With more Maintenance Investigations Visit Reports (MIVR) being carried out each year by the DVSA.
We thought this would be a good time to highlight to all operators what to expect during a DVSA visit and how to prepare to prevent a poor result.
The below is a guide to understand what’s investigated.
We recommend that regardless of a planned visit or not that all operators should pressure check their systems periodically to make sure that there isn’t haven’t hidden issues that could be highlighted during an investigation.
Remember – the investigation can lead to a public Inquiry should there be significant issues found.
Get ahead of the curve and use the free guide below to keep you compliant.
Should you need any assistance with audits or remedial action, Lloyd Morgan Group are only a phone call or email away from helping you remain a compliant operator.
Legal entities include limited companies, charities, voluntary groups, partnerships, public authorities, or sole traders. The operator must hold the licence under the correct legal entity and must notify the Traffic Commissioners for Great Britain of any changes to the legal entity within 28 days. An operator that has changed their legal entity will need to apply for a new operator licence.
The examiner will check that legal entity details and directors listed on Vehicle Operator Licensing system (VOL) match the records on Companies House. In the case of sole trader or partnership entities, the examiner should make enquiries with the operator to confirm that the legal entity is correct and up to date.
| Assessment outcome | Requirements |
|---|---|
| Satisfactory (all of the requirements) | The legal entity registered at Companies House is as stated on VOL. There is no mismatch of company directors or partners. The sole trader or partnership is as stated on VOL. |
| Mostly satisfactory | Current directors or partners are correct but previous directors or partners have not been removed from VOL. |
| Unsatisfactory | Current directors or partners are not added to the licence. |
| Report to traffic commissioners | The legal entity is not correct. |
The examiner will contact the Traffic Commissioners for Great Britain if the legal entity is incorrect. The traffic commissioner will confirm if the operation can continue. The examiner must tell the operator they are operating illegally. Under these circumstances the examiner will continue the investigation and report all the facts to the Traffic Commissioners for Great Britain.
This is the number of vehicles and trailers at operating centres that are in scope of this investigation.
Where possible, carry out an unannounced inspection of the operator’s vehicles and trailers. On the maintenance investigation report form, the word “vehicle” refers to vehicles and trailers. The purpose of the fleet check is to work out if the operator’s maintenance system is effective in making sure vehicles are used in a roadworthy condition. The examiner must inspect enough vehicles need to establish the general condition of the fleet. The scope of the investigation could:
Vehicle inspections should be as detailed as possible, based on the available inspection facilities. The examiner can include operator-owned trailers and third-party trailers where the operator is responsible for the trailer at the time of the visit in the fleet check. Where possible the inspection should cover vehicles and trailers of a range of different types, of various ages, and at different stages in their inspection and annual test cycle. The minimum number of vehicles the examiner should inspect as part of an investigation:
| Fleet size (in possession) | Minimum number to inspect |
|---|---|
| 1 – 5 | 1 |
| 6 – 50 | 3 |
| 51 – 100 | 5 |
| >100 | 5% |
This is a recommended minimum. The examiner may need to change the number of vehicles they inspect depending on the circumstances.
An operating centre with 3 vehicles and 6 trailers will be considered to have a fleet of 9.
The vehicle examiner must be satisfied that the threat to road safety has been mitigated by the extent of the fleet check carried out If serious defects are found during the fleet inspection.
The examiner should make a short-notice appointment if vehicles are unavailable for an unannounced inspection. They should use full inspection facilities where possible.
Examiners will not usually inspect or prohibit vehicles under repair or vehicles that are partially dismantled awaiting spare parts. When an operator is carrying out limited repair work and the vehicle looks like it was last used on a road in a dangerous condition, the examiner may carry out an inspection and take prohibition action for dangerous defects that existed before the repair. The examiner will note that the vehicle was off the road and stated to be under repair on the prohibition and include this note in their investigation report. This also applies to any vehicle which the operator claims has been withdrawn from use pending disposal.
The examiner may inspect vehicles that do not come under operator licensing if there is cause for concern and report the results to the traffic commissioner. Vehicles which are out of the scope of operator licensing (for example light goods, agricultural or small passenger carrying vehicles) but are controlled by the operator, may also be inspected where there is cause for concern, and the results reported to the traffic commissioner. The examiner should record all notices (clear and prohibition) against the operator licence number, even though these vehicles are not on the operator licence The examiner should note any prohibition they issue to a vehicle in the ‘out of use’ or ‘out of scope’ in Question 10a. The operator compliance risk score does not consider vehicles that are out of scope.
The fleet check table must show all vehicles and trailers inspected at the fleet check. The examiner must record the vehicle inspection against the most serious action level on the table, making it clear whether the prohibition was S marked. The examiner will assess prohibitions issued at the fleet check at Question 10.
| Assessment outcome | Requirements |
|---|---|
| No vehicles examined (explanation required on the report) | If no vehicles or trailers were inspected during the investigation. |
| No – out of scope vehicles only checked | If only vehicles that were out of scope were inspected – clear encounter. |
| No | If no prohibitions issued were issued at the fleet check. |
| Yes | If any prohibition was issued at the fleet check, including X-endorsed prohibitions and those for out of scope vehicles. |
3. Operating centre
Question 3a: Is the authorised operating centre being used?
