Ashton-under-Lyne based Mayfair Minibuses escaped with a formal warning over drivers’ hours offences and the improper use of the Special Regular Services Exemption, after Traffic Commissioner (TC) Simon Evans was not satisfied that the arrangement it had had with another company was unlawful.
The company with a five-vehicle O-Licence, had been called before the TC after an allegation that it had lent its licence to Limo 1, a company that did not hold a licence.
For the company, Jared Dunbar said that the latest statement by the Traffic Examiner (TE) confirmed that Director and Transport Manager Peter Rosbottom had never admitted that. The company thought that it was operating the vehicles. It had been giving instructions to the drivers. An error was made and the arrangement was no longer in place.
Mr Rosbottom said that the company generated its own work and serviced it with its own vehicles. He had simply gone back to running his own company. He wanted to start building the company back to where it should be. He had made a mistake at a time of personal crisis. Three vehicles were currently in service. And all were owned by the company.
When he was approached by Limo 1, he thought he could sell the company to them. The mistake he made was getting involved with them. They had never intended to take his business over. He had helped Limo 1 apply for a licence as they were going to set up on their own.
However when the TC’s office said that Limo 1 did not meet the criteria, the firm suggested taking over his business. He spoke to his accountant and gave them a figure but they just messed him about. He took the legal lettering and insurance off for one day. They took on a driver without his knowledge and he changed things back.
Asked about the Special Regular Service Exemption, Mr Rosbottom said that he had got the idea from reading the Croner guide.
The TC pointed out that to use the exemption it had to be a service; Mr Rosbottom had used it for a private contract with a film company.
Mr Rosbottom said after advice from a TE, they no longer operate under the exemption. He undertook not to use the exemption unless clarified in advance with DVSA. He also undertook that the vehicles would be owned by himself or the company.
In his decision, the TC said that the TE clarified her initial report, stating that Limo 1 had not instructed the drivers or had been downloading the tachograph data as originally thought. Who controlled the drivers was important in any assessment of who was operating the vehicles. He noted that all contact with Limo 1 had now ceased.
A number of drivers’ hours offences had been committed which the company had not detected. However, the company had a green compliance rating and no prohibitions had been issued in the last five years.
