Decision for Rouse Scaffolding Ltd (OF2012538)
Source: gov.uk (2025-06-16)

Written confirmation of the decision of the Traffic Commissioner for the East of England for Rouse Scaffolding Ltd

IN THE EASTERN TRAFFIC AREA

ROUSE SCAFFOLDING LTD - OF2012538

CONFIRMATION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER’S DECISION

Background

Rouse Scaffolding Ltd holds a Restricted Goods Vehicle Operator’s Licence authorising 3 vehicles only. The Director is Leon Rouse.

There is one Operating Centre at Hopton Timber Products Ltd, Hall Road, Hopton, Great Yarmouth NR31 9AX. Preventative Maintenance Inspections were said to be carried out by LG Perfect Engineering Ltd and Matthews International Transport Ltd at 8-weekly intervals. Submissions indicate that the contract with Matthews International Transport Ltd has now ended, with sole reliance on LG Perfect Engineering Ltd.

The licence was granted from 7 June 2018 and authorising 1 vehicle only. An application was lodged in September 2019 requesting an increase in authority for an additional 2 vehicles. That application was granted on 30 October 2019.

Hearing

The Public Inquiry was listed for today, 5 June 2025, in Tribunal Room 1 of the Office of the Traffic Commissioner in Cambridge. The operator was present in the form of Mr Rouse, represented by James Backhouse of Backhouse Jones.

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:

• 26(1)(b) – conditions on licence to ensure road safety and notify changes in fitness.

• 26(1)(ca) – fixed penalty notice issued.

• 26(1)(e) – unfulfilled statement to comply with licence conditions.

• 26(1)(f) – undertakings (drivers’ hours and tachographs, vehicles to be kept fit and serviceable, to employ an effective written driver defect reporting system, to retain full maintenance records).

• 26(1)(h) – material change in fitness to hold the licence and in the availability of finance required.

• 28 – Disqualification.

The operator was directed to lodge evidence in support by 22 May 2025, including financial, maintenance and other compliance documentation. A copy of the operator’s bank statements for the last three months was provided to the Office for the Traffic Commissioner in advance of the hearing. However, the operator then failed to produce original bank statements at the hearing. I would have been entitled to suspend the licence until those were produced but noting the balances, I drew back from that (see below).

Summary of Evidence

On 13 November 2024 laden vehicle PK61 SYF was encountered by DVSA at Great Yarmouth Port. The vehicle was being driven by the Director, Mr Rouse. The vehicle was not displaying a goods vehicle identity disc but was specified on this operator’s licence. At the hearing he was unable to explain how that disc was lost. Mr Rouse has a better understanding of the importance of retaining licence documentation. Mr Rouse was not in possession of his driver card. He communicated the belief that he was exempt. He then declined to be interviewed at the roadside or at a later date, despite invitations dated 15 and 18 November 2024.

DVSA found that Mr Rouse was driving the vehicle without a digital tachograph driver card inserted into the vehicle’s digital tachograph unit. Further analysis of the tachograph data revealed numerous other occasions where the vehicle had been driven without a driver card inserted into the vehicle’s tachograph unit:

• 12 November 2024, 7:25 - 15:53, PK61SYF was driven with no driver card inserted for a total of 48 minutes, covering 8 km.

• 11 November 2024, 7:21 - 16:28, PK61SYF was driven with no driver card inserted for a total of 1 hour and 14 minutes, covering 38 km.

• 9 November 2024, 7:23 hours - 11:28, PK61SYF was driven with no driver card inserted for a total of 1 hour, covering 22 km.

• 8 November 2024, 7:36 - 15:24, PK61SYF was driven with no driver card inserted for a total of 2 hours and 15 minutes, covering 119 km.

• 7 November 2024, 7:37 - 16:00, PK61SYF was driven with no driver card for a total of 2 hours and 43 minutes, covering 97 km.

• 6 November 2024, 7:15 - 15:35, PK61SYF was driven with no driver card inserted for a total of 48 minutes, covering 14 km.

