DVSA’s Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness (GMRW) underwent significant changes in November and many fleet operators stand to be affected.
Law firms have publicised the changes and routeone recently attended a webinar, hosted by JMW Solicitors, which examined the old and newly issued guides to compare what has changed, how fleet operators will be impacted, and what systems and procedures need to change going forward.
For coach and bus, it is largely business as usual. “In terms of the changes, there’s a lot of relief for PSV operators,” says Laura Hadzik, JMW Partner and head of the commercial road transport department. “Not a lot has changed other than a reminder of obligations to keep an eye on quality control and accountability of their maintenance providers.”
However, there are steps that operators must still take to prepare for next year. Come April 2025, a further update may have more significant revisions than what has been released.
‘Must do and should do’
While not law, JMW notes the significant status of the Guide. Laura highlights that “the Upper Tribunal on appeal from Traffic Commissioners has repeatedly confirmed that guidance is to be relied upon as setting out what the standards are when it comes to maintenance systems and their expectations.”
In other words, the burden lies upon operators to demonstrate that, where the Guide is not being followed, any alternative method of maintenance achieves the same level of compliance. “And that is a high bar to meet,” she adds.
JMW also wants operators to be mindful of two key updates in phraseology introduced to the Guide in April; namely that there has been an adoption of the Highway Code approach in using phrases that refer to “must” and “should” obligations, with the former being direct legal obligations and non-compliance being a breach with potential criminal consequences, and the latter being considered by stakeholders involved with development of the Guide to be best practice, and strongly recommended.
“Very often, the situation is that if you are not following what the Guide suggests, even if it is a ‘should’, you will be open to criticism by both DVSA and the Traffic Commissioners (TCs),” says Laura. “This is the standard you will be assessed against should you be subject to a desk-based assessment, maintenance investigation, preliminary hearing or Public Inquiry.”
Changes subtle but significant
Visually, the Guide remains virtually unchanged to the version issued in 2023, though seven different areas are headlined inside its front cover change table where updates are being made.
JMW warns operators not to fall into a false sense of security by this. The firm records a total of 279 changes and that the change table of seven areas “does not go far enough” in informing operators of everything they need to know has been amended as of 5 November.
The seven areas referred to in the change table are those that DVSA suggests are the key changes operators need to be mindful of. They are:
- Safety inspection and repair facilities
- Brake performance assessment
- Brake performance assessment from April 2025
- EBPMS parking brake assessment
- What happens at the end of a test
- Vehicle safety recalls
- Brake performance risk assessment.
Safety inspection and repair facilities
Discussions have been ongoing as to the role of TCs in regulating third party maintenance providers and holding dealers and garages accountable, and the updated Guide introduces further detail on this topic.
While the Guide does not say maintenance providers will be subject to action, JMW highlights that it provides “useful tools and guidance” to help operators manage maintenance obligations with external contractors.
“You as the Transport Manager (TM) or operator carry the can for any failings, even if a maintenance provider lets you down,” Laura notes. “The new Guide reminds you that it is your obligation to manage maintenance provision, whether in-house or external maintenance, and if you choose to outsource maintenance, you need to take steps to ensure facilities, equipment and staff are satisfactory, and that the work is completed to a satisfactory standard.”
That involves introducing systems to audit a maintenance provider. While not new, the Guide makes that abundantly clear on p45. Operators must consider how quality checks are built into the process of choosing a maintenance provider on an ongoing basis, and that they are satisfied that the facilities meet what the Guide suggests as a minimum with staff working on vehicles trained, qualified and competent.
The previous Guide highlighted IRTEC as an accreditation scheme for workshops, and more options are being discussed. JMW recommends considering the maintenance supplier assessment tool produced by the Society of Operations Engineers and IRTE for auditing.
Those still not comfortable auditing themselves should engage an independent third party to do so. “The obligation under the latest Guide is on [the operator] to have some sort of quality check process of its maintenance provider,” Laura reiterates. “It’s not enough to say it was a main dealer, particularly if shortcomings have been identified
“Think about asking what a maintenance provider’s MoT pass rate is. If it maintains fleets for numerous operators, what percentage are passing on presentation? A provider that doesn’t achieve the national average pass rate will put you in difficulty; the MoT is a key metric that feeds into the Operator Compliance Risk Score.”
