Decision for Garrod Construction Ltd (OF1141704)
Written confirmation of the decision of the Traffic Commissioner for the East of England for Garrod Construction Ltd
IN THE EASTERN TRAFFIC AREA
GARROD CONSTRUCTION LTD - OF1141704
CONFIRMATION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER鈥橲 DECISION
Background
Garrod Construction Ltd holds a Restricted Goods Vehicle Operator鈥檚 Licence authorising 7 vehicles only. The Director is Leigh Scott Garrod.
There are three Operating Centres: TS Watling Commercials Ltd, Stubley Barn Besthorpe, Attleborough NR17 2LQ; Taydal Surfacing Ltd, 4 Olympus Close, Ipswich IP15LJ: ( 1 The Headquarters,) Nicks Lane, Brome, Eye IP23 8AN. Preventative Maintenance Inspections are said to be carried out by Roy Humphrey Car & Commercial at 6-weekly intervals. I was invited to remove Trumbar Truckcare Ltd from the record.
It is a matter of public record that Mr Garrod previously held licence OF0233433 as a sole trader licence. That licence was revoked at Public Inquiry in October 2004 following adverse findings around the use of an unauthorised site, late Preventative Maintenance Inspections, poor annual test history and on the availability of finance. He was subsequently granted licence OF1041320 in November 2005. That licence was considered at Public Inquiry in July 2015 (page 96), when it was curtailed by two vehicles for 4 weeks. The presiding Commissioner took account of undertakings for an audit, to attend training and the engagement of a consultant. That licence was revoked at Public Inquiry in January 2017 (page 98) following a breach of undertakings, but the application for this licence was granted, subject to the same undertakings. Audits conducted in July 2017, August 2018 and in September 2021, all highlighted shortcomings. The operator was reviewed again at a Preliminary Hearing on 7 December 2021 (page 100), resulting in a Public Inquiry on 10 June 2022 (page 102), when this licence was curtailed from 7 vehicles to 5 for a period of 8 weeks following adverse findings including inadequate driver defect reporting and drivers failing to make a correct record of driving times. Mr Garrod was to attend OLAT.
The licence is subject to specific undertakings: to undertake a random audit of at least three drivers per week to ensure the drivers are undertaking their walk round checks correctly, with findings to be recorded and made available; and to employ Mr Doug Grant for 1 to 2 days per week to monitor the systems he has put in place; the operator having commissioned a maintenance audit by 31 August 2018.
The public record held by Companies House shows that Mr Garrod is also the Director of Diss Grab Hire Ltd which holds a Standard National Goods Vehicle Operator鈥檚 Licence authorising 2 vehicles only, but at different Operating Centres. The Transport Manager is Colin Malcolm Blyth.
Hearing
The Public Inquiry was listed for today, 13 February 2025, in Tribunal Room 1 of the Office of the Traffic Commissioner in Cambridge. The operator was present in the form of the Director, Mr Garrod, represented by Tim Ridyard, solicitor of Ashtons Legal, and accompanied by a tachograph consultant, Amanda Roberts of AR Compliance.
Issues
The public inquiry was called at the request of the operators and following notice (page 135) that I was considering grounds to intervene in respect of this licence and specifically by reference to the following sections of the Goods Vehicle (Licensing of Operators) Act:
鈥 26(1)(b) 鈥 conditions on licence to notify changes, in this case relating to maintenance and to meet the licence requirements, including the undertaking provided at grant.
鈥 26(1)(e) 鈥 statements relating to inspection intervals, and to abide by conditions on the licence
鈥 26(1)(f) 鈥 undertakings (vehicles to be kept fit and serviceable, effective driver defect reporting, complete maintenance records, drivers鈥 hours and tachographs)
鈥 26(1)(h) 鈥 material change in fitness to hold the licence and in the availability of finance required.
鈥 28 鈥 Disqualification.
The hearing was also called to allow the operator opportunity to pursue a variation application to increase by 3 vehicles, by showing that it meets the statutory criteria d specifically the following sections of the above Act:
鈥 13B 鈥 fitness to meet the licence requirements.