Requirements The operating centre is where the operator normally keeps authorised vehicles when not in use. When applying for an operator’s licence, the applicant gives the address of the proposed centres and information about the numbers of trailers and vehicles they’ll keep there. The operator needs to show that the operating centre:
The examiner will check the current operating centres against authorised operating centres recorded on the vehicle operator licensing system (VOL), including a check of licence undertakings and conditions which may be relevant to the individual sites. Any breach of undertakings or conditions is assessed in Question 12.
| Assessment outcome | Requirements |
|---|---|
| Satisfactory | Operating centres on the licence are clearly being used as authorised. |
| Mostly satisfactory | The operator has not updated VOL for any operating centres that are no longer used. |
| Report to traffic commissioners | There is evidence of unauthorised operating centres in use. |
The operating centre is where the operator normally keeps authorised vehicles when not in use. When applying for an operator’s licence, the applicant gives the address of the proposed centres and information about the numbers of trailers and vehicles they’ll keep there. The operator needs to show that the operating centre:
The examiner must check current operating centres against authorised operating centres recorded on the vehicle operator licensing system (VOL) and the vehicles authorised to be parked at that centre. For third-party operating centres shared by several operators, the examiner should check that the operator has adequate parking arrangements in place with the owner of the premises or land.
| Assessment outcome | Requirements |
|---|---|
| Satisfactory | Parking arrangements are clearly adequate for the authorised fleet. There is evidence that adequate agreements are in place for third-party sites. |
| Mostly satisfactory | No formal agreement is in place for third-party sites, but the parking facility appears adequate. Parking appears adequate but minor issue observed. |
| Unsatisfactory (any of the requirements) | There is evidence of insufficient parking for the authorised fleet. There is a dispute over parking rights at a third-party site. There is clear evidence of unsafe access or egress from the operating centre. |
Record sampling must be representative of the fleet of vehicles included within the scope of the maintenance investigation, which may involve checking records from various operating centres. The examiner can carry out record sampling that:
The sample should also include records covering different types of maintenance provider the operator uses, such as:
The sample should also include records that cover a range of vehicle or trailer types, such as:
The examiner will carry out detailed record analysis for the last 12 months using the safety inspection period calculator and analysis tool (SIPCAT), which will help to identify trends, strengths or weaknesses within the operator’s maintenance system. The examiner must check a minimum number of vehicle files based on the number of vehicles in scope of the fleet inspection. A ‘file’ is all relevant maintenance documents for a vehicle or trailer.
| Fleet size | Minimum file sample |
|---|---|
| 1 to 3 | All files |
| 4 to 20 | 3 |
| 21 to 49 | 4 |
| More than 50 | 6 |
The examiner will increase the sample size if there are significant problems so that they can establish if there is a systemic issue or if these are just isolated problems.
Where possible, the examiner will check all files for encounters that have resulted in a prohibition notice. The encounters the examiner will check are for the most recent out of:
The examiner will check files since the issue date of the operator licence if this is less than 15 months ago. The examiner will carry out detailed record analysis for the last 15 months using the safety inspection period calculator and analysis tool (SIPCAT) to help work out the root cause of any prohibition defects. Examiners must check a minimum number of vehicle files based on the number of vehicles in scope of the investigation and the number of prohibitions issued to the operator in the last 15 months. A ‘file’ is all relevant maintenance documents for a vehicle or trailer.
| Fleet size | Minimum file sample |
|---|---|
| 1 to 3 | All files |
| 4 to 20 | 4 |
| 21 to 49 | 5 |
| 50 to 100 | 8 |
| More than 100 | 10 or 5%, whichever is greater |
Where the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) has issued any prohibitions to the operator in the last 15 months, the examiner should check all prohibition (PG9) files where possible. They should check a random sample of files as well if the number of prohibition files is less than the minimum file sample for the fleet size.
The examiner will assess inspection and maintenance records against the recommendations in the guide to maintaining roadworthiness. The safety inspection record must include:
All details must be legible. Additional requirements for electronic systems:
| Assessment outcome | Requirements |
|---|---|
| Satisfactory | Records fully meet the recommendations in the guide to maintaining roadworthiness. |
| Mostly satisfactory | Records mostly meet the recommendations in the guide to maintaining roadworthiness with minor omissions – for example, missing model or incorrect inspection manual reference number. |
| Unsatisfactory (any of the requirements) | Records have a major omission. Records clearly do not meet the recommendations in the guide to maintaining roadworthiness. |
| Report to traffic commissioners | No records are available. |
Completion of inspection and maintenance records should be assessed against the recommendations in the guide to maintaining roadworthiness. Safety inspections must include items covered by the MOT test (also known as ‘annual test’). Any work carried out as a result of safety inspections must be recorded. Operators must keep a complete set of safety inspection records for at least 15 months for all vehicles, including vehicles that have been removed from an operator licence. The operator must have fully completed safety inspection reports for each safety inspection for both vehicles and trailers. They must also have documents relevant to the inspection, for example, brake testing reports or while fixing retorque records. The operator does not need to keep a paper version if they store the safety inspection report electronically. Important features of a computerised system:
The system can include:
Every safety inspection must assess the braking performance of the vehicle or trailer. There are 4 ways to check brake performance at a safety inspection:
A road test to check brake performance is not enough to provide a satisfactory braking performance assessment. The safety inspector must record how they tested braking performance on safety inspection reports.
