The two-vehicle restricted O-Licence held by Brierley Hill-based Peter Douglas has been revoked by TC Miles Dorrington following the unlawful use of his vehicles on the road.
The breaches became known when his vehicles were stopped on 29 June 2023, 5 July 2024 and twice on 13 August 2024.
The TC said that there were many aggravating features.
For example, Mr Douglas stated that, despite knowing a tachograph was required, none were fitted where one was not already present, because the cost of doing so was too great. That meant Mr Douglas knowingly put a commercial interest before the legal requirement to have a tachograph fitted.
Another extremely serious and aggravating feature was the use of driver Stevenson on 29 June 2023 when it would have been quite obvious to Mr Douglas, an experienced operator, that Mr Stevenson did not have the required driving entitlement for the vehicle — nor did he have a Driver CPC (DCPC) qualification or a digital tachograph card, which were also required in order to drive the vehicle for hire and reward.
In the absence of the correct driving entitlement, the insurance for the vehicle was invalid, since all policies of commercial vehicle insurance require the driver to have the correct driving entitlement at the time the insured vehicle is being operated.
If that was not bad enough, Mr Douglas then instructed Mr Stevenson to drive the same vehicle for hire and reward on 13 August 2024, when Mr Stevenson still did not have the required driving entitlement, still did not have a DCPC qualification, and still did not have a digital tachograph card. On that occasion, the police seized the vehicle, because they were satisfied that it was not insured. As of the date of the PI, it remained seized by the police.
The general undertakings on the licence were being seriously breached right up to just a week before the PI. It was also clear that Mr Douglas lacked any, or any effective, management control of the transport operation, to ensure that the general undertakings on the licence were fulfilled.
His lack of knowledge was inexcusable as an experienced operator of 17 years. No lack of basic knowledge to operate a compliant transport operation could ever be accepted.
TC Dorrington had not made an order of disqualification, because Mr Douglas told him that he did not intend returning to the transport industry if he lost his licence. No decision upon any future application made by Mr Douglas, or involving Mr Douglas, for any type of O-Licence, was to be made without this written decision being brought to the attention of the presiding TC.
Any such application would be determined on its own merits, but in the absence of Mr Douglas having successfully completed an O-Licence Awareness Training course, TC Dorrington struggled to see how any application could be decided in Mr Douglas’ favour.
