“9. Mrs Millman adopted her statement. She told me that she had been in the business since 1991 but more in an administrative capacity. It was only after her husband’s death (May 2020) that she took a wider role. She was attending an operator licence training course the following week. She had realised that her experience on the operational side was not as good as it could be. The easier option might have been to close the business in 2020 but she felt an obligation towards her staff and towards Devon Council. There was a real shortfall of providers in the area. 11. The company had issues with attracting and retaining skilled technical staff. One technician, Paul Marshall, had left in April 2022. PHW took on the inspections. With hindsight, juggling the engineering and operations roles was too much and she should have brought in another transport manager. They should have considered outsourcing the maintenance. They now had Alex Hamilton, a driver, assisting with inspection and the paperwork. They had invested in new vehicles. PHW had completed the Irtec course the previous day. 12. Technician Martin Janes had a light vehicle background. He had worked for a local grounds maintenance company looking after vans and pick-ups. I asked about the replacement vehicles and Mrs Millman accepted that they were still relatively old, ranging from 1999 to 2009. 13. PHW told me that he had been a driver. He had worked alongside Mr Millman in the workshop. He attended a three day basic inspection course in 2015 and refreshed it over the previous days. He hadn’t been able to get the bookings for the roller brake testing. They had now moved to Adams Morey. Taking on the maintenance himself was “foolish” and “unwise”
“In terms of the reduction in the authorisation and in terms of viability, Mrs Millman has reiterated to me that she indicated to you which was 16 vehicles is about what they need to be operating in order to make this a viable concern. If you’ll recall at the outset, the initial voluntary surrender was for three licences, so if there’s an additional licence on top of there, there’d be no margin whatever as a consequence of that, no expansion ..”
“ 38. .. The root cause of the appalling state of this fleet I find to be gross incompetence within the workshop. I was told that the problem was retaining suitably skilled technicians. That may well be true. There can be few competent technicians who would want the challenge of maintaining such an elderly fleet and being associated with the MOT and roadside performance of it. 39. Mr Hamlyn-White decided to take on the mantle. His qualifications? A driving licence, a three-day basic inspection course and some time helping the former director in the workshop. That he on numerous occasions dismantled a braking system and replaced seemingly perfectly good parts to try to get more brake efficiency out of a brake that has already locked would be funny if it was not so serious. Brake chambers have been changed on the brake with the higher reading, a compressor pipe is changed to try to improve brake effort, slack adjusters are changed on wheels that have locked. What a waste of time and money. He simply has no underlying mechanical knowledge nor an ability to apply simple GCSE physics. It is the equivalent to attending a three-day first aid course and then seeking to practice as a qualified nurse. It is reckless in the extreme and the outcome is clear to see. 40. His lack of understanding is further illustrated by his explanation of the immediate prohibition issued to WX03 .. for a defective tyre, having been recut too deep and exposing the cords. He told me that he had previously inspected that tyre in its recut state and the defect wasn’t there; it had only been exposed by further wear. The point is that the tyre had been recut in that the grooves had been made deeper, exposing the cords at the base of the groove. The defect will have been present when Mr Hamlyn-White inspected it. He had clearly failed to identify it. More importantly, as transport manager, he simply did not understand what the defect was and how it had been caused.”
“(1) It shall be the duty of the holder of a PSV operator’s licence, on the happening to any public service vehicle owned by him of any failure or damage of a nature calculated to affect the safety of the occupants of the public service vehicle or to persons using the road, to report the matter as soon as is practicable to the Secretary of State. As a result of the failure of the company to report the incident to the DVSA, the TC found that the purpose of the legislation had been frustrated. The explanation now given that something on the road had caused a full fuel tank weighing between 100 and 200kgs to be dislodged was “fanciful” and “terribly difficult to accept”