| Assessment outcome | Requirements |
|---|---|
| Satisfactory | There is a full set of correctly completed inspection records, which meet the recommendations in the guide to maintaining roadworthiness |
| Mostly satisfactory | Records are generally fully completed, but some minor issues are found such as missing mileage or clerical errors. |
| Unsatisfactory (any of the requirements) | There are missing inspection records. There are incorrectly completed records. There are inadequate inspection procedures. |
| Report to traffic commissioners | There is clear evidence of falsification or dishonesty. |
Operators must make sure that safety inspections are carried out at the intervals specified on their operator licence and that the inspection intervals meet the operational needs of the vehicles being used. When deciding how often to inspect a vehicle, operators should consider the:
Operators need to monitor the results of safety inspections to make sure their safety inspection intervals are effective and that vehicles are used in a roadworthy condition. First-use inspections are essential for operators who lease, hire or borrow vehicles. These are especially important where vehicles and trailers have been off the road for some time. Operators must keep a complete set of safety inspection records for at least 15 months for all vehicles, including vehicles that have been removed from an operator licence.
| Assessment outcome | Requirements |
|---|---|
| Satisfactory (all of the requirements) | There is a well-managed system that meets the statement of intent and operational requirements of the fleet. First-use inspections are carried out. |
| Mostly satisfactory | Records show minor inconsistencies – for example occasional extension into the next ISO week or isolated missing first-use inspection record. |
| Unsatisfactory (any of the requirements) | The system is obviously not managed, with statement of intent clearly not being met. There is consistent evidence of missing first-use inspection records. Vehicle defects showing on inspection records clearly indicate that inspection intervals are too long. |
The operator must plan the dates when safety inspections are due. They can use a manual or digital system. Manual systems can use a simple planner or wall chart to identify inspections, annual tests and calibration dates at least six months in advance. Digital systems should also contain this information and can also automatically schedule from the last inspection.
| Assessment outcome | Requirements |
|---|---|
| Satisfactory | An effective forward planning system is in use. |
| Mostly satisfactory | A forward planning system is in place but used inconsistently. |
| Unsatisfactory | No forward planning system is in place. The forward planning system is ineffective. |
When a vehicle is declared off the road (VOR) the operator must record this on the vehicle maintenance file, stating the date and reason. The operator must have a robust system in place to make sure they do not use vehicles with VOR status. This is particularly important when the vehicle is unsafe. An operator can suspend the safety inspection schedule for a vehicle if the period of VOR extends over the next planned safety inspection. Operators often use this for seasonal-use vehicles or vehicles that need extensive repairs. Operators can only bring a vehicle that has VOR status and has missed the scheduled safety inspection back into service after a safety inspection confirms that it is roadworthy. The operator can reschedule future regular inspections based on the date of this inspection. The examiner should check a sample of VOR records and compare this against records of actual vehicle usage, which could include tachograph records, vehicle telematics or vehicle schedules. An operator can legitimately move a vehicle with VORstatus before it’s brought back into service, for example for a journey to a maintenance facility, MOT inspection or road test after repair.
The examiners should check VOR records, including removed vehicles to establish what vehicles are being used and compare to the operator’s records. If the operator has no VOR records, the examiner must establish whether the operator is aware of the requirements and has a robust system in place.
| Assessment outcome | Requirements |
|---|---|
| Satisfactory (all of the requirements) | A robust VOR system is in place and effectively managed. There are no records of illegitimate VOR vehicle usage. Safety inspections are completed as necessary for VOR vehicles returning to service. |
| Mostly satisfactory | There is a VOR system in place, but some minor improvements are recommended. |
| Unsatisfactory (any of the requirements) | There is no VOR system in place. The VOR system is ineffectively managed. There is unintentional use of a vehicle when declared VOR (except safety-critical defect). |
| Report to traffic commissioners | There is clear evidence the operator is recording false VOR status for a vehicle to hide vehicle usage or a vehicle with VOR status is used with a safety-critical defect. |
Operators must act promptly to make sure rectification work is carried out if they receive notification of a safety recall for a vehicle from a manufacturer. This will remove the risk that the potential defect may cause the vehicle to become unsafe to drive or break laws. Operators must record a vehicle safety recall notification and evidence of rectification on the vehicle maintenance file. Operators must have a robust system in place to make sure:
Operators should normally carry out rectification work at the next scheduled safety inspection, unless parts are unavailable or there is a long lead time for the manufacturer’s workshop. The operator should take a vehicle out of service immediately if the recall notification is urgent until the safety recall is actioned. They should get advice from the manufacturer about the nature and severity of the recall. Operators should be aware of how to:
The examiner must find out if the operator is aware of safety recall requirements and has a robust safety defect system in place, if the operator has no safety recall records or defects.
| Assessment outcome | Requirements |
|---|---|
| Satisfactory | An effectively managed safety defect and vehicle recall system is in place. |
| Mostly satisfactory | There is evidence of a safety defect and recall system, but management of the system has minor inconsistencies, for example recalls are completed but not recorded on file. |
| Unsatisfactory (any of the requirements) | No safety defect or recall management system is in place. The safety recall system is ineffectively managed. |
| Report to traffic commissioners | Any vehicles are being used with knowledge of outstanding urgent safety recall notifications. |
By law, all public service vehicle (PSV) operators must report any incident involving a failure or damage which affects the safety of the passengers or other road users to the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA). They must use the Report an incident involving your organisation’s bus or coach form, also known as the PSV112. Reportable incidents:
If no reportable incidents or recalls exist, the examiner must find out if the operator is aware of PSV112 incident reporting requirements and has a robust incident reporting and vehicle recall system in place.