• 5 November 2024, 7:43 - 15:53 hours, PK61SYF was driven with no driver card inserted for a total of 54 minutes, covering 11 km.

• 4 November 2024, 7:29 - 15:49, PK61SYF was driven with no driver card inserted for a total of 50 minutes, covering 14 km.

• 2 November 2024, 8:17 - 12:08, PK61SYF was driven with no driver card inserted for a total of 32 minutes, covering 12 km.

• 1 November 2024, 7:33 - 13:13, PK61SYF was driven with no driver card inserted for a total of 2 hours and 22 minutes, covering 100 km.

• 31 October 2024, 7:17 - 15:56, PK61SYF was driven with no driver card inserted for a total of 1 hour and 31 minutes, covering 35 km.

• 30 October 2024, 7:07 - 17:39, PK61SYF was driven with no driver card inserted for a total of 1 hour and 40 minutes, covering 39 km.

• 29 October 2024, 7:07 - 16:19, PK61SYF was driven with no driver card inserted for a total of 1 hour and 47 minutes, covering 9 km.

• 28 October 2024, 7:31 - 16:05, PK61SYF was driven with no driver card inserted for a total of 1 hour and 32 minutes, covering 8 km.

• 26 October 2024, 7:09 - 12:20, PK61SYF was driven with no driver card inserted for a total of 25 minutes, covering 7 km.

• 25 October 2024, 7:07 - 15:11, PK61SYF was driven with no driver card inserted for a total of 50 minutes, covering 18 km.

• 24 October 2024, 7:22 - 16:03, PK61SYF was driven with no driver card inserted for a total of 1 hour and 56 minutes, covering 72 km.

• 23 October 2024, 7:07 - 16:40, PK61SYF was driven with no driver card inserted for a total of 3 hours and 31 minutes, covering 133 km.

• 22 October 2024, 7:14 - 16:37, PK61SYF was driven with no driver card inserted for a total of 2 hours and 34 minutes, covering 100 km.

• 21 October 2024, 7:05 - 16:08, PK61SYF was driven with no driver card inserted for a total of 3 hours and 8 minutes, covering 138 km.

• 19 October 2024, 7:09 - 11:46, PK61SYF was driven with no driver card inserted for a total of 1 hour and 3 minutes, covering 28 km.

• 18 October 2024, 7:27 - 16:07, PK61SYF was driven with no driver card inserted for a total of 2 hours and 42 minutes, covering 105 km.

In addition, between 4 June and 10 October 2024, the vehicle was driven with no driver card inserted into its tachograph unit on sixty-seven separate calendar days, covering a distance of approximately two thousand eight hundred and thirty kilometres.

Further DVSA analysis showed that between 3 June 2024 and 13 November 2024 (inclusive) the vehicle was driven on 90 occasions without a driver card inserted covering over 4000 kms. DVSA prohibited Mr Rouse from driving for 45 hours and issued a £300 fixed penalty notice.

A Traffic Examiner undertook a visit to the operator on 13 December 2024 and found the operator’s compliance systems were either non-existent or far below the required standard. Specifically, the Examiner recorded that the operator had no training processes in place for drivers’ hours etc except for a basic discussion. Load security training was said to have been provided but not documented. The Director conducted an annual visual check of driver licences, but no checks of DVLA records or logs kept.

The Examiner found that only one vehicle would fall within scope although most journeys were local to the Operating Centre. The download date was missed by 1778 days. The operator’s first company card only became valid on 26 November 2024, so no other downloads had been conducted and there was no other data available to check. There was also no system in place to issue printer rolls and store printouts and no disciplinary process in place. There was no current Working Time system in place or records evident.

