Applicants for the post of Transport Manager (TM) should possess high-quality professional knowledge. A TM must do more than just hold the qualification, and must have a number of other characteristics.
This was made plain by Traffic Commissioner (TC) Kevin Rooney when he refused to accept the nomination by Arleen Coach Hire and Services of its Operations Manager, Colin Inman, who held a certificate of acquired rights issued in February 2012, as its TM.
Mr Rooney said that he was at something of a loss as to how Mr Inman gained his acquired rights, having never been specified as a TM. Mr Rooney found it highly unlikely that an unqualified individual who had never acted as a TM and who relied upon a 12-year-old acquired rights certificate would have the knowledge necessary to continuously and effectively manage a transport operation without sitting and passing the examination.
He gave Mr Inman credit for having attended recent training, but he could not accept that he could undertake the statutory duty unless he qualified by examination.
The TC cut the company’s O-Licence from 24 vehicles to 19 and disqualified its current TM and Managing Director Justin Spiller from acting as such for one year and until Mr Spiller can demonstrate that he has undertaken three months of learning alongside a competent TM, and he demonstrates he has the capacity to fulfil the role.
Mr Rooney granted the company a period of grace of three months for it to rectify the position, saying that if professional competence was not restored by that point, revocation was mandatory.
Lack of control
The company is based at Peasedown St John, near Bath, with a smaller satellite site in Glastonbury. The Directors are MK Spiller, Alan Spiller, Carol Spiller, Justin Spiller and Kristian Spiller.
The TC said that two vehicles were parked in Glastonbury at an unauthorised site. It was not a case that they were left on the side of a road, though. Their parking location appeared appropriate and an application to add the site was made immediately. He made little of that in relation to the company, but it was a clear indication of a lack of TM control.
He had grave concerns in respect of the proper completion of the maintenance documentation and the standard of maintenance generally. Prohibitions had been issued for serious defects.
The Vehicle Examiner (VE) reported that one vehicle was noted as having an offside rear hub seal weeping, parts ordered.
The next three periodic maintenance inspections (PMIs) showed that defect had not been monitored. On one safety inspection, it was noted that the offside rear brakes were contaminated with oil, so he was left unable to know whether the seal was left unrepaired for four months or whether it had been repaired more promptly but that no-one had noticed that the brakes had been contaminated with oil. Neither was a good outcome.
The VE also noted that on many safety inspections the brakes were adjusted. These vehicles were fitted with automatic slack adjusters that do not require adjusting. Adjusting automatic slack adjusters was usually a clear indication of a technician that did not know what they were doing. Automatic slack adjusters should never need to be manually adjusted in service.
The VE was scathing about the driver defect reporting system, with defects such as a passenger door that kept opening only reported at the end of the shift. Many driver-reportable defects were found during PMIs. There was a move to electronic defect reporting, but it was unclear whether that would have any material improvement.
There was also a clear trend from the first report and from the pre-PI follow-up that brake test reports were not being properly scrutinised. There was a parking brake where effort had reduced by some 25% between inspections, but no one seemed to notice. The VE was offered commentary about how it depended on how much fuel was in the tank and the weather. The vehicle was a full-size coach which would weigh something in the order of 12 tonnes when empty. The effect of a couple of hundred litres of diesel on the weight, and therefore potentially the braking effort, would be no more than 2%. That any technician or TM might genuinely believe otherwise was alarming. However, his real criticism was that no-one noticed a 25% reduction in effort, and no-one asked any questions about it.
TM was ‘main concern’
The TC’s main concern here was transport management, and the TM.
This was an operator authorised for 24 vehicles, and elderly vehicles at that. The TM was also Managing Director. As well as the PSV operation, he was responsible for running an MoT garage and a fuel station. It was not surprising that he found he was running out of capacity.
It was not clear what, if anything, the other statutory directors did, nor why they left him to deal with the PI alone. His situation was not something that had just happened, and he should have taken steps at a much earlier stage to find an alternative TM.
He was not exercising continuous and effective control and that arose, as Managing Director, out of his own choosing. Julian Spiller had not managed this operation as he should, and his good repute was lost.
‘Clean bill of health’
There were positives here. The recent Traffic Examiner update report raised only minor concerns, and he considered it a clean bill of health in that regard.
A major concern was the technical capability of the person managing the workshop. Mr Rooney had been offered and recorded the following undertaking, namely that 25% of PMIs would be conducted by a qualified independent technician. The company could seek to be released from that undertaking by employing directly a qualified individual.
The recent progress made, and the undertaking offered, meant that the TC need not interfere with the operation. Having recorded that undertaking and having caused the operator to change TM, and noting the peak vehicle requirement of 17, he curtailed the licence to 19 vehicles immediately and indefinitely. Having done that, financial standing was satisfied.