| Assessment outcome | Requirements |
|---|---|
| Satisfactory | A robust incident reporting system is in place and effectively managed. |
| Mostly satisfactory | There is evidence of an incident reporting system but it does not fully meet the requirements. |
| Unsatisfactory (any of the requirements) | No incident reporting system in place. The incident reporting system is ineffectively managed. |
| Report to traffic commissioners | A system in place but there is clear evidence that serious incidents are being hidden to avoid reporting responsibilities. |
A driver or responsible person must carry out a daily walkaround check, preferably immediately before a vehicle is used. Drivers must be well-trained and given clear written instructions about their responsibilities The driver is always legally responsible for the condition of the vehicle while in use. Therefore, conducting a daily walkaround check is an important part of a driver’s job. Operators can arrange for a responsible person to carry out the daily walkaround check. At least one walkaround check must be carried out in any 24-hour period of vehicle use. It is good practice to have ‘nil defect’ reports as they are a useful means of checking that drivers are carrying out their duties and these forms can be used for audit purposes. A ‘nil defect’ reporting system shows that someone has carried out a walkaround check and is a positive report that the vehicle is free from defects. A traffic commissioner may ask an operator to use a ‘nil defect’ reporting system. Where applicable this should be assessed in Question 12a.
| Assessment outcome | Requirements |
|---|---|
| Satisfactory | Effective walkaround checks are being completed, which identify driver related defects. |
| Mostly satisfactory | There is evidence that walkaround checks are being completed, but also occasional incidents of inspection records showing defects which should have been reported by a driver, without a corresponding driver defect report. |
| Unsatisfactory (any of the requirements) | Inconsistent evidence that effective walkaround checks are being carried out. The fleet check shows evidence of defects which should have been reported by drivers. Safety inspections regularly identify defects which should have been reported by a driver yet there is no corresponding driver defect report. Evidence of driver responsible prohibitions. |
| Report to traffic commissioners (any of the requirements) | There is clear evidence of falsified records. There is clear evidence that walkaround checks are not carried out. |
Drivers must promptly report any defects or symptoms of defects that could adversely affect the safe operation of vehicles. The driver or someone responsible for recording defects must write a report of any defects found during the daily walkaround check, while the vehicle is in use or on its return to base. The details recorded should include:
The daily walkaround check can be done using a handheld device, and the results stored digitally. This can include devices like tablets or smartphones, which can be given to the driver or allocated to the vehicle. The system should also include:
| Assessment outcome | Requirements |
|---|---|
| Satisfactory | There is evidence that an effective driver defect reporting system is being used. |
| Mostly satisfactory | There is evidence that a driver defect reporting system is in use, but minor improvements are recommended. |
| Unsatisfactory (any of the requirements) | There is no driver defect reporting system in use. A system is being used but it is clearly ineffective. |
Drivers should give all defect reports to a responsible person with enough authority to take appropriate action, which may include removing the vehicle from service immediately. For any defects the operator does not need to repair immediately, the operator should keep a record of why this is with the defect report. The operator must keep any manual or electronic report listing defects for at least 15 months, along with details of the rectification work and repairer. Owner-drivers may not have anyone to report defects to, so they should record defects and repairs when they are found and rectified and keep the records for at least 15 months.
| Assessment outcome | Requirements |
|---|---|
| Satisfactory | There is evidence that recorded driver defects are appropriately assessed and repaired. |
| Mostly satisfactory | Records are completed but with occasional instances where appropriate action has not been fully evidenced |
| Unsatisfactory (any of the requirements) | There is little or no evidence of a defect reporting system. There is ineffective management of the reported defects. |
| Report to traffic commissioners (any of the requirements) | There is clear evidence of falsified records. Clear evidence of vehicles being used with reported safety defects. |
Operators are responsible for the condition of vehicles and trailers that are inspected or maintained for them by agents, contractors or hire companies. Operators who have contracted out their safety inspections must draw up a formal written contract with an inspection agency or maintenance provider and keep a copy of the contract on the maintenance file. Operators must have a written contract that sets out the details of the vehicles covered, inspection interval and the work the contractor will carry out. The current maintenance contractors must be up to date and match vehicle operator licensing system records. Operators must update the vehicle operator licensing system (VOL) with any changes to arrangements for safety inspections.
Not applicable (N/A) for operators that only have in-house inspection and maintenance arrangements.
| Assessment outcome | Requirements |
|---|---|
| Satisfactory | All relevant maintenance contracts are in place. Safety inspections are carried out by stated maintenance contractors. VOL records match current maintenance contractors. |
| Mostly satisfactory | An expired contractor is not removed from the VOL record. |
| Unsatisfactory | There is no evidence of a maintenance contract in place. A contract in place, but the VOL system is not updated by operator. |
| Report to traffic commissioners | There is clear evidence of a falsified maintenance contract. |
Operators who carry out their own safety inspections must have the right tools, facilities and staff for the size of the fleet and type of vehicles operated. All operators should have access to a means of measuring brake efficiency and setting headlamp aim. Operators should use a diesel smoke meter to test the level of smoke emission from vehicles showing signs of visible exhaust smokes to make sure the level of smoke emission is within legal requirements. Operators that provide their own safety inspection facilities for contracted inspections must make sure that they are suitable.
