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.