Operator not at fault for wheel loss

News stories are free to read. Click here for full access to all the features, articles and archive from only £8.99.

No further action was taken against an operator with robust procedures in place following a wheel loss incident in January, after its maintenance provider failed to identify a worn spigot

In mid-June, Traffic Commissioner (TC) for the North West of England Gerallt Evans published his written decision in the case of Hobans 1923 Ltd and associated Traffic Manager Alison Burgess, confirming an earlier oral decision following the company’s call to public inquiry (PI). The inquiry was held at Golborn on 12 June, and was notable in that no further action was found necessary as a result of the operator’s pro-active stance.

Hobans is the holder of a Standard International Public Service Vehicle operator’s licence (PC2011998), authorising the use of 15 vehicles and issued in 2018. Its directors are Richard Hoban and Gadvoranun Hoban. Since June 2021, Alison Burgess, who is employed by the operator on a full-time basis, has held the role of Transport Manager.

The PI was called following a wheel loss incident on 4 January his year, which was reported by the operator in line with the statutory requirements. This lead to an unannounced DVSA maintenance investigation visit on 11 January 2023, when the vehicle concerned was issued with an S-marked prohibition. The unsatisfactory findings contained within the Vehicle Examiner’s report were largely attributable to the wheel loss incident, although some other issues such a stretched inspection interval and completion of PMI sheets were highlighted.

The Vehicle Examiner found the wheel involved had not been correctly secured on it spigot, and that the spigot was worn. It was noted that the vehicle had passed its annual test a couple of weeks earlier on 23 December 2022, and the wheel loss occurred on its first day back in service after the Christmas break.

The maintenance provider claimed that the wheel loss was caused by a failure to undertake the recommended third re-torque of the wheel. However, the operator stated that the re-torque was not due at the point of failure, and attributed the incident to the provider’s failure to spot the wear to the spigot.


Are you enjoying this feature? Why not subscribe to continue reading?

Subscribe for 6 issues/weeks from only £6Or login if you are already a subscriber

By subscribing you will benefit from:

  • Operator & Supplier Profiles
  • Face-to-Face Interviews
  • Lastest News
  • Test Drives and Reviews
  • Legal Updates
  • Route Focus
  • Industry Insider Opinions
  • Passenger Perspective
  • Vehicle Launches
  • and much more!