What is OCRS?
OCRS was introduced by VOSA in 2006. It informs VOSA examiners of the probability of an operator being compliant or non-compliant. It is a mechanism for calculating the risk of non compliance; it is not an operator rating scheme. Vehicles run by operators which are more likely to be non-compliant are far more likely to be stopped and checked.

How will VOSA know each operator’s score?
VOSA use a handheld computer known as a mobile compliance device (MCD). The registration or operator licence number of the vehicle will be keyed into the MCD by a VOSA examiner which then displays information about the operator including OCRS scores. The scores show up as R (red), A (amber) or G (green); the series of colours have a numeric value of 0 to 10. These are known as the Relative Scores.

How are the scores calculated?
OCRS is separated into two categories: roadworthiness and traffic enforcement. Roadworthiness is concerned with the condition of a vehicle and traffic enforcement is mainly concerned with drivers’ hours and weighing checks.

Public Service vehicles (PSVs) and trailers are not specified by registration or identification number on an operator’s licence, so prohibitions in these cases are assigned to the operator’s licence as displayed when the vehicle is inspected and trailers issued with a prohibition will have the prohibition allocated to the licence of the drawing vehicle irrespective of who the trailer belongs to.

The scores are made up of rolling real-time data over a previous two-year time frame and all elements to the mechanism are updated weekly.

The scoring for both of these categories can be historic or predictive.

Historic data includes annual test data, fleet check inspections, roadside encounters and prosecution history. It is also proposed that Graduated Fixed Penalty and Deposit (GFPD) data will also be incorporated into the OCRS scoring process later in the 2010/11 financial year. The higher level of financial penalty will dictate the higher allocated score.

Predictive scores will only be used if no historic data exists for the relevant period and are based on the type of operation and industry that the licence is being used in relation to the operator licence business.

How is the roadworthiness score calculated?
In the case of HGVs, this is based on annual test data through test history – and it should be noted that a passed after rectification at the time of test (PRS) is recorded as an initial fail. In the case of PSVs, as vehicles are not required to be specified, the annual test data set is not considered sufficiently reliable so scores are based on roadside encounters only.

How is the overall traffic score calculated?
The overall traffic score is calculated using data from roadside encounters and certain prosecutions. These mainly relate to drivers’ hours, tachograph offences, the Working Time Directive and overloading infringements.

How does predictive scoring work?
Predictive scoring uses the historic data of operators with similar O-licence characteristics to calculate the likelihood of non-compliance. Predictive scores will only be displayed if no historic score exists – for example, new operators where no test or enforcement encounters have been recorded.

What is an Index Score?
Each time a vehicle is checked and no defects or offences are found, it is treated as a clear encounter. Zero points will be attributed to the operator for each clear encounter. Each encounter is counted as one event. Each defect or offence is given a points rating based on the severity of the defect or offence. A vehicle or trailer sifted where a cursory inspection is undertaken on roadworthiness elements will carry no encounter weighting. A sift dictates that there is no vocational driver input to the inspection.

The scoring mechanism calculates the average number of points per event and this score is termed the ‘Index Score’. Similar operators have their Index Scores compared with each other and a league table of the operators is compiled giving a ‘Relative Score’.

What is a Relative Score?
The Relative Score is allocated based on the league position of operators’ Index Scores. Operators with all clear encounters will have a zero Index Score and also a Relative Score of zero. The worst 10% of operators with an Index Score above zero will have a Relative score of 10. The next 10% of operators will have a score of nine.

This is repeated with every 10% until the ‘best’ 10% with an Index Score above zero will have a Relative Score of one.

Remember that your score can remain static but you can still move between bands. If the industry overall compliance increases you can fall into the lower band.

The scoring system
In July 2010 the bands for both ‘roadworthiness’ and ‘traffic’ were amended to enable more effective targeting. Roadworthiness amber 8 is now red 8 adding one additional red band, whereas Traffic Enforcement bands 1, 2 and 3 went from amber to green – three additional green bands. However, the size of the red band has been increased slightly on roadworthiness.