鈥 13C(2) 鈥 satisfactory arrangements for complying with drivers鈥 hours requirements.
鈥 13C(3) 鈥 satisfactory arrangements to ensure vehicles are not overloaded.
鈥 13C(4) 鈥 satisfactory arrangements and facilities for maintaining vehicles in a fit and serviceable condition.
鈥 13D 鈥 available finance so that maintenance for the total authority is not prejudiced.
The operator was directed to lodge evidence in support by 30 January 2025, including financial, maintenance and other compliance documentation.
Summary of Evidence
The operator submitted a variation application on 18 September 2023, seeking to increase the number of authorised vehicles from 7 to 10. That prompted the DVSA Remote Enforcement Office to commence an assessment of the operator鈥檚 records and management system. On 4 January 2024, DVSA Examiners Jennie Mitchell and Kelvin Summers commenced a Desk Based Assessment (DBA) following receipt of the operator鈥檚 completed Questionnaire. The subsequent report (DBAR) dated 9 January 2024 (pages 71 to 88), alleged the following shortcomings:
鈥 Poor annual test history (Page 120 鈥 now 33% initial failure rate following failures in December 2024) with poor management control. The operator was unable to produce a contract for one of the providers which had carried out Preventative Maintenance Inspections, with no images provided of the facilities relied on.
鈥 There was no satisfactory explanation as to how vehicles might be declared and secured as off-road, and no satisfactory explanation or evidence of a system for ensuring safety recalls.
鈥 No evidence was produced to support the claims that Adblue was cross-referenced with fuel consumption or other monitoring despite the reference to a spreadsheet with weekly invoices.
鈥 There was no satisfactory explanation of how wheel security and tyres were managed, with no evidence of a log or retorque tags produced. No evidence was produced of an effective tyre management system as the records referred to were not produced.
鈥 No evidence was produced of satisfactory driving licence checks, i.e. to show the suggested quarterly checks with a copy of a licence provided, which expired 2022, and a second which was not the current issue.
鈥 There was no evidence of training despite a vague reference in the response to memos and Whatsapp messages. (I was concerned about retention periods.) Only one record was produced showing the modules attended by that driver on 15 January 2023.
鈥 Inadequate systems for checking tachograph records. Despite the reliance on Tachomaster, there was no explanation of how analogue records and out of scope driving was incorporated into drivers鈥 hours systems.
鈥 The operator claimed to produce missing mileage reports, but no evidence was produced. It was recorded that one vehicle had been driven on 4 occasions without a driver card (between 13 & 122km) but there was no investigation explanation. There was further inconsistency in the way in which 4 drivers were recording rest periods and other work via digital tachograph records.
鈥 Inadequate systems to manage working time. Tachographs and trackers were said to check working time but there was no evidence of auditing. The operator confirmed a failure to record sick leave as working time and 2 drivers were not included on the calculation spreadsheet.
鈥 The Examiners noted a trend of safety critical prohibitions and poor annual test history suggesting poor management, further evidenced by a lack of security procedures and insufficient details provided on the Questionnaire.
The operator was required to respond by 16 January 2024, but emailed on 17 January to explain the delay, promising a response the same day. In fact, it was nor received until 19 January 2024.The operator gave the following assurances:
鈥 A VOR plate would be placed in the window and keys not released until the vehicle is signed off by fitter and authorised by Mr Garrod. A copy of the VOR template and competed form was attached.
鈥 Mr Garrod relies on recalls sent by the manufacturer for rectification, with a record placed in the vehicle file, but going forward he would check the gov.uk website every 3 months.
鈥 He provided the missing maintenance agreement but suggested that the operator was only using one provider(not Drayton Tyres) and images of the facilities for the one provider (Roy Humphrey) were supplied.
鈥 The test failure rate had prompted the operator to move to Trumbar Truckcare and suggested that the pass rate had improved since moving provider on 2 March 2023, despite having criticised Trumbar Truckcare in 2017/18.
鈥 Changes in exhaust smoke are monitored on walk round checks and recorded; changes are booked in immediately. The Preventative Maintenance Inspections also check exhaust smoke.
