0800 2797944
  • Birmingham 01217962342
  • Coventry 02477710040
  • Derby 01332497138
  • Guildford 01483663350
  • Leicester 01162626037
  • Nottingham 01158965893
  • Northampton 01604215928
  • Oxford 01865686330
  • Slough 01753907800
  • St Albans 01727223408
  • Warrington 01616949878
Book your DCPC courses online Course Calculator Latest News

News

Transporting Abnormal Loads

Notifying the authorities Depending on the load you’re moving and your route, you may need to give advance warning to: • the police • highway authorities • bridge and structure owners like Network Rail You can use Highways England’s electronic service delivery for abnormal loads (ESDAL) to: • plot your route • notify the police, highways and bridge authorities of your abnormal load movements around the road network • get advance notice of any possible route problems • save vehicle details and routes for future use If you don’t use ESDAL you must fill in an abnormal loads movement application form. Give advance notice You must allow time to get the necessary clearances from the police, highway and bridge authorities. For example, a Special-Order application must be completed 10 weeks before the scheduled date of the...

Additional dangerous goods you can take to ‘amber’ ATFs

Additional dangerous goods you can take to ‘amber’ ATFs From Saturday 1 September, you’ll be able to take heavy goods vehicles laden with compressed hydrogen and liquefied argon for ADR testing at amber ATFs. This will be subject to satisfying product specific health and safety conditions. Conditions for accepting 1049 compressed hydrogen Amber ATFs will only be able to accept 1049 compressed hydrogen if: • the presenter has correctly completed a revised VTG15 form • all cylinders have been isolated and all pipework has been depressurised prior to inspection • system pressure is reduced to a maximum of 40 bar prior to inspection • the vehicle is leak tested within 24 hours of the test and is certified leak free on the VTG15 form • the presenter provides a hydrogen detection monitor for the examiner to wear during the examination Amber ATFs will only be able to accept 1951 liquefied argon if the presenter provides an oxygen deprivation monitor for the examiner to wear during the...

“Severely negligent” operator loses licence after completely abandoning safety inspections

Regulator says firm doesn’t deserve to continue running vehicles A scrap metal firm will lose its licence next month after failing to make sure vehicles had safety inspections. For over 12 months the business didn’t get any safety checks carried out on its fleet. Traffic Commissioner, Nick Denton, called this state of affairs “wholly unacceptable”. The operator’s failures went beyond routine inspections. A DVSA examiner found other issues: • an S marked prohibition • stretched safety inspections • no driver defect reporting system • high prohibition and MOT failure rates At a public inquiry, one of the firm’s directors said his in house fitter had been on long term sick. But he didn’t take any action until the following year. The director also admitted he hadn’t realised the vehicles needed to be inspected regularly. Mr Denton said he’d taken little if any trouble to understand what was required and to make sure it was done. The commissioner added: “The complete abandonment of preventative maintenance inspections over a period of at least 12 months is an act of severe negligence and dereliction, with potential harmful impacts on the safety of both the operator’s drivers and other road users.” You can read the latest decisions by traffic commissioners...

How our new search app makes enforcement checks quicker

How our new search app makes enforcement checks quicker Thanks to our new search app, our staff will have access to all the information they need on their phone or tablet just by scanning a licence plate or VIN number. In our latest Moving On blog post, DVSA Search and Mobile Compliance Product Manager Andy Wallace explains how the app works and what this means – both for compliant operators and non-compliant...

Revocation for “reckless” building firm

DVSA told business it had broken the law but partners committed the same offence again A building firm based in Chard will lose its operator’s licence this month after committing the same offence twice. Despite being given advice by DVSA after the first offence, the partnership did the same thing again two months later. Kevin Rooney, the West of England Traffic Commissioner, told the business that committing the offence once was a serious error but to repeat it was “reckless”. The firm twice used an agricultural tractor and trailer in connection with its building activities. The driver didn’t have the right licence to drive the vehicle, which meant he wasn’t insured. Mr Rooney also found the partnership had abandoned its maintenance responsibilities. There were concerns over the frequency of safety inspections for vehicles. Brake testing efficiency on PMIs was just recorded with a tick. And an advisory defect for a wet fuel tank was repaired 28 weeks after being notified to the operator. After hearing evidence from the partners at a public inquiry, Mr Rooney concluded they were unfit to continue holding a...

Traffic commissioners recognise industry commitment to safe operations

Traffic commissioners recognise industry commitment to safe operations Regulators’ annual report for 2017/18 published The Traffic Commissioners have used their latest annual report to praise hard working, compliant operators across the truck, bus and coach industries. The regulators recognise the vast majority of HGV and PSV operators are committed to running safe vehicles and working within the rules. And they say that giving reassurance and guidance to those who get things right is really important. The report also highlights the importance of their role as gatekeepers to the industry and what this means for compliant operators like you. “A licence holder is entitled to assume that when they bid for work, a competitor will not be able to get that contract as a result of cutting corners, especially where safety is concerned,” the commissioners say. The report examines their work in 2017/18, including tackling those who don’t play by the rules. The commissioners say there’s no place in the industry for people who operate dangerous vehicles and that they’ll continue to take decisive action when these firms are brought to their...

