles. One such case was an operator (a limited company) in the North-East traffic area that we represented at the Leeds OTC public inquiry (PI) room.

Our client successfully ran ( and continues to do so) a niche business with highly bespoke heavy goods vehicles. It used several legal entities, including limited companies, to conduct its well-established business. It’s not unfair to say the business model was unusual and complex. (Although the Traffic Commissioner (TC) is not a regulator of businesses, to the extent that matters touch on O Licencing, he/she has regulatory powers to exercise against operators. ) An additional factor was that it involved a restricted licence, meaning that the vehicles could only carry the goods of the entity with the licence.

Without going into all the detail, the operator was using vehicles in such a way that raised the question of whether other legal entities were using the licence, or otherwise unlawfully benefitting from it, and carrying the goods of another entity (Who is the ‘user’ of the vehicle and the true operator can be very complex, and is determined by multiple factors).

We gave our comprehensive legal opinion on all matters that would foreseeably be raised at the hearing. This included urgent advice on an immediate change to how the company was using its vehicles; the company’s maintenance and compliance documentation; and how a different approach would be needed, particularly in respect of brake testing, daily walkarounds and defect reporting/remedying. The company was keen to learn and was receptive to our advice. This involved a site visit, email correspondence, and video-conference/telephone meetings.

All requested maintenance documentation and a business model was submitted in advance to the OTC.

At the hearing the company was able to demonstrate that it was operating vehicles within the authorised parameters. It had learned much in the build-up to the PI and was willing to implement advice - even as late as the day of the PI. The TC conducted a balancing exercise. He concluded there had been a falling-short of O Licence standards in respect of vehicle use and maintenance, and that the company was late to take on professional advice. On the other hand, new systems were in place and dramatic improvements made. OLAT courses had either been booked or completed and the services of a transport consultant were engaged. The almost inevitable regulatory action in this case was limited to a short curtailment involving some vehicles, and undertakings added to the licence. The client considered this a significantly good result considering the consequences of losing the licence or other kinds of regulatory action – which potentially had been on the cards based on the TCs public inquiry brief.

As with many applications or ‘regulatory’ public inquiries, the Traffic Commissioner (TC) has before her or him a set of papers prepared by their case worker. The fact a public inquiry has been convened means there are concerns. The papers alone cannot determine the TCs decision—one way or the other. It is imperative therefore that applicants or licence holders prepare their case thoroughly. If prepared properly, it will help assist the TC to make a favourable decision. If not, the TC may conclude that the case is as it appears on the papers – or even worse.

We recently represented a company that applied for an O Licence (the applicant). The matter was brought to public inquiry because of serious concerns that the new company was either a front for a company that had gone into administration, and/or a phoenix arrangement was taking place; transport manager (TM) considerations; and the application form had not been completed correctly—causing an appreciable misrepresentation of the facts (The simple filling out of the application form is the first opportunity the TC has to see anything about the applicant, including whether they are trustworthy!)

After taking instructions, we could see there was plenty of scope to prepare a strong case for the grant of the application. The applicant’s connection to a company that had gone into administration: any links were tenuous and superficial. There was no phoenix arrangement because there were no substantive connections between the two entities, or relevant individuals. The incorrectly filled-out application form was a genuine error (even though it appeared otherwise).

On the professional competence issue, we advised that a replacement TM was necessary. The originally nominated TM was, in our opinion, not suitable in this case. A TM may have the qualification, but depending on the facts, more is required, including experience, actual knowledge and other capabilities. Our client accepted our advice and contracted another TM, contingent on the grant of the licence.

Most, if not all, of the TCs case directions were fully adhered to. Documentary evidence and representations were submitted two weeks in advance.

Most of the work for the inquiry was completed beforehand. That just left the hearing. We advised on what the hearing would entail and how best to present first-person evidence. Hearings can be particularly stressful, especially if things are left last minute, or not addressed properly. In the end, this hearing was fairly straightforward and relatively short. The TC was satisfied that the evidence submitted adequately addressed concerns. Further evidence and submissions were presented at the hearing. Assurances were given, including a willingness to have conducted an independent audit. As at the date of the hearing, it was clear that the applicant had a good knowledge of O Licence compliance requirements and of their specific kind of haulage work. The application was granted with immediate effect with authorisation for several HGVs.