鈥 Drivers report issues with Adblue to Mr Garrod who books repairs immediately but going forward he would record usage on a spreadsheet at each fill-up. It was said that the operator also monitored fuel usage to investigate.
鈥 Drivers were said to sign a wheel management policy confirming their understanding. Tyres are checked daily and vehicles fitted with wheel markers. A re-torque book is supplied for tyre changes and uses a calibrated torque wrench (with sample sheets and calibration certificate provided). Drivers must report tyre defects, which are monitored through Preventative Maintenance Inspections, with gate checks. Tyre defects are recorded on a worksheet supplied by the tyre company and placed in the vehicle file with a retorque sheet.
鈥 Driver Licence checks are completed quarterly with a spreadsheet supplied and reminders are sent using Tachomaster covering all cards (licence, CPC, driver card). Up to date copies of licences for the two drivers were then supplied. One driver was said to be exempt from DCPC.
鈥 The operator had sent the driver starter pack, with training delivered by Mr Garrod or an experienced member of staff. Further training is provided to drivers who fall short, with occasional memos to drivers.
鈥 Analogue records and out of scope driving are fed into the Tachomaster system. Analogue records are sent to Truck UK which incorporates the information. Drivers of 7.5 tonne vehicles were said to usually operate within an 100km radius and use a logbook, but use a driver card or analogue record, if outside.
鈥 Missing mileage is displayed on Tachomaster with disciplinary process adopted. Reports are endorsed with comments against any missing mileage. The two drivers were given written warnings for driving without a card, the other was ascribed to a fitter.
鈥 All sick days would be recorded as 8 hours on the WTD spreadsheet. Two drivers were described as 鈥榗asual鈥 but would now be added. Tachograph and tracker sheets were attached.
The operator referred to working with a transport consultant and Transport Manager. The operator had already changed maintenance provider which improved the pass rate and will continue to be monitored. The Examiners were generally satisfied by the level of detail now supplied. Following receipt of that assessment, I asked that a follow up review be concluded, allowing the operator opportunity to evidence that it had met its assurances. The operator was therefore invited to attend an interview with a Senior Team Leader from the Office of the Traffic Commissioner. This was arranged for 31 July 2024, but Mr Garrod proved to be unavailable. It was then rescheduled for 11 September 2024, but Mr Garrod said that he was again unable to attend. An offer was made to attend on 12 September 2024, but Mr Garrod was still not able to attend. Following the failure to make himself available, notice was sent by the Office of the Traffic Commissioner as to the potential consequences for the application and this licence. The operator then requested a Public Inquiry.
I refer to the useful updates prepared by DVSA. On 30 January 2025, Leigh Garrod provided downloads for five Vehicle Units (BX56 WYD x 2, KX17 PFJ x 1 and L333 GRD x 2), examples of a driving licence check system for three drivers (Pearson, Frost, Stonebridge), DVLA electronic checks for two drivers (Pearson, Stonebridge). Case Management Directions referred to the last 3 months for vehicle tachograph raw data files (being 30 October 2024 to 30 January 2025) in contrast to:
鈥 L333 GRD (26 tonnes) 鈥 16 September 2024 to 29 January 2025
鈥 BX56 WYD (18 tonnes) 鈥 16 September 2024 to 27 January 2025
鈥 KX17 PFJ (7.49 tonnes) 鈥 18 September to 19 December 2024.
Vehicle Unit download periods:
鈥 L333 GRD 鈥 10 October to 17 December 2024: 68 days.
鈥 BX56 WYD 鈥 20 September to 17 December 2024: 88 days and 17 December 2024 to 27 January 2025: 41 days.
鈥 KX17 PFJ 鈥 20 September to and 19 December 2024: 90 days.
The above downloads were within the legal timeframe of 90 days, with a maximum of once per month. The previous assessment highlighted vehicles driven without a driver card inserted. The operator provided explanations and drivers were given written and final warnings. The operator also provided assurances that mileage reports will be cleared with comments against any missing km etc. No driver infringement reports were produced, no missing mileage reports were made available, and no evidence of disciplinary action was received. I refer to the summary of tachograph analysis and corresponding instances of driving without an appropriate card, offences of exceeding 4.5 hours and insufficient daily rest 鈥 Drivers Stonebridge and Pearson.