Operators are responsible for the condition of vehicles and trailers that are inspected or maintained for them by agents, contractors or hire companies. Operators must make sure that the facilities the contactor uses are adequate and that the staff are competent. They should make sure that the contractor uses up-to-date information and has suitable inspection sheets. Operators should review maintenance records and have a means of regularly monitoring the quality of work provided by the contractor. Facilities for both in-house and contracted maintenance should include:
Someone who carries out safety inspections must:
They need to be trained in:
They must have a good working knowledge of the DVSA inspection manuals for the types of vehicles they inspect. A safety inspector can also prove that they are capable of carrying out safety inspections through experience gained over time. They must keep their skills and knowledge up to date. It’s recommended that your maintenance staff either:
There must be enough maintenance staff to inspect the fleet and maintain it in a roadworthy condition. A safety inspector should not be expected to carry out repair or servicing work during the examination. They should list repair work and this should be done after the inspection is complete.
The examiner must establish whether the operator’s maintenance facilities or arrangements are satisfactory. They should record an unsatisfactory outcome if they cannot determine whether contracted maintenance arrangements are adequate.
| Assessment outcome | Requirements |
|---|---|
| Satisfactory (all of the requirements) | Maintenance facilities and arrangements fully meet the requirements to maintain the fleet of vehicles. There is evidence of relevant training and CPD for maintenance staff. |
| Mostly satisfactory (any of the requirements) | Most facilities are available, but the arrangements do not fully meet all the requirements. There is some minor concern over technical staff training, CPD or resource. |
| Unsatisfactory (any of the requirements) | There is clear evidence that the maintenance facilities are inadequate. There is clear evidence that the maintenance arrangements are inadequate. There is clear evidence that the maintenance standards are inadequate. There is clear evidence of under-resourcing of maintenance staff. It is not possible to establish the arrangements for a contractor or contractors |
| Report to traffic commissioners | Clear evidence there are no maintenance facilities or arrangements in place. |
The examiner should review MOT test results to establish whether maintenance standards are satisfactory. Failure of safety-critical defects, multiple failure items, multiple retests and repeated pass with rectification (PRS) failures would indicate poor maintenance standards. The examiner will consider management unsatisfactory if a vehicle or trailer has been operated without a statutory annual test or with the incorrect test class certificate. The examiner will set the investigation reason to most serious infringement (MSI) if the operator has been or is reported for prosecution for this offence, which will automatically default to report the operator to the traffic commissioners. If prosecution action is not being considered and if there is clear evidence that a vehicle or trailer is deliberately being used without the correct annual test , this should be reported directly to the Traffic Commissioners for Great Britain. The examiner must use final fail rate percentage for this assessment by removing pass with rectification (PRS) failures from initial test fail rate. Prohibitions or variations are assessed in Question 10a.
The examiner will enter “not known” if there is no record of test history. The examiner must add comments to the maintenance investigation visit report.
| Assessment outcome | Requirements |
|---|---|
| Satisfactory | There is a good test history and the final fail rate is not above the national average. |
| Mostly satisfactory | There are occasional failures due to non-safety-critical defects. |
| Unsatisfactory (any of the requirements) | The test history is poor due to inadequate maintenance standards. There is poor management control. |
| Report to traffic commissioners (any of the requirements) | There is deliberate use of a vehicle or trailer without a statutory annual test. There is deliberate operation of a vehicle or a trailer with the incorrect test class. Clear evidence of poor maintenance standards resulting in safety-critical defects. Clear evidence of no management control. |
The operator must make sure that any emissions control equipment fitted to the vehicles they operate meets the manufacturers’ standards and is always in working condition. Unless the vehicle has type-approval, the operator cannot fit any other equipment to the vehicle or remove any equipment in order to reduce the effectiveness of the original fitted systems. The operator should:
| Assessment outcome | Requirements |
|---|---|
| Satisfactory | There is evidence that effective maintenance and monitoring systems are in place to ensure all vehicles operated have correctly functioning emissions control systems. |
| Mostly satisfactory | There is evidence of a system in place, but minor improvements are recommended. |
| Unsatisfactory (any of the requirements) | There is a system but is ineffective. There is no evidence of a system. |
| Report to traffic commissioners (any of the requirements) | There is clear evidence of a non-approved device fitted to a vehicle. There is clear evidence of emissions control equipment being illegally modified or removed. There is clear evidence of deliberate modification or removal of manufacturers emission plate values. |
The operator must have a system in place to make sure wheels are securely fitted to vehicles and trailers. The system needs to include effective daily monitoring of wheel security and ensure correct wheel fitment maintenance and torquing proceduresare followed.
| Assessment outcome | Requirements |
|---|---|
| Satisfactory | There is evidence of robust wheel security systems in place, which fully cover both in-service wheel security monitoring and correct wheel fixing procedures. |
| Mostly satisfactory | There is evidence of a wheel security system, but some areas of improvement are recommended. |
| Unsatisfactory (any of the requirements) | There is an ineffective in-service wheel security monitoring system, or none. Inappropriate wheel securing methods or incorrect procedures are being used. |
| Report to traffic commissioners (any of the requirements) | There is clear evidence of falsified wheel security maintenance records. Clear evidence of no effective system in place leading to a wheel off incident. |
The operator must have arrangements in place to ensure the vehicles’ tyres are legal, safe and effectively managed. The system needs to monitor that:
Operators must notify the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) if they change the size of tyres, load indices or whether they are fitted in single or twin formation using the form to either:
Operators must also get the tachograph recalibrated if the tyre size change is on the drive axle. Operators can get more information from the British Tyre Manufacturers’ Association guide to tyre management and maintenance on heavy vehicles.
