

Operators receive large amounts of data about their operation that can highlight any problems. Often though, operators fail to use the information appropriately.
For instance if preventative maintenance inspection (PMI) sheets are showing faults that should be picked up by drivers - bulbs not working, worn tyres or damaged mirrors - then that is a strong indication that drivers are not doing their walk-around checks properly.
Investigations should take place and the appropriate daily defect sheet looked at. If the driver hasn’t recorded the defect on his walk-around check then he needs to be asked why.
However, the matter should also be discussed with the mechanic who undertook the PMI as it might be that he wouldn’t expect a driver to find the fault or the defect wasn’t quite at a point where a driver should report it, but he decided to repair it anyway as a precaution.
If PMI sheets contain a large number of defects, then that is an indication the PMI interval is too long. Conversely, if defects are rare at PMI then that is an indication that you could ask the traffic commissioner (TC) for permission to lengthen the PMI intervals.
If one driver’s walk-around check sheets are always recorded as ‘nil defect’ then that is an indication he is not completing the walk-around properly. It would be advisable to increase the number of random walkaround audits, sometimes called ‘gate checks’, on this particular driver.
Operators should also be looking at the type of defects that are being found. For instance, if tyres are a particular problem on one vehicle, is that caused by that driver’s erratic driving? If he received some additional training would it save the company money in the long run?
If there are lots of tyre issues across the fleet, is it due to the ground on which the vehicles are driven? Do you need to implement a second walk-around check in the middle of the day to minimise the risks of a prohibition? Do drivers need to be asked to check their tyres when they leave a particular site?
An operator should regularly monitor its OCRS to see that it is not declining. It should also be checking its MoT pass rates to ensure that standards aren’t slipping. This information is available online.
If vehicles are failing their MoT an operator needs to take that up with its maintenance provider and ultimately move to a different one if it isn’t able to achieve a reasonable first-time pass rate. Companies are also able to monitor their roadside encounter history and should be doing so regularly.
Again, this data is available online on request. Operators should be looking for patterns in the data - is a particular vehicle a problem or a particular driver? The more obvious data operators receive is tachograph analysis. This informs operators when drivers are breaching drivers’ hours rules.
This analysis should be properly reviewed, infringements thoroughly investigated and measures taken to prevent the breaches happening again, rather than simply handed to drivers for signing, as some operators do.
Other questions to ask include the following: are you using all the tachograph data available to you; are you running missing mileage reports to find out whether drivers are driving without a card; are you running lead-in reports to see whether drivers are spending long enough on their walk-around checks; and are you monitoring the tachograph infringement rates of your drivers to see whether a particular driver is problem?
It is always better to attend a public inquiry having implemented a corrective system even on the day before the hearing than not to have implemented anything at all.
Operators that do not take remedial action at the earliest opportunity are less likely to have sufficient amounts of data to be able to demonstrate that their actions are actually working. Instead, operators will simply have to rely on a promise that things will improve and should not be surprised if the traffic commissioner has doubts.
In the case of Hunterstrong Engineering (trading as Northover Heavy Logistics) and others (2014), the Upper Tribunal reminded operators of the benefits of being proactive when issues arise.
Operators should have systems in place to prevent problems from occurring but, if problems do occur, then operators should instigate a thorough investigation immediately with the aim of determining the root cause of the problem.
They should then implement new systems to prevent a similar instance from happening again. The investigatory process should be documented in writing, alongside the proposed plan of action.
These systems should be monitored and audited regularly to ensure they are working correctly. In the above case, the tribunal stated: “Operators that can say ‘I realised something went wrong/was not satisfactory. These are the steps taken to put matters right. These steps appear to have solved the problem,’ will put themselves in a stronger position than those who delay or wait to be told what to do.”
By Jared Dunbar
Jared Dunbar is a director of road transport services at Dyne Solicitors. For further information contact 01829 773 105 or jid@dynesolicitors.co.uk.