I’ll explain my situation, then would appreciate feedback.
I hold a National & International CPC in Road Haulage, passed in 2013. I was approached by a Transport Consultancy back in November seeing if i would be interested in becoming the CPC Holder of a single truck operation, 2 hours away from my home. Wanting to get started, i spoke with the single driver of the new operation over the phone, got on well and i completed the TM1 form as my part of the application process. We then met personally to discuss a contract which involved me attending the Operating center once a week, and him paying my travelling fees. We signed said contract and the completed application was sent in.
To cut a long story short, the operator has been called to a Public Inquiry due to not declaring a financial discrepency from 6 years ago, and i have been mentioned as being too far from the operating center. I signed a letter shortly after explaining that i was willing and able to travel to the operating center to complete my obligations.
The applicator has requested that i go with him to the Inquiry.
I now find out that this current situation is stopping me from getting a second operating center (another one man operation) to look after, as my repute is in question. This info has been found out by the applicator on phoning the traffic office. I should also add, i have received no official documentation (as yet) of the reasons for me having to attend a Public Inquiry.
I’m wanting to start up my own Transport Consultancy business in the next 2 months, but i am finding this whole situation holding me back.
What would you do in my situation to move things along?
If it was me I would phone the traffic office to find out exactly where I stood in the matter before I made any decisions.
It’s very important that if you are requested to attend by the ATC that you go as they are taking a very dim view of no shows.
Personally I don’t think you have much to worry about as you have been honest and open about it, the TC will know you have only just become involved with the operator so your repute should safe enough.
Thanks for the reply. Yes, i did phone the traffic office 2 weeks ago to ask about the situation. They were unable to tell me anything about the current position with this operator as it was ongoing.
I took the chance to ask them if i can be the named TM on another current licence that has been running for approx 10 years who are clean as a whistle. The reply was that as i would not exceed my 4/50 quota,i was free to be a named TM on this other licence. Filling out the TM1 i still had to put down the original licence that is currently going to Public Inquiry, and i just thought ‘This is holding me back’.
I spoke with the original operator who is keen to go to the public inquiry to explain his side of things, i just don’t want to be dragged into a situation that will harm me. If i am sent an invitation, i will attend, should i attend if i don’t get the invitation to the PI?
I am a little green (inexperienced) with all this, some might say i should just walk away from the original operator, but i’m not sure that would look good on my part. Would it be better to attend the Inquiry, and clear up anything that they need the answers to?
You’re right. I’ve nothing to hide, a little inexperienced perhaps, but i’m just trying to get a business off the ground.
I am of the opinion (although hardly slept last night thinking id got it wrong), that attending a PI, will give me an insight into that side of the industry and will stand me in good stead in the future. It’s better to iron things out now, than finding out at a later date.
Your help has been imeasurable as i was sure i was a sitting duck!
m1cks:
You cant be held to account for something that happened 6 years ago. Take your contract to show your wilingness to travel as you get paid for it.
Has the operator given you any concerns so far as youve seen on how they operate currently? If not, stick it out.
As above, its got nothing to do with you, its 6 years ago for god`s sake.
Don`t drop him in it by resigning, It will put some plus points on your C.V. if you go with him, and help him.
And, dont be afraid of these "civil servants", they back off pretty quickly when you take it to em
Their mindset is miles away from someone from this industry, to say that a two hour commute is too far away when your getting paid to travel is crazy, you are dealing with spotty kids for most of the time, be firm and be confident
Thanks for your replies. Really helpful. I’m sure you all appreciate, i have to be careful with the info. The applicator is re-applying for an Operators licence after having to return it due to the misdemeanour 6 years ago. I was not told this when i signed up with him, it’s only come out once the Licence application was received and assessed. I’ll stick with him, of course i will, i just need to know that my loyalty will not work against me in the future.
It is absolutely essential that you go with the operator to the Public Inquiry as you had no part in that operation at the time, but as his new Transport Manager you are there to get him out of trouble and to make sure he adheres to all the requirements of his operators licence.
Your repute won’t be in question over something that happened before you were appointed.
HOWEVER it is essential to grasp that the issue here is not about something that happened six years ago, but about the operator RECENTLY failing to declare something that happened six years ago. It’s not the same thing.
In your position, I would go to the PI and fight the Operator’s case, as best I could. If you don’t succeed then it won’t be because of any fault on your part, all that will happen is that he will have his O licence rescinded/ rejected etc, it won’t harm you at all. And whatever happens, for you attending a PI will be a lesson for the learning.
