Decision for Cumbria Coaches (PC1007771)
Source: gov.uk (2025-02-18)

Written confirmation of the decision of the Traffic Commissioner for the North West for Cumbria Coaches and Louise McQuillin-Blair, transport manager.

IN THE NORTH WEST TRAFFIC AREA

CUMBRIA COACHES LTD – PC1007771 &

MRS LOUISE MCQUILLIN-BLAIR (Transport Manager)

WRITTEN CONFRIMATION OF THE VERBAL DECISION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER

This operator appeared before me at Public Inquiry on Tuesday 4th February and was in attendance through its two Directors, Mrs Louise McQuillin-Blair and Mrs Paula McQuillin-Blair, and represented by Mr Andrew Banks of Stone King Solicitors.

Mrs Louise McQuillin-Blair was also called separately to the Inquiry so that concerns regarding her capacity as Transport Manager could be considered.

I am grateful to all in attendance for their assistance in dealing with the matters before me, and for the preparation and early provision of statements and evidence in good time prior to the Inquiry.

In evidence I found both Directors to be credible and honest witnesses. I primarily heard evidence from Mrs Louise McQuillan-Blair, as would be expected considering her role as Transport Manager, but it was clear that Mrs Paula McQuillin-Blair was also making a contribution to turning around the fortunes of this operation.

The primary reason for the Public Inquiry was an extremely disappointing Maintenance Investigation Visit Report dated 25th September 2024. This identified a wide range of failings, scoring only 4 of 13 areas as satisfactory. Primary concerns were a range of prohibitions, absence of an effective brake testing regime, below standard system for the management of wheels/tyres and unsatisfactory systems for maintenance and driver defect reporting. Unsurprisingly the Transport Manager was marked as unsatisfactory with the DVSA examiner concluding, at that time, that she “does not have effective control”.

These issues were further highlighted through concerning statistics at annual test indicating that the failures could have a negative impact on road safety.

I did hear, in detail, how these issues are now being resolved with new planning systems introduced, new procedures in place, checks and balances being personally undertaken by the Directors/Transport Manager, as well as training provided to the Transport Manager and drivers. Importantly this has been evidenced, with a pre-Public Inquiry report by DVSA providing a much more positive assessment of affairs. Continuing the positives I further note an improving pass rate at annual test, a driver handbook in place, a disciplinary process and I note that this is the operator’s first Public Inquiry.

There are, however, serious negatives. The state of affairs uncovered by DVSA should not have been allowed to arise. I am advised that those responsible for the management of transport operations took their eye off the ball and failed to effect proper oversight and control of drivers and maintenance staff. I credit them for taking responsibility, but it should not have taken DVSA intervention for the improvements to be made. I commend the DVSA for its intervention.

To the operator’s credit they took prompt and effective action following the DVSA audit and did not await the calling to a Public Inquiry. I am mindful of the helpful guidance provided in the Upper Tribunal decision of NT/2013/82 Arnold Transport:

• The attitude of an operator when something goes wrong can be very instructive. Some recognise the problem at once and take immediate and effective steps to put matters right. Others only recognise the problem when it is set out in a call-up letter and begin to put matters right in the period before the Public Inquiry takes place. A third group leave it even later and come to the Public Inquiry with promises of action in the future. A fourth group bury their heads in the sand and wait to be told what to do during the Public Inquiry.

This is an operator who, long before the call up to Public Inquiry was issued, started to take appropriate action to resolve the issues identified. They notably fall into the first category.

Decision

Having assessed all the evidence, I formally make the following adverse findings under provisions set out within the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981:

a. Section 17(3)(a) - that a statement of expectation has not been fulfilled, namely the commitment to undertake preventative maintenance inspections at 4 week intervals;

b. Section 17(3)(aa) - Failure to comply with undertakings to ensure vehicles are kept fit and serviceable (illustrated by prohibitions, driver detectable defects identified at PMI and poor pass averages at annual test) and a failure of drivers to report defects promptly (as evidenced by the recording of driver detectable defects on PMI sheets; and

c. Section 17(3)(c) – that a prohibition has been imposed with respect of vehicles owned or operated by the licence holder.

On consideration of the guidance provided by the Senior Traffic Commissioner on starting points for regulatory action, as set out at Annex 4 of Statutory Document 10, I place this case within the category of “serious to moderate”. There are two or more negative features with some positive features.

As cases within the “serious” category require consideration of revocation I have regard to 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. It is my view that, having completed an exercise to balance the positives and negatives of this case, enough has been achieved to satisfy me that there is an ability, and a will, to get things right.

I am, however, of the opinion that regulatory action is required. It is necessary to deter this operator from falling back into previous habits and to encourage them to continue its path of improvement. It is also important to deter other operators who may choose the route of non-compliance if no action was to be taken in such cases. The Upper Tribunal has confirmed the relevance of deterrent action within 2019/025 John Stuart Strachan t/a Strachan Haulage “one of the aims of the regime is deterrence, both for the applicant and for operators as a whole, who might be tempted to flout the system”.

Having taken account of the submissions on the impact of regulatory action I make a direction under Section 17(2)(d) that this licence is varied (“curtailed”) to authorise a maximum number of 5 vehicles to be used at any one time under this licence, between 23:45 on 15th February and 23:45 on 22nd February 2025.

I give this direction on acceptance of the following undertakings offered by the operator:

(i) The operator undertakes to identify a DVSA-authorised audit provider, the RHA, Logistics UK, or other equivalent independent body to carry out an audit of transport safety and compliance systems during August 2025. 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 the Office of the Traffic Commissioner at Golborne by 15th September 2025. The audit will assess the systems for complying with maintenance and 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

(ii) By 4th May 2025, Mrs Louise McQuillin-Blair & Mrs Paula McQuillin-Blair will each either: a. attend in person an operator licence management training course; or b. participate in a virtual online operator licence management course.

Courses must be run by one of the following bodies:

• a trade association (Logistics UK/RHA/BAR/CPT),

• a professional body (IoTA/CILT/SOE/IRTE),

• a JAUPT accredited training centre or an exam centre approved by an accredited body to offer the transport manager CPC qualification in [goods][passenger] transport, or,

• a firm of solicitors (or their associated training organisation) with significant experience with road transport regulatory and compliance issues (defined as having represented road transport operators and/or transport managers in at least 20 public inquiries over the past two years).

Virtual online courses must satisfy the criteria for such courses established by the traffic commissioners. Whether attending in person or participating in an online course, proof of attendance must be submitted by e-mail to the Office of the Traffic Commissioner at Golborne xxx@xxx.xx within seven days of completing the course.

I direct that Mrs Louise McQuillin-Blair’s good repute as Transport Manager is tarnished but is not yet forfeited.

The operator is required to notify this office, not later than 18:00hrs on 6th February 2025, which vehicles will not be used during the period the licence is varied (“curtailed”).

David Mullan

Traffic Commissioner for the North West of England

5th February 2025