Analysis of the Vehicle Unit events and faults data confirmed that all the above vehicles had been driven without a driver card inserted, for instance KX17 PFJ. Records to show whether any specific exemptions from the EU drivers hours rules were not produced, but that would only apply to this weight of vehicle within a 100 km radius from the base of the undertaking, on the condition that driving the vehicle does not constitute the driver鈥檚 main activity and that the transport is not carried out for hire or reward. Leigh Garrod had previously indicated that he was aware of the 100 km rule and that timesheets were signed off weekly.
Driving licence checks were recorded as taking place quarterly, with two DVLA print outs produced. However, when checked, the photocard driving licence of Richard Remblence expired on the 10 December 2023 although the vocational entitlement was current.
The vehicle excise duty for L333 GRD expired on 1 February 2025. That vehicle was presented for an annual test on 3 February 2025, when it passed with advisories. It is possible that the system has not yet updated. There was one roadside traffic encounter recorded when a 3.5 tonne Light Goods Vehicle was weighed, and no offences recorded.
The forward planner contained all the relevant information such as vehicle registrations, tachograph dates, annual test dates. All Preventative Maintenance Inspection records were completed by the listed maintenance provider, RVH Commercials within the declared 6 weekly intervals. The records were said to be complete. Defects listed were showing an 鈥淎ction鈥 in the remedial work/repair section and the defects were signed off by the technician. Several brake test printouts were submitted for both laden and unladen tests, but not always undertaken on the date of the vehicle inspection. With numerous records across all vehicles showing differing inspection and roadworthiness dates (some being 7-12 days apart). Some wheel torque/re-torque records were seen and deemed satisfactory. There was also some supplementary documentation for parts, repairs and invoices which had been provided.
Driver Defect Reports were noted to be completed, but
鈥 KX17 PFJ - 鈥渄uration鈥 of inspection around 1 minute (other vehicle duration periods range between 5 minutes and 30 minutes).
鈥 BX56 WYD 鈥 reports for 19, 20 and 22 November 2024 show the driver has identified a brake lining wear warning light, with no evidence of a repair or investigation work having taken place.
鈥 BX56 WYD 鈥 17 January 2025 鈥渘il鈥 report, but the Preventative Maintenance Inspection the same day has a safety related defect for a kerb side mirror/glass missing/damaged/cracked (stated as 鈥淩eplaced鈥 by maintenance provider).
I took evidence about the contractual obligations and the successful nature of this business. The work stretches from major civil engineering projects lasting decades to regular contracts with public bodies. The business has grown considerable, based mainly on civil engineering and ground works, including restitution work. It employs c 36 employees and has a fleet of 29 vehicles, with 5 HGV derivers. Mr Ridyard supplied me with detailed estimations of the financial impact which revocation would have on what is a highly viable concern. Sadly, the approach taken to risk assessment and management relied upon in those other parts of the business has not been evident in the transport operation.
Control measures which were identified at a previous Public Inquiry and replicated ion grant of this licence have not been properly employed. The operator failed to notify me that Mr Grant was no longer involved. I heard of the various consultants and individuals which Mr Garrod had engaged during the intervening period. Despite renewing the licence in 2022 and making the application in September 2023, the operator failed to notify me of that change, even though one of those consultants departed that month. Recently, the operator sought to rely on the Transport Manager and Operations Manager for Diss Grab Hire Ltd. The recent issues were attributed to a period where the duties on Mr Blyth proved to be too much, and he became stretched. This will inevitably result in attention turning to that operator.
Weaknesses in the management have been fully exposed by the decision to approach the operation based on what exemptions might be enjoyed rather than what leads to effective management and compliance. The nature of the mixed work under exemptions and EU rules has unnecessarily complicated the process. On questioning about the management of exempt activities, there was too much reliance on 鈥渘ormally鈥 or 鈥済enerally鈥, suggesting that the sole Director did not have a firm enough grip of the systems. The acceptance of instances of non-recording of walk rounds and the lack of clear discipline only added to that impression.
