Decision for Helical Technoloy Ltd (OC1120066)
Source: gov.uk (2025-05-01)

Written confirmation of the verbal decision of the Traffic Commissioner for the North West for Helical Technoloy Ltd (OC1120066)

IN THE NORTH WEST TRAFFIC AREA

HELICAL TECHNOLOGY LTD – OC1120066

WRITTEN CONFIRMATION OF THE VERBAL DECISION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER

Public Inquiry held in Golborne on 09 April 2025

This licence holding company appeared before me at Public Inquiry on Wednesday 09 April 2025 and was in attendance through Director Mr. Charles Morris. The Company was represented by Mr Eliot Willis of NA Legal Transport Solicitors and was assisted by Mr John Gregson. I understand Mr Gregson to be the Company’s Warehouse and Logistics Manager and has delegated responsibility for the management of transport operations.

The Company holds a Restricted Goods Vehicle Operator’s licence, which authorises the use of 3 vehicles. The licence came into force on 18 June 2013.

This Operator initially came to the attention of the DVSA following an immediate prohibition that was issued on 01 August 2023. The DVSA subsequently undertook a compliance visit in October 2023 which reported unsatisfactory arrangements across a number of areas.

Those issues were considered at a Public Inquiry on 25 March 2024 after which a warning was issued. In addition, three undertakings were agreed. These are summarised as follows:

• By 31 May 2024 – John Gregson will attend a 2-Day CPC Refresher Course, with proof of attendance submitted not later than 30 June 2024 • By 31 May 2024 – both Directors will attend an OLAT Course, with proof of attendance submitted not later than 30 June 2024 • By 30 November 2024 – The operator will provide an independent audit of transport operations, along with its detailed proposals for implementation of recommendations

It appeared, on expiration of the due dates, that the undertakings had not been complied with, and reminders had to be sent from this office. This process of issuing reminders occurred firstly for the training courses, and again for the audit. The audit undertaking was eventually complied with on 30 January 2025, two months after the deadline.

The audit, when received, raised several concerns in respect of the management of transport operations. Many of which related to areas that I would consider to be critical to road safety.

Summary of Evidence

In evidence I found Mr Morris and Mr Gregson to be reliable and honest witnesses. They acknowledged and accepted the shortcomings, challenging (quite rightly) where they felt the observations of the DVSA and myself were inaccurate. In truth, however, those challenges were few and far between.

It was largely accepted that I did not have any evidence that proof of attendance at training courses were submitted to my office in advance of the deadline. Mr Gregson maintained that he expected he would have submitted the evidence, but this is not consistent with his email dated 05 July 2025 which blamed an inactive email address and included, then, the records. I note that the failure to notify this office of a change to correspondence records is a breach of the conditions of the Operator’s licence (2010/056 Mohamed Aslam t/a Instant Freight paragraph 6 refers).

It was more readily accepted that the Operator failed to comply with the audit undertaking. An oversight was blamed along with, again, an inactive email address.

That audit itself raised a wide range of concerns, highlighting shortcomings in respect of driver management, maintenance systems, record retention, wheel & tyre management and drivers’ hours. The Operator’s response, provided by Mr Gregson raised further concerns as it asked questions which, in my opinion, should be known to an Operator as they are adequately covered within the various pieces of guidance issued by the Senior Traffic Commissioner and the DVSA.

Further evidence provided ahead of the Inquiry - in the form of more recent PMI sheets, driver defect reports and brake testing records - highlighted to me that the shortcomings continued despite previous assurances to the contrary. I identified brake testing which did not conform to the stipulated 65% of GVW as per the DVSA’s Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness – therefore not considered a laden brake test. In addition, I noted a number of imbalances that should have been investigated and, arguably, retested. I found further weaknesses in the PMI process and the driver defect reporting. It was clear that this Operator did not provide sufficient oversight to assess these records and, where appropriate, challenge the maintenance provider or driver.

Decision

On consideration of the evidence I make the following adverse findings:

o under S.26(1)(b) – contravention of a licence condition in that the operator failed to comply with the requirement to notify this office, within 28 days of any changes in the correspondence records;

o under S.26(1)(f) that the operator failed to fulfil specific undertakings recorded on their licence in respect of continuous professional development, although I reduce the weight given to this as the failure was to provide evidence within a deadline; and

o under S.26(1)(f) that the operator failed to fulfil the general undertaking recorded on their licence to ensue they have adequate systems to ensure:

 Rules on drivers’ hours and tachographs would be observed  Vehicles and trailers would be kept fit and serviceable  Driver reports any defects in writing  Maintenance records would be kept for 15 months

In consideration of the Senior Traffic Commissioners starting points for regulatory action I place this Operator’s conduct within the Severe to Serious category, “Persistent operator licence failures with previous public inquiry”.

This Operator asserts that new processes have been put in place, but I have no evidence of that yet being effective.

Whilst I recognise that this is a Restricted licence holder, I note the comments from the Upper Tribunal in Redsky Wholesalers Ltd v UKUT [2013] UKUT 194 (AAC indicating that asking the ‘Priority Freight’ and ‘Bryan Haulage’ questions can be helpful in determining the proportionality of approach. I therefore consider the question posed by the Upper Tribunal in 2009/225 Priority Freight namely: how likely is it that this operator will, in future, operate in compliance with the operator’s licensing regime? I answer in the positive – but only just. The evidence before me in respect of this licence – particularly the attendance at previous Public Inquiry – is concerning, but this is a large organisation with only a single vehicle in use. They should be able to get things right. But this should be considered to be their final opportunity

I therefore step back from a direction to revoke the licence. In considering proportionate regulatory action I consider the intended effect of curtailment or suspension. In this case, whilst the Operator is authorised for three vehicles, the evidence really pertained to an Operator who was managing one 7,500kg vehicle. I am concerned that this is not being effectively managed. As such, curtailing authorisation wouldn’t alleviate any concerns.

Instead, I consider a period of suspension to be appropriate to allow the Operator to cease operations and invest that time in reviewing systems and procedures, and providing some internal training. I therefore suspend the licence for a period of 21 days, commencing 23:45 on Sunday 20 April 2025, and ending at 23:45 on Sunday 11 May 2025.

I give this direction on the offer of the following undertakings which are formally recorded and will be added to the Operator’s licence.

o The Operator undertakes to identify an independent body to carry out an audit during September 2025 of transport safety and 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’s detailed proposals for implementing the report’s recommendations is to be submitted to xxx@xxx.xx not later than 30 October 2025. 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 available at: www.gov.uk/government/publications/operator-compliance-audits

o The Operator, by 09 June 2025, engage a person, holding valid Transport Manager CPC qualifications, to assist with the implementation of system improvements and ensure effective and continuous management of transport operations. The operator is aware that, so long as the licence remains a Restricted licence the employed CPC holder will have no statutory responsibility in respect of the operator licence.

David Mullan

Traffic Commissioner for the North West of England

09 April 2025