DTC refused William Patterson’s O-Licence application because of concerns over main occupation
There was no doubt that dealing with the abuse of the main occupation criteria for restricted O-Licences had almost become the main job of Traffic Commissioners.
This was said by Deputy Traffic Commissioner (DTC) Mark Hinchliffe when he immediately revoked the two-vehicle restricted O-Licence held by Maryport-based William Patterson at a Golborne Public Inquiry (PI).
He refused to defer his decision to give time for an application for a national O-Licence to be dealt with. Mr Patterson had been called before the DTC because of concerns over main occupation, vehicle maintenance and drivers’ hours infringements.
For Mr Patterson, Simon Newman said that until recently his main occupation had been a taxi business. The business had gradually reduced in size over the last eight years.
Mr Patterson had decided that the way forward was the PSV side and an application for a one-vehicle national O-Licence had been submitted about a week ago. A very experienced Transport Manager (TM) had been nominated who had given Mr Patterson a lot of good advice, Mr Patterson had “been under the radar” for a number of years.
He was very particular about the condition of his vehicles and compliments from customers led him to believe he was doing something right. The proposed TM had given Mr Patterson a list of things he wanted done and was being very strict. The shortcomings found by DVSA had been acted upon and a newer vehicle with a digital tachograph had been purchased.
The schedule of tachograph infringements had occurred with the previous vehicle which had an analogue tachograph. The digital records were being analysed by an outside agency. Some extended inspection periods were due to Mr Patterson being away from the business for periods due to ill health.
After the DTC commented that the digital analysis produced still showed infringements, and that on the face of it there were long periods of driving with no breaks at all, Mr Patterson said the records were not accurate as the vehicle was driven by others when at the dealership for maintenance.
The DTC pointed out that the analysis was of Mr Patterson’ own driver’s card.
Asked about missing mileage, Mr Patterson said that he had used the vehicle for private use and for going to the dealership. He had also been told he did not need to use a tachograph for school contract work and private driving.
The DTC said the digital analysis showed serious infringements for which there was no explanation. The national O-Licence application had been made a week ago when it should have been made months ago.
It was at a stage where there would be time before any grant could be made. There were current and ongoing concerns. The inspection records from April to September did not demonstrate that vehicles were being inspected every six weeks. The digital tachograph records continued to show infringements, which caused him real anxiety.
He could not allow the licence to continue with the assistance of a TM who was not answerable to the Traffic Commissioner, who was not present and from who there had been nothing in writing.