The assessment should look for tyre management systems that are in place and assess their effectiveness by reviewing tyre failures and encounters resulting in tyre-related prohibitions.
| Assessment outcome | Requirements |
|---|---|
| Satisfactory | There is evidence of robust tyre management arrangements in place, which fully cover both effective in-service tyre monitoring and a tyre management system. |
| Mostly satisfactory | There is evidence of a tyre management system, but some areas of improvement are recommended. |
| Unsatisfactory (any of the requirements) | There is an ineffective in-service tyre monitoring system, or none. The tyre management system is inappropriate or ineffective. |
| Report to traffic commissioners (any of the requirements) | There is clear evidence of falsified tyre management records. Clear evidence of the manufacturers date code being deliberately modified or removed. |
Operators need to make sure that everybody in the transport chain is aware of the rules set out in the Department for Transport code of practice: safety of loads on vehicles, and that appropriate load security arrangements are in place for all vehicle types and goods carried. These arrangements should include:
There is guidance for vehicle operators about load securing.
| Assessment outcome | Requirements |
|---|---|
| Satisfactory | There is evidence of robust load security arrangements in place. |
| Mostly satisfactory | There is evidence of load security arrangements, but some areas of improvement are needed. |
| Unsatisfactory (any of the requirements) | There are ineffective load security arrangements in place. Load security equipment is inappropriate or in poor condition. There is inadequate management of load security systems. |
| Report to traffic commissioners | There is clear evidence of deliberate inappropriate load security instructions or policy. |
The operator should make sure drivers and any staff who are involved with the loading, transportation or unloading of the vehicle are appropriately trained for the types of loads, securing systems and vehicles used. The training needs to include:
| Assessment outcome | Requirements |
|---|---|
| Satisfactory | There is evidence of appropriate load security training in place for drivers and other relevant staff. |
| Mostly satisfactory | There is evidence of training, but it is not fully implemented across all relevant members of staff. |
| Unsatisfactory (any of the requirements) | There is little or no evidence of appropriate training. Training is inadequate. |
| Report to traffic commissioners | There is clear evidence that training records are false or do not exist. |
Operators must make sure:
To get an accessibility certificate:
A local service is a bus service where passengers are carried at separate fares over short distances. The route can be of any distance, as long as passengers can get off within 15 miles of the point where they boarded the vehicle. Most local services operate to a timetable and are registered with the traffic commissioner. Some services are exempt from registration, such as local authority education provider school services and rail replacement services. Passengers can pay fares to:
Some home to school and rail replacement services may have a temporary exemption from PSVAR. The exemption certificate (also called a ‘special authorisation’) must be kept on the vehicle or with the driver. Operators must follow the conditions of the exemption.
A scheduled service uses one or more buses or coaches to carry passengers:
The operator must have a robust system to make sure vehicles used on local or scheduled services meet PSVAR, if the vehicle can carry more than 22 passengers. The examiner should carry out sample checks on vehicle technical records, compared against route allocation, to establish that:
The examiner should inspect vehicles that have to meet PSVAR and their maintenance records to check if:
| Assessment outcome | Requirements |
|---|---|
| Satisfactory (all of the requirements) | The operator demonstrates that it has a robust management system to ensure that only PSVAR vehicles are being used on local or scheduled services. PSVAR vehicles and accessibility equipment are being maintained correctly and in compliance with the relevant schedule. Any vehicles operated under a temporary exemption meet the conditions of the exemption. |
| Mostly satisfactory | There is evidence of a PSVAR management system but there are some areas where improvements are needed to fully comply with the requirements. |
| Unsatisfactory (any of the requirements) | The PSVAR management system is ineffective. There is evidence of vehicle use where relevant schedule standards are not met. PSVAR vehicle maintenance is ineffective. There is an unintentional breach of the exemption rules due to lack of management control. |
| Report to traffic commissioners (any of the requirements) | There is evidence of a deliberate breach of PSVAR requirements. There is a clear intentional breach of the exemption rules to operate non-compliant vehicles. |
Drivers or staff who deal directly with or help the public when they are travelling must be trained in disability awareness and assistance (Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 181/2011). They must follow accessibility regulations for buses and coaches.
Training of staff that deal directly with the travelling public includes:
Training of staff directly assisting disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility include:
| Assessment outcome | Requirements |
|---|---|
| Satisfactory (all of the requirements) | There is evidence of appropriate disability-related training of drivers and relevant staff, including temporary drivers. There is evidence of continuous professional development (CPD) of drivers that includes PSVAR updates and reflects fleet updates or modifications of equipment / accessibility features. |
| Mostly satisfactory | There is evidence of disability-related training but no evidence of CPD. |
| Unsatisfactory (any of the requirements) | There is little or no evidence of disability-related training. Disability-related training is inadequate. Accessibility equipment does not form part of the drivers’ walkaround checks. |
| Report to traffic commissioners | There is clear evidence that training records are false. |
The examiner must assess all roadworthiness prohibitions issued during the sample period. These include the operator’s roadside enforcement encounters, the current fleet check and prohibitions issued at annual test. For third party trailers where the operator was not responsible for the safety inspection, the examiner must check if the driver would not have been aware of the defect either with a walkaround check, system warning or by towing the trailer.
The encounters the examiner will check are for the most recent out of:
The examiner will record the sample period in Question 10b. The examiner must check any prohibitions and records reviewed by a desk-based assessment by the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) remote enforcement office as part of the prohibition assessment.