Whilst Mr Rouse had attended a new operator seminar and was signed up for e-alerts from the OTC, he was unaware of the changes he needed to notify. The Examiner noted that since the encounter in November 2024, the operator has taken on the services of a transport consultant who was to rectify the shortcomings found. The operator also now employs an administrative assistant. In his response to the Traffic Examiner: “We acknowledge the challenges identified during your visit stemmed from a combination of factors, including an overwhelming workload and gaps in up-to-date training. these issues have since been resolved through the employment of an administrative co-ordinator, who is now actively managing critical tasks, and the implementation of a comprehensive training program to ensure all team members are adequately informed and equipped. Moving forward, we are fully committed to maintaining compliance through these structured measures.”

Mr Rouse went on to set out the remedial measure which were proposed:

• Driver training on driving hours – Mr Rouse was committed to attending training regarding driving hours to enhance his understanding and ensure adherence to regulations.

• A tracking and monitoring system will be implemented to document all training activities and ensure they remain up to date.

• Employment of a “TM” to provide additional support in overseeing compliance with transport regulations and practices.

• All training related to load security and proper loading practices will be documented, tracked and monitored

• A comprehensive record of all driver’s licences will be maintained and reviewed on a quarterly basis with checks conducted through DVLA as part of this process to ensure licences remain valid and up to date.

• Mandatory use of tachographs so all drivers would be required to use tachographs, with compliance monitored closely and disciplinary processes utilised to ensure adherence.

• The administrative co-ordinator will ensure that printer rolls are readily available to avoid any interruptions and will also maintain and manage the printout records as part of our overall compliance measures.

• Printouts and downloads to be routinely checked, and if breaches are identified the company’s standard disciplinary procedure will be followed: First step – verbal warning , second step – written warning and final step – termination of employment if breaches persist.

• A digital calendar is now in place to track critical dates for vehicle tax, annual tests, insurance renewals and equipment calibration and managed by the administrative co-ordinator.

The operator apologised for the issues identified by the Examiner and accepted that, due to the nature and scale of the operation, it (Mr Rouse) was not fully aware of its obligations. There was a misunderstanding of the ‘tools of the trade’ tachograph exemption (compared to Driver CPC), which does not apply to vehicles exceeding 7.5 tonnes. It was accepted that the Working Time Directive was not complied with. Submissions prepared by Mr Backhouse referred to the up-to-date driving policies intended to remind drivers of their obligations. Routes are planned by Mr Rouse, with the assistance of the other driver, Steven Aldred. The operator currently relies on TachoMaster and in November 2024, instructed an external consultant, CJC, to complete monthly downloads, but concerns were raised when monthly reports were not produced. I was told that CJC was not available for a period, but it was then instructed to complete weekly downloads. Apparently, a revised contract was agreed. The operator has recently involved a different transport consultant, Fosters. I was referred to a short report produced by Fosters. The operator has installed TachPro envelopes. Each vehicle is inspected monthly to ensure printer rolls are present. Following advice from Fosters, the operator will transition to TruTac and is in the process of ordering remote download devices for both vehicles. All staff (drivers and non-drivers) have undertaken training with CJC. The operator has implemented regular checks of drivers Rouse and Aldred. Licences will be checked every 3 months. As well as the external training provided by CJC, the operator has also implemented internal training on load security, consistent with the Driving Policy issued to all drivers and warehouse operatives and the disciplinary process. Toolbox talks have covered tachographs, legal requirements, driver responsibilities and common mistakes.

Mr Russel’s update report of 19 May 2025 relies on the documents produced in advance through Backhouse Jones solicitors:

• Driver Licence Checks – images of Mr. Rouse’s driving licence and two driving licence summaries but could not locate a date or time of the licence checks: images of the licence held by Steven Matthew Aldred, with a single driving licence summary, but no date or time of the licence check.

• Missing Mileage Reports for both vehicles specified covering the period from the 1 December 2024 to 9 May 2025, only. The “Vehicle Unit Download” report, dated the 9 May 2025 shows both vehicles appear to be missing periods of “activity” from the 1 December 2024 to the 23 January 2025, so any subsequent reports could be unreliable. PK61 SYF: two periods of missing mileage listed below. 52 kilometres during 12 and 17 December 2024, 25 kilometres during 16 to 20 January 2025, but no further explanation L22 OBS: one period of missing mileage: 8 kilometres during 28 March to 7 April 2025 but not necessarily subject to tachograph use).

