The licence was revoked following an accident involving school children, and numerous vehicle prohibitions
Glastonbury-based Avalon Coaches, one of whose vehicles was involved in an accident on the M25 when carrying school children, has had its 22-vehicle licence revoked with effect from 31 December, allowing time for the transport authorities to provide alternative contract suppliers. In the interim the authorisation was reduced to 12 vehicles.
The company, of Park Farm Road, Glastonbury, had been called before Traffic Commissioner (TC) Kevin Rooney.
The accident on 22 June 2015 occurred when a coach was seriously damaged when it collided with a concrete wall protecting an over-bridge on the M25. Two of the school children were treated for shock although there were no physical injuries.
The weather conditions were poor, and the driver, Gerald Huxtable, was unable to clear the front windscreen of condensation so that he could see out. He decided to bring the vehicle to rest on the hard shoulder but failed to see the low-level protective wall. He subsequently pleaded guilty to driving without due care and attention.
Vehicle Examiner Gary Ford said that on 6 July he inspected three vehicles at Wells Blue School, where two were issued with immediate prohibitions. As a result he and a colleague made an unannounced visit to the company’s premises. Five vehicles were examined and one immediate and three delayed prohibitions were issue.
The immediate prohibition related to a defect in a Telma retarder, and that the retarder was disconnected. The same vehicle had previously received a prohibition for a defect with that retarder. They again attended the premises in August at 24 hours’ notice. Four vehicles were inspected and two immediate prohibitions issued, one of which was for an oil contaminated Telma retarder constituting a fire risk. Many of the defects were of longstanding and should have been detected by drivers and workshop staff during safety inspections.
Traffic Examiner Amy Comer said that she had encountered a vehicle when the driver was carrying an excess number of charts. There was a letter from the company to a driver called ‘Norman’, identifying 10 separate drivers’ hours infringement in a 16 day period.
The infringements appeared serious, one example being seven hours and 58 minutes driving with only 37 minutes break taken. There generally appeared to be a lot of drivers’ hours infringements. A driver had exceeded 10 hours driving by a full hour.
Asked about two vehicle fires, Sole Director Colin White said that the 2014 fire started as a small flame in the dashboard. The drivers had added some wiring themselves to run a TV while they were awaiting pick-ups. He concluded that the cause of the fire was the wiring put in by a driver. The 2017 fire was on a mid-engine Volvo which he had owned from new and which was in good general condition. He did not yet know the cause of the fire, but it seemed to have started around the engine.
He was engaged in renewing the fleet. Two vehicles had been bought at a cost of £245,000 each, and he had spent £178,000 on parts. He was looking at moving site with a new build workshop. Almost all of the work was contracted. He had been led down the garden path by numerous transport managers.
In his decision, the TC said that prior to the most recent DVSA investigation which started with the checks at Wells Blue School, 11 separate prohibition notices had been issued to the company’s vehicles over the past five years, one of which was ‘S’ marked.
The company was on a downward trajectory. A further eight vehicles were issued with prohibition notices in a period of five weeks. Out of eleven vehicle inspections, that was an appalling outcome. It appeared to have had a particular issue with Telma retarders. The drivers’ hours and tachograph breaches were of serious concern.
On the positive side, Mr White had engaged the support of a transport consultant. He had sought to recruit transport managers and had shown how that had been problematic. He had investigated the cause of the fire in 2014. He had invested in the fleet, and was also the sole director of a different entity holding a goods vehicle licence. The evidence of the VE was that the goods licence, from a mechanical viewpoint, had no identified concerns.
