The seven-vehicle O-Licence held by Cleethorpes-based Richard Hough, trading as Hough’s of Lincolnshire, has been revoked, and its Transport Manager (TM) Rosina Hough disqualified indefinitely by Deputy Traffic Commissioner (DTC) Catherine Moxon.
The firm was called before the DTC because of its poor compliance history, particularly regarding vehicle maintenance. Mr Hough did not attend the Public Inquiry (PI) and three attempts to get it adjourned were refused.
The DTC said that there was a concern that the adjournment was being sought to allow time for the business to be sold to someone else. For the PI process to pause for the business to be sold was inappropriate and not in line with the regulatory objectives of road safety and fair competition. The operator had not paused trading. There were road safety critical issues to address. There was no evidence that matters had improved.
In revoking the O-Licence and making the disqualification order, the DTC said that the operator had tolerated a culture of lack of O-Licence compliance in which there were inadequate checks on the transport activities to a degree that had led to a real and constant road safety risk.
There had been a persistence of the issues over the whole reporting period identified by DVSA with no evidence of improvement. Prohibitions had been issued to vehicles in use, including when transporting children. One was an immediate prohibition issued following a delayed prohibition not being dealt with appropriately. There was no management control or systems to prevent serious compliance failings. There was no evidence of monitoring and/or the disciplining of drivers.
Mrs Hough had lost her good repute as a TM by reason of lack of knowledge and skills and relevant concerns over her attitude, including dishonesty. Mrs Hough would have lost her good repute on the omissions of compliance alone because there had been real and constant risks to road safety. Further, the TC had concerns about Mrs Hough’s attitude in light of her lack of credibility and dishonesty before her on compliance and TM issues.
The concerns also related to Mrs Hough’s reluctance to engage with training before the PI and omissions in her TM tasks, such as assuring herself that vehicles were roadworthy via scrutiny of the safety inspection reports before the vehicles returned to the road.
Mrs Hough was clear in her evidence that she wanted the business to be absorbed by a third party, which would bring an end to the need for her to be a TM. It was likely that Mrs Hough was hoping to avoid the PI process and adverse findings if the matter could be adjourned for long enough for the business to be absorbed by another company.
It was not acceptable to disregard TM duties, as to do so displaces the trust held in CPC holders. Mrs Hough had allowed her CPC to slip for so long that at times in her evidence she clearly did not realise what a poor picture of compliance she was painting.
It was difficult, if not impossible, to be compliant without knowing what to do and how to do it. The role of TM was a statutory one with mandatory training to reflect the complexity and responsibility of the position, as well as the trust placed in Transport Managers by the industry and general public.
Mr Hough, having failed to attend the PI, was to be written to so that he had the opportunity to address the DTC in writing within 10 days on whether he should be disqualified from holding another O-Licence, and from being a director of any company which holds such a licence.