• Infringement Reports and Disciplinary Action - two infringement reports covering 1 April to 9 May 2025, for Drivers Rouse and Aldred. The Examiner concentrated on twenty working time offences for Drivers Aldred, although two could be discounted. The report was unsigned, with no further evidence of disciplinary action or investigation provided. For Driver Rouse there were two drivers’ hours offences: insufficient weekly rest – 24 March to 7 April 2025; and 31 March to 14 April 2025. The Examiner was unable to ascertain if the infringements were correct. The remaining thirty were working time directive offences. The report is unsigned, and no further evidence of disciplinary action or investigation has been provided.

• Training: Mental Health Awareness & Driver Welfare – Leon Rouse on 14 April 2025, Aidie Chapman on 23 April 2025; Drivers Hours Tachograph Awareness & Load Security – Leon Rouse and Aidie Chapman, Operator License Awareness Training – Leon Rouse and Aidie Chapman. All supplied by CJC Transport Consultants.

From a dip sample of the records lodged in advance of the hearing, I made the following observations:

L22 OBS – specified 5 September 2021

• 28 April 2025 – inspection (5+ weeks in advance of the hearing) with roller brake test: 59%, 32%, 18%. It also recorded defective horn, lamps and wipers.

• 14 March 2025 – inspection with roller brake test: 76%, 39%, but 13%.

• 19 January 2025 - inspection with no discernible brake performance check. It also recorded defective lamps.

• 14 November 2024 – inspection with roller brake check but 39%, 25%, 8%, tested again on 21 November: 61%, 25%, 16%. It also recorded defective mirrors, lamps, steering and tyres cut to cords.

• 19 September 2024 – inspection with illegible brake test showing insufficient load. It also recorded defective mirrors, warning on dash, insecure body (again).

• 20 July 2024 – inspection but roller brake test on 1 July 2024: 52%, 27%, 12% with insufficient load on axle 2. It also recorded defective lamps and insecure body.

PK61 SYF – specified 23 April 2021. Only two were made available me, which appears to have been a failure in the access to digital records

• 28 April 2025 – inspection with roller brake test: 52%, 32%, 31% but insufficient load on axle 2. It also recorded defective mirrors, cab door and tyre cut to cords.

• 23 March 2025 – inspection with roller brake test: 47%, 26%, 31% and insufficient load on axle 2. It also recorded defective lamps and mirror.

It was not possible to establish from the driver defect reports provided which vehicle they referred to or the date of the report (but see below).

I referred to the submissions are prepared by Backhouse Jones. The operator employs an administrative assistant, Aidie Chapman, who is tasked with ensuring that maintenance records are kept up to date as well as ensuring that all driver management data is recorded. It was stated that the operator “typically” carries out laden brake testing at each inspection. The operator also instructs the maintenance provider to address tyre and wheel maintenance at each inspection. I was directed to some recent examples as well as the retorque policy said to apply to drivers and fitters. The policy sets out torque settings, requirements, calibration etc.

The operator relies on Radius Velocity Vehicle Check for driver defect reporting. I was told that software allows the operator to monitor, and spot check drivers remotely. The operator is able to customise the driver walkaround checks to include items which are specific to the fleet. If a defect is identified, the driver should upload photographs of the defect as well as details. I was referred to an example. The time spent on the walkaround checks can also be monitored through the Radius app (a minimum of 15 minutes). Drivers must leave their mobile phones in the cab and only return to the app, once they have completed the walkaround. That is resulting inaccurate Velocity Reports. Mr Rouse was strongly advised to address this. I was told that the operator had begun to carry out spot checks on drivers, but this appeared to concentrate on the time taken and quality checks are not recorded. Again, Mr Rouse was advised of the need to address this even when he is undertaking the in-scope driving. The disciplinary process refers to what is required, following toolbox talks on daily vehicle checks as a refresher on what items should be checked and the action to be taken. The Preventative Maintenance Inspections illustrate that driver checks need to include additional checks where risks have been encountered, particularly at site.

