The facts:

The HGV operator received an immediate roadside S Mark Prohibition in December 2024 for tyre treads being lower than the legal limit, and another in January 2025 for an oil leak, triggering a DVSA maintenance investigation in February 2025.

Upon investigation, the vehicle examiner found clear breaches of general undertakings on the licence; vehicles were not kept in a fit and serviceable condition, there was little evidence of driver defect reporting, and records of driver defect reports, maintenance and repairs were not kept.

Examples of the breaches found in the MIVR include:

• 90% of PMI records did not have a signed roadworthiness declaration and 65% showed a failure to carry out sufficient brake testing
• A 28.5% MOT failure rate demonstrating poor vehicle maintenance and preparation
• Little evidence of driver defect reporting (present in 19 out of 1000 records)
• Dangerous defects found at MOT and PMI

The operator’s response to the MIVR offered assurances however the statement offered by the vehicle examiner 120 days after the investigation found no significant improvement. For example:

• a prohibition was issued in June for a tyre worn below the legal limit (repeating the prohibition from December);
• PMI records were still incomplete and missing a roadworthiness declarations; and
• Little evidence of improvement to driver defect reporting and rectification.

Therefore, the operator was still not compliant.

The Public Inquiry:

The Traffic Commissioner accepted all allegations were proven and uncontested. He found the operator’s initial response to the MIVR and assurance unsatisfactory. He expected significant and immediate changes, with the operator dedicating all of its time to addressing the shortcomings, given so many areas of serious non-compliance, which did not happen. Credit was given to the positive actions taken by the operator however he expected they would be able to demonstrate a move towards full compliance by the date of the Inquiry, given the 139 days since the MIVR.

The individual who attended as the Sole Director and Transport Manager admitted to signing two false roadworthiness declarations with the intent to deceive, as he ‘did not know what to do at the time’. The Traffic Commissioner determined that he no longer had good repute as Transport Manager.

The Traffic Commissioner revoked the operator’s licence on the basis that the operator cannot be trusted to be compliant, given the ongoing risk to road safety, failure to deliver on their assurances and be anywhere near compliant by the date of Inquiry, and the Sole Director and Transport Manager acting without integrity.

Summary:

The case highlights two main takeaways that ultimately led to this operators downfall.

1. After being initially notified of the issues by the DVSA, an operator and Transport Manager must act quickly to comprehensively solve those issues so that tangible evidence of change can be presented to the Commissioner at a future Public Inquiry
2. Under no circumstances make up a record or falsify a signature! Usually leads to an instant loss of trust and therefore not of “repute”.