In ordering McGill’s Buses to pay a penalty of £75,000 for failures to operate services in accordance with their registered timetables, Traffic Commissioner (TC) Richard Turfitt criticised the fact that its three nominated Transport Managers (TMs) were Managing Director Ralph Roberts, Operations Director Colin Napier and Director James Easdale.
As a result, the TC required two additional CPC holders to be appointed as TMs by the end of the year.
Greenock based McGill’s Buses, which holds an O-Licence for 600 vehicles, had been called before the TC at an Edinburgh Public Inquiry following concerns over its local service operation.
That had come as a result of monitoring exercises carried out by Bus Users Scotland, which showed services running early, late or not at all, and concerns over vehicle maintenance. The latter had come about following a wheel loss incident.
Wheel loss incident
The TC said that on 7 December 2018 a McGill’s Buses vehicle lost a wheel in Greenock. An S-marked prohibition was issued. The nearside front hub flange had detached from the vehicle, taking with it the nearside front wheel while the vehicle was in motion.
Flange bolts had worked loose and removed themselves from the hub assembly. That had led to the wheel loss.
Vehicle Examiner Malcolm Brown looked into the causes of the wheel loss incident. He confirmed that the front hub flange had become detached from the vehicle following an unsatisfactory repair.
An examination of the inspection document showed that the nearside front stub pin had been renewed by a second-year apprentice on 6 December 2018. The apprentice had failed to check whether the hub flange bolts had been cleaned, checked for damage, fitted correctly and retorqued. The apprentice should have been supervised by the shift mechanics.
Driver detectable defect ‘concern’
Mr Turfitt was concerned to note the number of driver detectable defects found during safety inspections. Among them were an insecure skirt panel, an insecure rear bumper, faulty front panel security, an inoperative stop lamp, tyre problems and issues with the ramp interlock.
As McGill’s Buses relied on a nil driver defect reporting system, he was entitled to expect the TMs to have identified and addressed those questions. An internal audit at the start of 2019 identified that vehicles had been run in service “with the ABS and emissions warning lights illuminated” from the depot at Barrhead.
It referred to an unsanctioned internal policy. The TC was at pains to understand how that may have arisen with three TMs named on the licence and jointly responsible for continuous and effective management of the transport operation.
He was referred to the company’s adoption of a new electronic reporting system that, through effective management, should address the risks of that type of local culture developing.
The TC remained concerned that due to the company’s choice of driver defect reporting forms, only drivers working on a particular day would be aware that a defect had already been reported and/or rectified.
It would be for the TMs to reconsider those reporting arrangements and for the company to ensure that the necessary changes were implemented.
Action Plan in place
The TC was presented with the new engineering structure and was referred to an Action Plan that appeared to be an acceptance of previous weaknesses in driver defect reporting. The company had described established governance procedures, including four-weekly board meetings where strategic KPIs were monitored together with operational performance.
Reference was made to quarterly depot reviews to exercise oversight at a local level. A full engineering policy manual was to be produced describing the audit of every repair and safety critical component.
The TC also noted the presence of the Operations Director and his deputy at the various depots on a weekly basis. He could take additional assurance from the proposed involvement of auditor Lloyd Morgan.
Mr Turfitt was satisfied that the company had displayed a level of commitment to compliance. He noted its interaction with DVSA after the wheel loss incident. However, his concern was the level of supervision.
Neither Mr Roberts, Mr Napier nor Mr Easdale had a position that was devoted solely to the tasks of a TM. None of the three were at a level within the operation to directly influence everyday decisions. They could put in place high-level systems, but those had to be left to others to implement. Something must now change.
Undertakings were given that a full compliance audit would be submitted to the Office of the TC by 30 April 2020; that two additional TMs would be appointed; and that new PMI forms would be introduced that met all the inspection manual numbers as set out in the Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness.
The TC said that on the basis of those undertakings and with the added assurance of independent checks by Lloyd Morgan, he was satisfied that the company was likely to comply with all O-Licensing requirements in the future.
Repute is tarnished
However, the company’s repute had been tarnished. The three named TMs were formally warned that there could be no repeat of the identified shortcomings and no recurring impact on the running of registered services.
A variation to the timetable of the service that ran from Spateston or Kilbarchan to Renfrew Street in Glasgow was received on 31 May but was not effective until 12 July. The application required the 42-day notice period before the variation could commence.
However, the varied timetable was introduced from 1 July without authority from the TC.
£125 penalty per authorised vehicle
Imposing a penalty of £125 per vehicle, Mr Turfitt said that an operation should not be able to avoid scrutiny because of its size. The window of tolerance took account of many of the day-to-day problems that operators could face, and they could, reasonably, be expected to have contingency plans to deal with other foreseeable problems.
The window of tolerance and the 95% punctuality target was a sensible and pragmatic approach to short-term problems causing congestion, beyond which the issues should have been taken into account when setting the timetable.
Even on the company’s average of averages, punctuality was below 90%. There could never be an acceptable excuse for a bus running early.