Determination

Based on the evidence summarised above, I was satisfied that I could and should record adverse findings under the following sections of the Act: 26(1)(ca) – fixed penalty notice issued, 26(1)(f) – undertakings (drivers’ hours and tachographs, vehicles to be kept fit and serviceable, to employ an effective written driver defect reporting system, to retain full maintenance records).

When the Office of the Traffic Commissioner requests original bank statements, that does not equate to print outs from the internet. Those copies would need to be verified by the bank or other institution. I have allowed 4 weeks for those to be produced, and Mr Rouse is aware of the consequences if he fails to comply with my directions.

I noted the regularity with which the vehicle had been driven with no driver card inserted into its tachograph unit. As the operator declined to be interviewed, it was not possible for the Examiner to explore who was responsible for those instances. However, the Director was found to be driving without a driver card inserted. The Examiner found that the systems employed fell far short of what was required.

In submissions, it was acknowledged that there had been significant shortcomings. The operator was said to now accept responsibility for not maintaining sufficient oversight of the systems to ensure compliance with driver management. I was asked to note the speed at which remedial measures had been implemented including driver/staff training, appropriate monitoring and disciplinary procedures in place, management control and systems and procedures in place to prevent further failings. It was suggested that the operator had been proactive in engaging Fosters. It will look to retain a third-party transport consultant in the future to review the systems, advise and deliver training.

I accepted the speed at which the operator had attempted to address some of the shortcomings. As the DVSA report illustrated, this was a very different situation from that presented in December 2024. I accepted that the cause was one of general ignorance, but that affords no excuse. I was told that whilst he was involved in the industry from an early age, he was late to regulated transport. I confirmed with Mr Rouse that he had completed the application and had read the requirements of a licence. He had not stopped to check whether he fully understood the obligations. He was content to proceed on the basis of ignorance and misunderstanding, confusing the exemptions from the Driver CPC with those for tachograph records. He is not a scaffolding trade body member and did not seek advice.

That has now been remedied with the recent involvement of Mr Humphrey from Foster Tachograph. Exceptionally, I have accepted an undertaking so that, within 4 months of the date of this Public Inquiry, the operator will supply a compliance report from Mr Humphrey confirming not only that there is full compliance with drivers’ hours management, record keeping and the above statements, but that the operator is equipped to ensure compliance going forward. That exercise will involve some expense. Whilst this case undoubtedly fell within the ‘Serious’ bracket for intervention, prompt action has allowed me to draw back from that level of intervention

However, not for the first time, I found myself commenting on the approach to transport in the scaffolding industry. The very nature of the work activities and from working at height, means that all operatives should be fully conversant with risk management. Sadly, too often that does not appear to extend to transport, the protection owed to other road users, and to moving plant (their vehicles). All scaffolding operators would be well advised to remind themselves and their colleagues that safety management is not restricted to site but starts at the depot and in the journey to where the scaffold tower might be located. What is a driver walkaround but a dynamic risk assessment, which scaffolders should be well-equipped to complete? The scaffolding industry is currently under scrutiny for the safety of loads for the risk to members of the public. Potential dangers go beyond loads. They would not dream of ignoring HSE guidance or fail to seek assistance on working at height, and yet cases such as this illustrate the need to take a similar approach to transport. It should be an inherent part of the business.

I therefore determined that there was a need for deterrent action in this case to send a message to this operator and those observing. That is entirely in line with the approach of the appellate courts in cases such as Thomas Muir (Haulage) Limited v The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport, and the Regions [1999] SC 86 (on appeal from 1997 J1) and 2022/227 Lineage UK Transport Ltd. The operator’s fitness is tarnished, and the licence was curtailed by one vehicle to a total authority of two vehicles only, from 23:45 tonight.

R Turfitt

Traffic Commissioner

5 June 2025