The bands are now as follows for both ‘roadworthiness’ and ‘traffic’:

0-3: Green
4-7: Amber
8-10: Red
How will this benefit operators?
If you are an operator with a green score you are less likely to be targeted than if you have an amber or red score. The objective of OCRS was to reduce the burden on the compliant operators and focus VOSA’s attention on potential higher-risk non-compliant operators.

Operators should use their OCRS as a mechanism to monitor the elements that contribute to the overall scores, not focusing on the score but focusing on such items as first-time annual pass rates, and for example what contract maintainers are delivering in first-time pass success. You can delegate your maintenance but you can not delegate your responsibility as a licence-holder.

How can operators find out their scores?
VOSA provides, free of charge, a weekly OCRS update service. To obtain your score, send an email to top.registrations@vosa.gov.uk.

VOSA’s research evidence shows that only 11% of operators have no internet access. These are small operators, predominantly with only one or two vehicles. As such, it is expected that the operator will know whether or not their vehicle has passed its annual test or received a prohibition without the need for a transport manager to receive a management report.

When emailing VOSA you will need to give your:

O-licence number
business name, address and email
contact name
confirmation that you are authorised to receive the information
You will be sent a form for registration.

You will then receive Vehicle Encounter reports and Test Maintenance History reports. You will also be able to manage your O-licence on line. Those operators with no internet access who wish to know their score should send a written request to: Data Services, VOSA, Ellipse Padley Road, Swansea SA1 8AN.

What if an operator wishes to challenge its score?
This system is considered a fair system as all operators are treated the same. However mistakes do happen. The best course of action is for you to check all information which is available to you and report any discrepancies.

The scores being made up from test history, prosecutions and prohibitions issued – where any of these are issued incorrectly or are successfully appealed – the allocated scores will be removed from your overall score.

Taken from roadtransport.com

Maintenance requirements vary dramatically according to the type and number of vehicles and the type/s of operation. Traffic Commissioners give considerable importance to the subject of vehicle maintenance and fleet checks. An O-licence would not be granted if a Traffic Commissioner considered that inadequate arrangements were in place to properly look after the vehicle(s).

All commercial vehicle operators should refer to the VOSA publication A Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness. This is a comprehensive but easy-to-read document produced by the Department for Transport in partnership with the transport industry. The Traffic Commissioners will expect operators to abide by its recommendations.

Maintenance systems
A maintenance system is the entire process of looking after a vehicle. Proper maintenance aims to prevent the development of serious defects and to ensure that vehicles are always in a safe and reliable condition.

The operator is always responsible for the condition of vehicles, whether or not the operator services them or an external provider carries out the inspections.

Holders of an O-licence are under a duty to ensure that regular pre-planned periodic maintenance inspections (PMIs) covering roadworthiness issues are carried out. The frequency of inspections will need to be agreed between the operator and the Traffic Commissioner. Page 28 of VOSA’s Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness gives operators a rough idea of how frequent the inspections need to be.

The agreed frequency of inspections must be strictly adhered to. Deviation from the agreed intervals is seriously frowned upon by the Traffic Commissioner and if appears that an operator’s vehicles have been found to have defects, it is highly likely that the operator will find themselves called to a public inquiry.

If the operator uses hired or borrowed vehicles, then a first-use inspection must be carried out. These are also required when a vehicle has been off-road for some time.

If vehicles are maintained by a third party, the operator must always get a written contract with the workshop concerned which must be sent to the Traffic Commissioner. An example of this can be found on page 35 of VOSA’s Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness.

Inspection sheets need to be completed by the person carrying out the inspection. They must be completed in full and signed off. Any defects must be rectified promptly – the vehicle should not simply be returned to the road – and a record made of what steps were taken, when and by whom. The sheets should be filed and be readily accessible at all times. Operators have a legal requirement to keep their records for 15 months. This includes vehicles which have been sold on.

The nominated transport manager (or licence-holder in the case of a restricted operator’s licence) must ensure that they set aside enough time each week to check that inspections are being completed on time, sheets are filled in, and defects are rectified.

Forward planning
Safety/maintenance inspections must be planned in advance. The most common method used by operators is a year planner or flow chart although a computer-based system is equally acceptable.

Ideally, planners or charts should be used to set safety inspection dates at least six months in advance. Vehicles’ annual test dates should be included, as should servicing and tachograph calibration dates.