Against each defect, it is necessary to categorise its significance in terms of roadworthiness compliance and maintenance as follows:
Roadworthiness prohibitions, both immediate and delayed, should be endorsed ‘S’ if, in the examiner’s opinion, any of the defects which led to the prohibition were an indicator that there is significant failure of roadworthiness compliance. These are defects that the operator and driver should have been aware of through any or all of the following circumstances:
The ‘X’ category, for defects(s) not considered to be maintenance related, is appropriate for defects of an entirely random failure nature such as a lighting bulb failure or a new fracture in a road spring leaf, where it is also apparent that it would not have been noticed by the driver. The defect is not endorsed when it is not possible to determine whether a defect is attributable to poor maintenance and whether or not the operator, driver or the maintenance arrangements are at fault. An investigation generated from a roadworthiness most serious infringement (MSI) must be reported to the Traffic Commissioners for Great Britain, regardless of the maintenance investigation outcome. A roadworthiness MSI is a penalty or conviction incurred by the transport manager or operator as a result of using a vehicle with a dangerous defect associated with either brakes, steering, wheels, tyres or suspension. A category 1 ‘S’ endorsed prohibition would generate an MSI investigation.
The examiner must confirm prohibitions that have been endorsed either ‘S’ or ‘X’ by checking the operator’s records and maintenance system. Prohibitions which have not been endorsed can be given an appropriate endorsement assessment (S or X), with supporting evidence from a review of the operator’s maintenance records and system during this investigation. The examiner should note details of any confirmed prohibition endorsement, or amendment to the endorsement marking in the comments on the MIVR (Q10a).
The examiner should review the prohibition history over the sample period to confirm that prohibitions have been issued on multiple occasions for safety critical defects.
| Assessment outcome | Requirements |
|---|---|
| Satisfactory (any of the requirements) | A review of prohibitions identifies no vehicle defects which can be attributed to a fault with the operator’s maintenance system (where prohibitions have been assessed and the result is satisfactory, justification comments must be recorded on the maintenance investigation visit report (MIVR)). There have been no prohibition encounters. |
| Unsatisfactory | If the review of prohibitions shows vehicle defects which indicate some weaknesses of the maintenance system. (Weaknesses should be detailed on the MIVR) |
| Report to traffic commissioners (any of the requirements) | The investigation identifies any prohibition defect which demonstrates a significant failing in the operator’s maintenance system. The investigation confirms any trends of prohibitions due to safety-critical defects. |
Wherever possible, sites should be well-lit where vehicles are kept. Illumination should complement other security equipment such as CCTV and enable any security patrols to be conducted effectively. Regular checks should be carried out to ensure that all security equipment and control measures are functioning correctly. Security measures operators should consider include:
| Assessment outcome | Requirements |
|---|---|
| Satisfactory | There is evidence of suitable site security measures. |
| Advice | There is evidence of site security measures, but some improvements are needed. |
| Action required (any of the requirements) | Site security measures are ineffective. There is little or nothing in place in terms of site security measures. |
Vehicles should be protected from unauthorised tampering or entry, whether they are at the operating centre or away from it. Security measures operators should consider include:
| Assessment outcome | Requirements |
|---|---|
| Satisfactory | There is evidence of suitable vehicle security procedures. |
| Advice | There is evidence of vehicle security procedures, but some improvements are needed. |
| Action (any of the requirements) | Vehicle security procedures are ineffective. There is little or nothing in place in terms of vehicle security procedures. |
The examiner needs to check any conditions or undertakings on the licence. The examiner should review the last public inquiry or previous maintenance investigation report (MIR) or remote enforcement desk-based assessment (DBA), within the past 5 years, to establish whether the operator has previously been made aware of any of the current shortcomings identified in this investigation. The review should look at any assurances given by the operator to address the issues raised and check that the operator is complying with any undertakings or conditions on the licence. The examiner should assess any written decisions from a public inquiry and any responses by the operator to requests for explanation (RFE) resulting from previous maintenance investigation reports or remote enforcement desk-based assessments.
Not applicable if there are no previous investigations or public inquiries.
| Assessment outcome | Requirements |
|---|---|
| Satisfactory | No previously reported shortcomings have been identified at the current investigation. |
| Mostly satisfactory | Shortcomings identified have been found in previous maintenance inspection reports or desk-based assessments, but compliance has significantly improved. |
| Unsatisfactory | Shortcomings identified have been found in a previous public enquiry, but compliance has significantly improved. |
| Report to traffic commissioners (any of the requirements) | Shortcomings are identified that have been reported previously, with no improved compliance. There is no evidence of assurances that have been given by the operator being fulfilled. There is any breach of licence conditions or undertakings. |
Operators with a standard licences must have a transport manager who has a certificate of professional competence (CPC), acquired rights or other qualifications accepted by the traffic commissioner. The operator must correctly specify the transport manager on the operator’s licence. There should be a genuine link (be employed or contracted to work for the operator) with the operator and the transport manager should be senior enough within the operation to make decisions relating to their responsibility. Part-time transport managers that have certificate of professional competence (CPC) holders should devote the required number of hours to the operation. Operators must follow the traffic commissioner guidance for transport managers.