It’s cases like this where you lose sympathy with VOSA and the ‘they’ve got a job to do’ argument.
Assuming there’s beem a site visit and an inspection of records with the all clear, I cannot possibly see how pursuing a financial misdemeanour, almost regardless of the magnitude, from six years ago is in the public interest or a sensible use of enforcement resources.
With a combination of better compliance by operators and consolidation within the haulage industry I do begin to wonder if Traffic Commissioners have too little to do. There is probably scope for the merging of traffic areas and making some redundant.
Depending what the discrepancy is might just be some
Financial bits put onto licence
I would say nothing for you to worry about regards your repute
They now are getting stricter on Tm’s and how far away you are
They now say max of 4 operaters
On truck operater 8 hrs plus 4 hrs travelling
Can’t remember how many hours now for a 10 truck operation
But they will ask you to fill in your work plan of all jobs you do hours days etc
A public enquiry with Tc is like attending a magistrates court
All rise and Tc sat at front etc
kevthrev:
To cut a long story short, the operator has been called to a Public Inquiry due to not declaring a financial discrepency from 6 years ago, and i have been mentioned as being too far from the operating center. I signed a letter shortly after explaining that i was willing and able to travel to the operating center to complete my obligations.
If the owner kept information from you then really you have mitigating circumstances, you don’t have the same systems as the TC to check somebody’s financial history.
As for being to far away, we’ve had an external TM who was over 3 hours away. but on the application we or he explained how he was able to keep control over the running of the business. In fact we also stated in the letter that he would only make site visits once a month. This was accepted by the TC.
My experience of applying for O’licences over the years is that there are quite often little problems that they want clarification on. sometimes just explaining it to the over the phone has been enough, other times a letter has been needed.
Is the financial discrepancy one that would have stopped him getting an O’licence if he’d declared it, or is it because he should have declared it.
This is what i have been told. The business from 6 years ago, concerned an employee stealing diesel and selling elsewhere over a prolonged period. This caused the licence holder much hardship and eventually went bankrupt. Rather than continuing, he was advised to hand his Operators licence back by the accountant looking after his financial interests.
He tells me he received a letter 3 years after this episode to inform him that he is now clear to re-apply for an operators licence. His current application was made just over 5 1/2 years after the event. One more thing that was declared to the TC, although my understanding is that the TC is informed of all driving offences for HGV drivers (is that right?), he was caught using a mobile phone whilst driving in his own CAR 2 years ago.
On another note, how does one address the TC and representatives at a PI, Sir, Maam, Mr…?
There sounds like more to this than meets the eye TBH.
Evidently a TC at the time placed a restriction on holding a licence again for three years. I would say that would be unlikely to occur if it was purely a case of going bust due to a recession big customer going pop etc.
Providing operations were carried out in a proper manner prior to insolvency there should be no issue with regaining a licence once sufficient financial standing is demonstrable again.
The GV79 requires an applicant to answer five questions about any previous insolvency with a yes or no answer, and provide further information if he/she answers yes to any answer. If he/she answered all of these questions correctly then there shouldn’t be an issue.
kevthrev:
Thanks for your replies. Really helpful. I’m sure you all appreciate, i have to be careful with the info. The applicator is re-applying for an Operators licence after having to return it due to the misdemeanour 6 years ago. I was not told this when i signed up with him, it’s only come out once the Licence application was received and assessed. I’ll stick with him, of course i will, i just need to know that my loyalty will not work against me in the future.
Hi Kev,
Yes, it’s very important that you’ve realised the need for discretion when talking about anything to do with your client.
My take on this is that it’s possible that the financial misdemeanour ought to have been declared on the original application. This may or may not be fatal to the continuance of the present ‘O’ licence.
From the info you’ve given, my reading of the situation is that the worst thing that could be levelled at you (with the benefit of hindsight) is that you might have quizzed the applicant a little more closely than you did when it came to declaring his financial history on the application forms.
As far as I can see, the issue requiring attendance at a PI is a failure to disclose that financial history.
As has been said, that actual history cannot be put down as being your fault, but…
You might be asked why you didn’t ask the right questions of the applicant when you filled in the application forms.
The answer to that (IMHO) is that you should make a very quick admission that you didn’t check as closely as you might have, but that you now have a much more rigorous system in place to prevent a repetition.
TCs like hearing stuff like that, but you REALLY have to mean what you say and ACTUALLY deliver on your side of any undertaking that you give them.
TCs are also impressed at a PI when you tell them that you’ve already taken proactive action before they have found it necessary to have pulled you in for them to explain what you should have done.