In terms of the changes, there’s a lot of relief for PSV operators… Not a lot has changed other than a reminder of obligations to keep an eye on quality control and accountability of their maintenance providers
A pilot scheme for rating maintenance provision was introduced in July and will run until mid-2025 before being rolled out more widely. More information about the pilot is on the IRTE website.
It is open to join for operators’ internal workshops and functions based on an independent tiered rating system for maintenance providers that will categorise them as good, bad or average. While that can act as a point of reference, Laura warns that such a rating scheme presents a “snapshot” at the point the rating is given and should not be solely relied upon for satisfactory maintenance standards.
“Do not rely on association with a main dealer, either,” she adds. “That is no guarantee that vehicles will be maintained to the standard required. Operators must have their own quality control checks and process in place to ensure they will not be exposed.”
Consideration should also be given to any maintenance contract, regardless of involvement in the Maintenance Provision Rating Scheme (MPRS). “Think about what terms and conditions can be incorporated into a maintenance contract that help you, the operator, to fulfil your obligations to the TC about the standard of your maintenance.”
Equipment should also be high on the agenda — for example, availability of roller brake testers — as well as terms relating to the provision of the documentation relating to maintenance activity, such as how quickly a provider is supplying that, and what recourse is available should it not be completed correctly.
Braking performance
The single biggest section in the Guide to receive an update relates to brake testing. The Guide itself is now divided into various sections for brake testing.
P50 of the current Guide reiterates what has been the known and accepted position on brake testing for some time. That starts with the requirement that every safety inspection must include an assessment of the brake performance of a vehicle. It also explores the options available to achieve that measured brake performance assessment.
For coach and bus operators, that includes calibrated laden* roller brake testers (noted as the starting point for TCs and DVSA as an acceptable brake testing method) and approved and calibrated decelerometers.
Most noteworthy there is the expansion of detail on how temperature is to be taken on individual wheels (tests must be carried out before and after a decelerometer test) to identify brake performance. If satisfactory results cannot be achieved through decelerometer testing, an alternative method is required.
JMW expresses surprise that decelerometers remain an accepted part of the test, and the retention of quarterly requirements for brake testing, given the history of TCs being critical of operators not undertaking roller brake testing at every safety inspection.
“The position we anticipated was that, coming from April 2025, only a laden roller brake test or electronic braking performance monitoring system (where fitted) would be accepted in the Guide.
“We expected to see decelerometer testing go, and certainly we expected that a minimum four times per year for laden roller brake testing would be replaced by a requirement for it to be undertaken at every period maintenance inspection. That is what we have seen the TCs gearing up for over the last year.”
Despite that, a more prescriptive requirement for risk assessment has been introduced. There has also been an extension in the period available in which to undertake a brake test from seven to 14 days.
JMW issues caution here: While there is greater flexibility, more time means more opportunity for something in the intervening period to affect braking performance, and a brake test must be repeated for purposes of the inspection if that happens.
Though the Guide states a risk assessment must be available to support every safety inspection where an operator decides not to carry out a roller brake test, Laura believes that doesn’t necessarily mean a requirement exists for a new risk assessment to be undertaken at every safety inspection.
“The guide says the assessment must be reviewed every 12 months,” she adds. “If something changes in that 12-month period, you would revisit the risk assessment to make sure that it remains appropriate.”
Final recommendations
JMW recommends operators prepare for April 2025 by familiarising themselves with the Guide as much as possible. While the industry does not face as severe a change as expected, steps should still be taken to meet the minimum expectations and to ensure the appropriate documentation is in place.
“Make sure you understand brake testing records, what the results show and audit them as a TM,” Laura states. “Follow up with a maintenance provider wherever you have concerns and queries, and document the detail.
“Think about inspection and repair facilities, what you are doing to quality control them, and think about auditing and MPRS and what it could mean in practice.
“There are independent audits you can engage through the trade associations of the quality of work being completed by the maintenance provision.
“Finally – think about training for your TM team and engineering functions, not just on the changes to the Guide but to the maintenance regime generally. If you want training on the systems and procedures or something more specific like brake testing, JMW can point you in the direction of someone who can provide it.”
Keep up-to-date
JMW recommends that the GMRW be accessed only via the official link via gov.uk.
The latest version should be consulted to ensure operators are up-to-date with guidance.