He finally acknowledged responsibility for the shortcomings. He too is stretched across his other responsibilities, but that is no excuse, if he wishes this operator to continue to enjoy the benefits of an operator鈥檚 licence. Mr Garrod acknowledged his need for continuing support. He started conversations with AR Consulting two weeks ago, after the call-up letter was received. I therefore took evidence from Amanda Roberts regarding the systems which might be employed on behalf of this operator including systems for the tracking of in scope vehicles and the remote downloading of data and weekly downloads of Vehicle Units. She was very clear about the need for greater transparency and recording of all duties.
Determination
Based on the evidence summarised above, I was satisfied that I should record adverse decisions under the following sections of the Act: 26(1)(b) 鈥 conditions on licence to notify changes, in this case relating to maintenance and to meet the licence requirements, including the undertaking provided at grant; 26(1)(e) 鈥 statements relating to inspection intervals, and to abide by conditions on the licence; 26(1)(f) 鈥 undertakings (vehicles to be kept fit and serviceable, effective driver defect reporting, complete maintenance records, drivers鈥 hours and tachographs, and the undertaking on grant.
It was accepted that I would refuse this application, the operator having failed to satisfy me as against sections 13C(2) 鈥 satisfactory arrangements for complying with drivers鈥 hours requirements, and 13C(4) 鈥 satisfactory arrangements and facilities for maintaining vehicles in a fit and serviceable condition, calling 13B into question.
This was a relatively straight forward case where, having been given assistance at previous Public Inquiries, the operator not only failed to employ the identified control measures, but it also failed to notify me of obvious changes. The Upper Tribunal has repeatedly described Drivers鈥 hours management as fundamental to road safety and yet basic risk management has not been employed in respect of the transport elements of this business. In allowing himself top become distracted and seeking to delegated away those tasks, Mr Garrod has put the future of the business at risk. Other operators would be entitled to look at these failings and question why it has been permitted. 25. This is Mr Garrod鈥檚 last opportunity. The conduct to date has so far tested the trust which can be placed in this entity. The licence only survives because of the following undertakings.
鈥 Within 7 days of the date of Public Inquiry, the operate will engage AR Compliance to provide drivers鈥 hours and tachograph compliance services; a formal written contract shall be in place; any termination of this service shall be notified to the Traffic Commissioner within 28 days.
鈥 Within 7 days of the date of Public Inquiry, all driver activity, whether conducted under EU or GB drivers鈥 hours rules, shall be recorded on driver cards.
鈥 To identify an independent body (i.e. not an existing consultant to carry out an audit of all licence compliance systems. The audit will assess the operator against the standards published under the DVSA earned recognition scheme: www.gov.uk/government/publications/dvsa-earned-recognition-vehicle-operator-standards A copy of the report together with the operator鈥檚 detailed proposals for implementing the report鈥檚 recommendations is to be submitted to the Office of the Traffic Commissioner in Cambridge within 6 months of the date of the Public Inquiry. The audit will assess the systems for complying with maintenance and/or drivers hours requirements, and the effectiveness with which those systems are implemented. The audit should cover at least the applicable elements detailed in the guidance on Operator Compliance Audits at: www.gov.uk/government/publications/operator-compliance-audits
鈥 Within 28 days, a Transport Manager CPC-qualified employee or external transport consultant shall be engaged for a minimum of 4 hours per week.
Whilst I heard evidence that the refusal of the application will have a potential financial impact, I do not judge that to be sufficient deterrent action and against the starting points advocated by the Senior Traffic Commissioner in Statutory Document No. 10, Annex 4. Even with those robust undertakings, the case falls at least within the SERIOUS bracket. On this occasion, the licence will be curtailed by one vehicle for a period of one month from 23:45 tonight. The relevant disc must be returned to the Office of the Traffic Commissioner within 7 days and the operator must immediately confirm the registration, to be check on VOL, with an accompanying direction under section 26(6). There should be no doubt in the mind of Mr Garrod as to the likely outcome of he again fails to meet the basic requirements of the operator鈥檚 licence. The fitness of this operator is now so tarnished that its ability to hold a licence hangs by a thread.
R Turfitt
Traffic Commissioner
13 February 2025