The planner should be updated regularly by marking off when work/the inspection has been carried out on a vehicle.

Vehicles that have been taken off the operator’s licence, or other vehicles temporarily off-road, should have their period of non-use marked on the planner.

Daily walk-round checks
A driver is in closest contact with a vehicle and therefore the most likely to be first aware of any fault that may develop. A daily vehicle check routine provides a straight forward means of informing the operator that some aspect of the vehicle may be faulty, or in need of repair or replacement. It is important to tell your drivers what is expected of them and provide training on what to check and how to check.

The checks need to be carried out before the vehicle sets out on its journey to make sure it is fit for the road.

Checks should include the external condition ensuring in particular that the following are serviceable:

lights
tyres
wheel fixings
bodywork
trailer coupling
load
ancillary equipment
The daily check is not meant to be an in-depth inspection of everything, as drivers are not usually qualified to carry out such inspections. However, easily spotted faults should be picked up and rectified before the vehicle goes out.

Of course the driver also has a responsibility to monitor the roadworthiness of the vehicle while it is being driven.

Drivers’ defect reports
Operators should ensure their drivers are keeping written records of their daily checks. The records should be filed neatly and be easily accessible. The record should include the vehicle registration mark, the date, the details of the defects or symptoms and the reporter’s name. The transport manager (if it is a standard licence) or a designated person with authority (if it is a restricted licence) should ensure they are checking the records are being completed on a regular basis. Defects must be rectified promptly and therefore there should be a system in place to ensure drivers know who to report to if a defect is found.

Nowadays Traffic Commissioners expect to see a ‘Nil’ defect reporting system in place. This involves each driver completing a report sheet – or confirming by another recorded method that a daily check has been carried out and no defects have been found. ‘Nil’ defect reports, should be kept for as long as they are useful. Normally this is until the next one is received or until the next scheduled safety inspection is undertaken.

Sheets where defects have been found must be kept for 15 months along with any record of repair.

Monitoring systems
It is important that an operator continually reviews and monitors the quality of the systems in place.

In particular, any incidents resulting in prohibition notices, failures at annual test or convictions need to be investigated properly and records made. The operator must determine if there is any action he/she can take to prevent it from reccurring.

Amongst other things, operators need to be confident that all defects are being reported and rectified promptly and that inspections are done on time. They also need to be confident that drivers and those involved in maintenance inspections have been trained sufficiently and are competent.

On a more general note, it is often advisable to obtain an audit of systems and procedures from a trade body such as the Road Haulage Association or Freight Transport Association, or from a reputable individual. They can advise you as to what can be done to improve your systems even further and prevent problems from arising.

Vehicle offences
It is imperative that the operator has adequate systems in place and that the driver understands that he also has his own obligations.

Once a driver takes his vehicle out on the road he becomes responsible for it and can be liable to receiving a fixed penalty notice, or even prosecuted in more serious cases. If prosecuted, some offences carry heavy financial penalties as well as licence penalty points. Depending on the circumstances, the operator may face prosecution as well as the driver.

Sometimes it may be possible to avoid endorsement and/or such a severe financial penalty if there are particular circumstances know as ‘special reasons’ relating to the commission of the offence; or if it can be shown that a defendant did not know and had no reason to suspect that an offence was being committed.

If a summons is received for these types of offences it is usually worth taking legal advice. All fixed penalties and convictions have to be notified to the Traffic Commissioner and will in turn have a knock-on effect on the operator’s Operator Compliance Risk Score making their vehicles more likely to be pulled over for a thorough check.

For many drivers the possibility of prosecution or fixed penalty is reason enough to take time to walk around the vehicle at the start of a shift, although some drivers fail to appreciate the importance of doing so. Regular checks of drivers by the operator/transport manager are essential, as is having an effective disciplinary policy for employees who fail to comply.

Taken from roadtransport.com

The DVLA says it is still considering amending UK medical standards for HGV drivers diagnosed with diabetes after it emerged that the government is under no obligation to change the law.

The licensing agency says it would be “unfair to penalise” drivers where there is evidence that relaxing the rules is appropriate.