What one transport manager had to say about DVSA’s earned recognition scheme

It’s now been almost 4 months since we launched our earned recognition scheme for vehicle operators at the CV Show in Birmingham and things are progressing very well. We thought we’d give you an insight into what it’s like being on the earned recognition scheme, so we spoke to Dave Edwards, Head of Transport Compliance at BT Fleet Solutions. BT Fleet solutions have over 800 technicians and his company manage more than 120,000 vehicles, so it’s fair to say he knows quite a bit. We asked Dave a few questions about how he’s found earned recognition since he joined the pilot. How did you find the process of getting on earned recognition? We were involved in earned recognition from the start and, to be honest, it was a bit tortuous at the beginning. But once it got going and we joined the pilot, it became a lot easier. Now the full scheme’s up and running and the kinks have been ironed out, it should be much, much smoother for any new operators looking to join. And how was the auditing process? It was a bit daunting opening us up for the audit. That level of transparency is something we weren’t used to, and I think is unprecedented in the road haulage industry, but it was ultimately a good thing. It helped us identify areas we needed to improve on and, now we’ve worked on them, they’re much better. It’s something every operator could benefit from. You tend to sit there and think everything’s right and rosy, but unless you really open yourselves up and test that, it’s an assumption... Revocation for firm that failed

Revocation for firm that failed to keep extra promises

Licence originally granted based on finance and TM commitments When a traffic commissioner decides to give someone a licence to run commercial vehicles, they’ve made sure the applicant meets all the tests. This promotes fair competition. In some cases, they need to get extra commitments from the business applying for the licence. But if the operator doesn’t meet those promises, they’re no longer running on a level playing field. That’s why Traffic Commissioner Simon Evans recently acted against a North West firm. When the licence was originally granted, the operator agreed to do two extra things. One concerned financial evidence. The other related to the transport manager. He’d qualified in 2002 but hadn’t acted as a transport manager for 10 years. So, as a condition of getting the licence, he had to do some refresher training. When the financial evidence didn’t show enough money and the transport manager hadn’t completed the refresher training by the deadline, the Traffic Commissioner proposed action against the firm’s licence. After holding a public inquiry, Mr Evans made an order to revoke the licence. His decision recognises that if the business continued operating, it wouldn’t be on a level playing field with other licence...

Fleet increase refused and licences revoked operator pays the price for ineffective maintenance standards

Poor maintenance isn’t acceptable from operators. Those who don’t look after their vehicles properly put the safety of other road users at risk. If an operator can’t get the basics right, they shouldn’t expect to be allowed to run extra vehicles. A skip operator who appeared before the Traffic Commissioner, Richard Turfitt, recently found this out. The firm applied to go from two to six vehicles. But, when DVSA visited, the examiner found no recorded brake testing, safety inspections stretched to 36 weeks, ineffective driver defect reporting and a 100% test failure rate at annual test. Vehicles from a limited company were also being used on a sole trader licence. Would you let this business run an extra four vehicles? At public inquiry, the operator admitted he was: • not up to date with the 2018 edition of the roadworthiness guide • unaware of recent changes in test standards • hadn’t undertaken any formal refresher training as a TM The Traffic Commissioner said this had led to a situation where the licence holder was ignorant of the requirements. With better knowledge he might have avoided an S marked prohibition on a vehicle that was also found to be out of test. Mr Turfitt turned down the fleet increase and made an order to revoke the limited company and sole trader...

Hauliers in compensation claim for overpriced trucks

UK road hauliers who paid over the odds for trucks from firms found to have colluded in a price-fixing cartel could be in line for £5bn in compensation. That is the size of the payout sought by the Road Haulage Association, which is pursuing a claim on their behalf at the Competition Appeal Tribunal. The move comes two years after the European Commission fined a number of truckmakers for inflating prices. If the claim succeeds, trucks sold between 1997 and 2011 would be covered. “Those truckers that have signed up to our claim could be in for a possible windfall of over £6,000 for every truck they bought or leased during the 14-year period,” the Road Haulage Association (RHA) said. More than 600,000 UK-registered trucks are involved and the £6,000 “is the estimated overspend figure that hauliers paid for each vehicle”, it added. Analysis: BBC’s Theo Leggett, business correspondent Cartels are great for their members, not so good for consumers. They effectively eliminate competition and push up prices. Some of Europe’s biggest manufacturers were working together to fix the cost of their trucks for fourteen years. Inevitably, this will have meant their customers paid over the odds for their vehicles. The European Commission has already imposed huge fines on the cartel members. That might discourage other cheats – but it doesn’t help the victims. The Road Haulage Association insists its members are angry, and it’s pushing for compensation, both to remedy some of the damage that’s been done – and to highlight what it regards as a major scandal. In July 2016, four truck manufacturers – Daimler, DAF, Iveco...