Not applicable if the operator has a restricted licence.
| Assessment outcome | Requirements |
|---|---|
| Yes – Satisfactory (any of the requirements) | The transport manager is correctly specified. The Traffic Commissioner has agreed a period of grace following the death or resignation of the previous transport manager and the visit is within that period of grace**. There is clear evidence that the current transport manager is not specified through a Traffic Commissioners for Great Britain error**. |
| No – Report to traffic commissioners (any of the requirements) | The transport manager is in position but not specified. There is no transport manager is position or no period of grace has been sought. The transport manager, whether employed full time or part-time, is not devoting enough hours to the management of the operation. There is no evidence of a genuine link between the transport manager and the operation. |
**Checks would have to be made with the Traffic Commissioners for Great Britain before ‘yes’ is chosen.
The transport manager should carry out continuous professional development (CPD), as well as having a certificate of professional competence (CPC) or acquired rights. The responsible person should also carry out CPD to make sure they are able to carry out their duties effectively, such as operator licence awareness training. CPD can take many forms such as:
For CPC holders, if it has been more than 5 years since the last CPD was undertaken the starting point for evidence would be the completion of a 2-day transport manager CPC refresher course, run by a trade association (including Logistics UK, RHA, British Association of Removers, and Confederation of Passenger Transport), a professional body (including the Institute of Transport Administration, the Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport, the Society of Operations Engineers and IRTE) or an approved exam centre offering the relevant transport manager CPC qualification for the type of licence held. Transport managers will need to provide evidence of their continuing professional development when an operator:
The responsible person must attend a suitable course such as example operator licence awareness training if there is no evidence of CPD within the last 5 years. The transport manager or responsible person should prove any CPD and evidence should be available. Transport managers must follow the traffic commissioner guidance for transport managers.
| Assessment outcome | Requirements |
|---|---|
| Full demonstration – Satisfactory (any of the requirements) | There is evidence of CPD with certificates and other documentation showing that the transport manager/responsible person has met the requirements over the last 5-year period. The CPC has been passed within the last 5 years and there is evidence that the transport manager is actively involved with some form of CPD described above. |
| Partial demonstration – Mostly satisfactory (any of the requirements) | The transport manager has passed the CPC within the last 5 years but there is no evidence of CPD. The transport manager/responsible person has not met the 5-year requirement but appears to be well-informed. |
| No evidence – Unsatisfactory (any of the requirements) | The transport manager has held a CPC for more than 5 years, there is no evidence of CPD and there is a lack of current knowledge. The responsible person appears to lack any experience or knowledge. |
The transport manager must effectively and continuously manage the operation. Transport managers must follow the traffic commissioner guidance for transport managers. A ‘responsible person’ should have a position in the business which enables them to manage the operation effectively in the same way as a transport manager The role should include the following responsibilities to make sure operators follow the law and keep vehicles safe and in good condition: General:
Drivers – management:
Drivers – operations: Vehicle – administration:
Vehicle – management:
The transport manager/responsible person assessment should be made once a full review of the maintenance system has been carried out. It shall also consider if the transport manager/responsible person has obstructed the investigation or provided false or misleading information.
| Assessment outcome | Requirements |
|---|---|
| Effective control – Satisfactory (any of the requirements) | There is evidence that the transport manager or responsible person is effectively carrying out all of their duties. The transport manager or responsible person is in full control of their duties and where tasks have been delegated, the members of staff concerned have the appropriate supervision and experience to complete those tasks effectively. |
| Partial control – Mostly satisfactory | The transport manager or responsible person is carrying out most of their duties effectively but there is evidence that one or more of the tasks or systems used require improvement. |
| Ineffective control – Unsatisfactory (any of the requirements) | The transport manager or responsible person is not made available either on the day or a subsequent appointment. Systems are in place, but the transport manager or responsible person is only partially aware of their operation. Delegated tasks have been given to an inexperienced member of staff, with little or no supervision. |
| No control – Report to traffic commissioners (any of the requirements) | There is no transport manager or responsible person in place. The Transport Manager or responsible person lacks relevant experience or knowledge. Systems are in place, but the transport manager or responsible person is not aware of their operation. Obvious problems are being ignored by the transport manager or responsible person. |
| Issue of integrity – Report to traffic commissioners (any of the requirements) | Clear evidence of the transport manager or responsible person providing false or misleading information. Clear evidence of obstructing the investigation. |
Does the response received to a request for explanation (RFE) satisfactorily address the reported shortcomings?
The request for explanation response should be received within 14 days from the date the maintenance inspection visit report was provided to the operator. Exceptionally, a further 7 day extension may be allowed for the operator to respond but justification will need to be detailed in the maintenance inspection visit report. The assessment will be made based on the detailed content of the operator’s reply. The operator may not be able to give evidence of the solutions to all the issues during the request for explanation response timescales. Suitable assurances will be accepted and where required confirmed at a later date.
The operator:
The operator will:
| Assessment outcome | Requirements |
|---|---|
| Satisfactory | The request for evidence response fully addresses the reported shortcomings and evidences the solutions. |
| Mostly satisfactory – Refer to the remote enforcement office | The request for evidence response fully addresses the reported shortcomings and provides assurance that corrective action will be applied. |
| Report to traffic commissioners (any of the requirements) | There is an unsatisfactory response. No response is received. |
The recommended action for the examiner to report the operator to the traffic commissioners will not change even if the request for evidence response is satisfactory.
Email us at:
info@www.lloydmorgangroup.co.uk
Find us at:
Lloyd Morgan Group
Phoenix House,
Hemlock Park,
Hyssop Close,
Cannock.
WS11 7GA