Transport minister Mike Penning sparked anger among drivers when he told MEP George Lyon that the government would only have to amend the laws to allow diabetics to be assessed for their fitness to drive trucks if the current rules were below EU minimum standards (CM 5 August).

The European Commission has now backed this up, telling CM that member states can rely on their existing standards if they are stricter than the new Directive.

But charity Diabetes UK says this is not following the “spirit of the Directive” and that it has been urging the DVLA all year to undertake a public consultation.

Director Simon O’Neill adds: “If the DVLA reneges on this now, Diabetes UK would be compelled to campaign against its decision as the DVLA would be insisting on stricter criteria than is legally necessary.”

However, a DVLA spokesman says: “The DVLA considers that it would be unfair to penalise UK licence holders where the relaxation of standards is appropriate and based on evidence. The agency is considering amending the UK medical standards for driving with diabetes, epilepsy and [poor] vision, and will issue a public consultation to seek views in due course.”

Taken from roadtransport.com

The boss of collapsed haulier Cameron Young Transport has been disqualified indefinitely after his firm was found to have wound back tachograph clocks, pulled fuses and used “ghost drivers” to falsify its records.

In a written decision, following a public inquiry held in June in Edinburgh, Scottish Deputy Traffic Commissioner (DTC) Richard McFarlane said Cameron Young, sole director of the Dumfries-based company, which went into liquidation in September 2009, should also lose his HGV licence and that the firm’s O-licence be revoked.

A VOSA investigation into the haulier – at that time authorised for 15 vehicles – found 114 false records made by drivers between December 2008 and January 2009, 14 drivers’ hours and 45 record offences committed during the period, as well as 43 instances of aiding and abetting the commission of some of these offences. In total, 124,641km were unaccounted for.

Drivers at the company had employed various means to disguise their true duties and driving times, including using digital drivers’ cards that had been issued in the name of other drivers.

VOSA officers discovered that drivers’ records had been falsified through so-called “fuse-pulling”, winding back tachograph clocks and interfering with analogue and digital tachograph recording equipment.

According to traffic examiners, they had also been greeted by “obstruction and prevarication on a grand scale” from Young.

McFarlane said that in 14 years as a DTC in Scotland, he could not recall a “case as bad as this”: “Mr Young has deliberately ignored the drivers’ hours rules and regulations. It is an attitude of complete and utter disregard and even contempt for operator licensing.”

McFarlane said Young had failed to inform the TC’s office that Cameron Young Transport had ceased trading.

The DTC added that “two substantial contracts” had transferred from Cameron Young Transport to haulage firm Scheleck (UK), but with trucks displaying O-licence discs issued under the old licence.

The transport manager of Scheleck was Young’s brother Jamie, while the director at the firm was Young’s father-in-law.

McFarlane added: “I am in no doubt that Mr Young has continued the business of the operator using Scheleck as the trading entity and that he has used vehicles under his control in the furtherance of the business, including vehicles associated with the operator.”

Taken from roadtransport.com

Waste International has had its Operators Licence Application refused after failing to disclose its directors had previously operated a company that has its licence revoked, as well as having another application for a licence refused.

In a written decision following a public inquiry held in June in Eastbourne, Deputy Traffic Commissioner (DTC) Miles Dorrington said the directors of the Northolt, Middlesex-based company had committed “serious misconduct” by failing to disclose that their former business Total Waste had its O’Licence revoked following a public inquiry in October 2008, as well as a subsequent new application in April 2009 refused.

The DTC said the directors – Paresh Parekh, Dipesh Patel and Jay Patel – had failed to declare the information on their GV79 form licence application for two vehicles, buy Jay Patel told the hearing that the mistakes had been caused by an administrative error.

However, the DTC said Waste International had acted in a “manner that was intended to mislead and deceive” the Office of the Traffic Commissioner when the application for the licence was made, because the firm would have known the GV79 form was “false when it was submitted”.

The DTC added: “In this case, the applicant, and in particular Mr. Jay Patel, would have known that the [GV79 form] required disclosure of the revoked operator’s licence and the refused operator’s licence. To put such as clear and repeated failure to disclosure down to an “administrative error” is neither plausible, nor is it acceptable, as an excuse in all the circumstances of this case.”

Dorrington also held that Waste International’s interim O’Licence would cease to exist “with immediate effect”.

Taken from Commerical Motor

An appeals Judge has reduced the three-year disqualification for David Finch T/A David Finch Haulage, describing the punishment imposed by Eastern Area Traffic Commissioner Richard Turfitt as “too long”.

Judge Mark Hinchliffe of the Upper Tribunal ordered that the disqualification (which started on 20 March) of the Bury St. Edmonds, Suffolk-based haulier, should be reduce to 18 months, saying this adequately reflected “the seriousness of the case”.

The TC revoked the firm’s O’Licence following a public inquiry in March, on the grounds of financial standing, loss of repute, professional competence, unauthorised use of an operating centre, convictions, failure to report the convictions, prohibitions, breach of statements of intent and undertakings, and failue to notify a material change.

In August 2009, David Finch – who was authorised for three vehicles and three trailers – had been convicted of two offences at Huntingdon Magistrates’ Court.

He was fined £75 for failure to comply with directions to stop by a VOSA officer relating to an overloading incident, and £115 for a brake components and actuators offence. Finch had also failed to notify the TC’s office about a change of address.

However, Finch appealed the disqualification on the grounds that the three-year disqualification had been “too severe a punishment” for him

Hinchliffe held that the punishment has been “out of step” with the approach generally taken by other TCs.

He added: “The issue that troubled the tribunal to the greatest degree was simply the absence, throughout the hearing, and nin the TC’s written decision, of any focused discussion as to the need for, length of, or consequences of, a lengthy period of disqualification – and the absence of any intelligible reasons for the decision to not only impose a disqualification, but a disqualification of three years.”

Taken from Commerical Motor

The Freight Transport Association (FTA) says it is convinced that the use of ‘Trixi’ safety mirrors at road junctions in London will improved cyclists safety when they ride alongside HGVs.

Transport for London (TfL) and mayor Boris Johnson unveiled the first mirror in Tooting last week, and 37 more are due to be installed across the capital’s cycle superhighway routes for a six-month trial.

TfL says they give lorry drivers a better view of cyclists at junctions and should reduce the number of cyclists killed or seriously injured in collisions with HGVs.

The trial coincides with a poster campaign highlighting the potential dangers cyclists put themselves in when they ride to the left of HGVs at junctions.

FTA head of urban logistics policy Gordon Tellings says that if the trial shows the mirrors are safe then more will be installed.

“It’s ideal for us, because we have gone as far as we can go with mirrors on trucks”, he says. “I am convinced from having seen one in place, they will improve cyclists’ safety, but the first step is to prove they are safe to have in use.”

A memorandum of understanding has also been signed, which commits the mayor, TfL and the FTA to work together to improve cycle safety. Telling says the FTA hopes eventually to use the agreement as leverage to relax delivery restrictions.

“This agreement is to head off sabre rattlers that say ban trucks,” he explains. “We are saying no, a careful and considered process is needed.”

Taken from Commerical Motor

Since the Road Transport Directive (RTD) was introduced in 2005, self-employed drivers have been temporarily exempt from the Working Time Directive for the road transport industry and could set their own working hours, as long as they adhered to drivers’ hours regulations.

This was due to come to an end last March, but the European Commission has been seeking to permanently exempt them. A vote in the EP last week rejected this proposal by 368 votes to 301 against.

Solicitor Lucy Wood at Rothera Dowson says: “This is likely to have a detrimental impact not only because the number of hours a week owner drivers will be allowed to work is reduced, but also because they will now have to keep records on working time to demonstrate that they have been compliant.”

Road Haulage Assocaited policy director Jack Semple describes the enforcement of the legislation on self-employed drivers as “an absurdity” and calls for a single set of rules on working time. “You have to ask yourself why we have got the RTD at all. We had a set of rules; there’s not a huge difference in terms of the end product.”

UKIP Wales MEP John Bufton says: “Extending the Working Time Directive to cover self-employed people in nonsensical. It is window-dressed as protecting employees’ rights and therefore has no place in a self-employed framework.

Ron Webb, national secretary for the road transport section of Unite, declares the result to be a major victory: “If this proposal had become a reality, it would have been a real incentive for the industry to convert employed drivers into falsse self-employed. Thankfully, this proposal has been crushed and we pray we will not see its like again.”

As to when the change will occur…this is unclear.

Taken from Commerical Motor

STEPHEN O’SULLIVAN, who fled the country last year before a jury convicted him of a scam in which licences and O-licence discs were rented out, has been extradited from the Republic of Ireland following his arrest there. UK authorities will attempt to recover the proceeds of his crimes.

O’Sullivan, of Drayton Parslow, Bucks, left Great Britain before a jury at Luton Crown Court convicted him and hauliers Anthony Purnell and William Robertson of conspiring together, and with others, to: defraud the Traffic Commissioners and their staff; conspiring to defraud people who had paid money for having their vehicles unlawfully specified on O-licences belonging to another licence holder; and conspiring to allow Olicences to be used by persons not holding O-licences.

O’Sullivan was also convicted on three counts of money laundering. He was sentenced to six-and-a-half years’ imprisonment in his absence. Luton CrownCourt had heard that O’Sullivan’sestimated criminal proceeds were in the region of £2m during a five-year period.

Last Friday (18 June), O’Sullivan was brought before Judge Bright after losing his appeal against extradition in the Dublin High Court. Judge Bright was told that there had been considerable costs to the publicpurse as the extradition proceedings had been contested and then appealed.

He told O’Sullivan that the courts take a very serious view of people who run off before a jury returns a verdict.

Adjourning the proceedings until October, Judge Bright said that he would deal with the confiscation of realisable assets under the Proceeds of Crime Act and the hearing of the failing to surrender to bail matter at the same time.

Taken from Commerical Motor

A truck driver who was filmed driving along a motorway with a Renault Clio car trapped at the front of his cab has been told by a Traffic Commissioner he can keep his HGV driving licence.

John Tomlinson, from Clitheroe, Lancashire, was praised by North West TC Beverley Bell, at a driver’s conduct hearing in Warrington, Cheshire, for his “cool and calm” behaviour during the incident which happened in January along the southbound carriageway of the A1(M) near Wetherby, West Yorkshire.

Rhona Jane Williams was joining the motorway in her Renault at Junction 44 from a slip road that joins the middle lane, effectively undertaking the artic powder tanker operated by Sandbach, Cheshire-based Arclid Transport. She told police officers she felt a “bump” as the vehicles touched and her car moved 90 degrees.

Tomlinson – an HGV driver for 29 years – was unaware of what had happened, amd continued at high speed until a motorist begam flashing his hazard lights.

He gently brought the truck to a stop on the hard shoulder and only become aware of Williams in the car when he got out of the vehicle. Tomlinson tried to free her, but as the door was jammed, he has to reverse his tanker about 91 cm to relase the car.

Neither driver was injured. Bell said Arclid was an “impeccable” operator that had not appeared at a public inquiry before, and that Tomlinson could not be blamed as he was sat high up in the cab and was unable to see, smell or hear the car.

“You, your employers and the haulage industry should be able to hold your heads up high after this incident,” Bell added. Taken from Commerical Motor

A Sainsbury’s transport manager has been refused temporary reinstatment at a Birmingham Employement Tribunal.

Maleka Bibi-Hudson of Tamworth was contesting the company’s decision to dismiss her from its Hams Hall site where she helped supervise the work of 300 drivers.

The company had accused Bibi-Hudson of issuing a document criticising working conditions at the depot. She, in turn, had made compensation claims against the company for race, religious and sec discrimination, as well as unfair dismissal.

She was applying for temporary reinstatement to her post before her full tribunal hearing at a later date. She alleged she was dismissed criticising the way the site was run. She had also suggested improvements.

Jonathon Meakin, for the company, said that Bibi-Hudson intended to disclose the contents of the document internally and externally. He rejected her claims of discrimination. “Mrs Bibi-Hudson appears to have gone for everything to see what sticks,” he said.

Tribunal Judge Alan McCarry rejected the claim for temporary reinstatement. Bibi-Hudon’s compensation claims will be heard later this year.

Taken from Commerical Motor