Former Warrington’s Own Buses Transport Manager Steven Stringer has been disqualified, and the operator’s licence curtailed, as a result of a significant failure in its maintenance regime in 2021
On 15 June, Gerallt Evans, Traffic Commissioner (TC) for the North West of England issued his written decision in the case of Warrington Borough Transport, trading as Warrington’s Own Buses, which was found to have operated 28 buses without a valid MOT certificate after their tests had expired. This represents over a quarter of the operator’s fleet, and occurred following the relaxation of retest rules due to the Covid-19 pandemic. An investigation was undertaken by the Driver & Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA), which found a number of unsatisfactory issues relating to maintenance.
The operator and Transport Manager Steven Stringer, who held the role between 2015 and 25 November 2021, were called to public inquiry (PI) after the operator reported the situation to the TC’s office. Neither the operator nor the Transport Manager (TM) had previously been called to a PI.
The operator was represented at the PI by its Managing Director, Ben Wakerley, and the Chair of its Board of Directors, Catherine Mitchell. Also present were David Aspinall, Director of Engineering, and Finance Director David Woods. The operator and its directors were legally represented by James Backhouse of Backhouse Jones solicitors.
Former TM Stringer did not attend, and stated that he would like to defend himself against the allegations that the operator had made against him but claimed that he was unable to do so as he no longer had access to company information that would support his facts. No objections were made to the inquiry proceeding without TM Stringer, and the TC inferred from communication that he accepted the inevitability of regulatory action against him.
The evidence
The TC heard evidence from Ben Wakerley which largely confirmed the contents of two detailed reports that had been submitted before the hearing. The operator’s evidence was that Mr Stringer as Transport Manager was responsible for the company’s engineering function including the submission of vehicles for annual test.
The operator gave assurance that it did have a robust system in place prior to the pandemic to monitor and audit vehicle maintenance and the work of Mr Stringer, including reviewing key performance indicators as well as regular spot checks of vehicle files which was undertaken by Mr Wakerley in person.
The social distancing and other restrictions introduced in the wake of the pandemic meant that the supervisory system had to be modified and the operator conceded it became much more reliant on individuals such as Mr Stringer passing on relevant information.
One significant change was that the vehicle files to be checked were now selected by Mr Stringer himself rather than Mr Wakerley as previously. Mr Stringer also retained control of those documents while they were checked remotely by Mr Wakerley. The operator contended this made it more difficult to identify any discrepancies. The operator also referred to the fact that due to the significant reduction in services during 2020 and 2021, far more of its vehicles were parked up than usual, which served to obscure the extent of any difficulties with testing and roadworthiness.
The company, including Mr Wakerley as Managing Director, had complete faith in Mr Stringer as a long-standing employee who had established a reputation as being reliable and trustworthy, but now believes that Mr Stringer had been misleading senior management about the annual test position and other vehicle maintenance matters since at least early 2021.
The operator said that had it not been for the revised working practices introduced as a result of the pandemic, its internal audits would have swiftly identified the problem with the annual tests. It presented evidence of the steps taken to correct and check matters in November 2021 after the scale of the issue became clear. The TC was assured that all the vehicles that did not have a test were immediately taken off road until they could be tested, and all passed when subsequently tested. The operator also incurred a significant financial cost as it hired vehicles to replace those that were out of service as a result. It was also clear to the TC that the operator’s senior managers spent a considerable amount of time investigating and putting matters right including working through the night on 23 November 2021 when the storm broke.
The operator has introduced additional external auditing with support from Logistics UK and its solicitors, and has strengthened its internal management with the appointment of Mr Aspinall as Director of Engineering.
The TC was satisfied that Councillor Catherine Mitchell, who chairs the operator’s Board as nominee of the “parent” Local Authority and the other non-executive directors had been fully briefed on the situation in relation to annual tests and were exercising proper supervision of the company’s executive managers.
The brief contained a copy of the email sent by TM Stringer that first alerted the operator to the issue, sent on 23 November 2021 at 1541hrs and referring to getting “some MOT dates wrong on the planner,” with four specific vehicles affected. The TC believed Mr Stringer was prompted to send the email after he became aware that rumours were circulating on social media about the problem.
The documents submitted by the operator after the hearing included copies of extracts from the monthly reports that Mr Stringer would submit to the Board. Those through 2021 refer to the number of vehicles submitted for MOT and claim most, if not all, were passing first time. In July 2021, Mr Stringer said that there was “a 100% first-time pass rate.” However, by this stage it is known that vehicles had already failed to be submitted for test as required. Mr Stringer did report that one vehicle had failed its test in October 2021, but he presented this as an exception.
TM’s actions
The TC found that 28 of the operator’s vehicles were allowed to be operated when their annual test had expired. The operator did not challenge that finding, having drawn it to the TC’s attention in the first place. The earliest test missed was in July 2021 but most of the vehicles were due for test between September and November 2021. At the time the issue was identified, most had been operating for a month or two without test.
It was the TC’s view that primary responsibility for the situation must rest with TM Stringer. In an email to the TC dated 28 April 2022, TM Stringer stated: “As soon as I became aware of the MOT situation, I worked into the early hours in order to ensure a plan was formulated to begin working through the affected fleet. Once I was satisfied a plan was in place, I then gave my notice with immediate effect to protect the company’s interest.”
The TC stated that this chronology of events was not consistent with the evidence provided by the operator and, having seen copies of email correspondence between Mr Wakerley and Mr Stringer on 23 and 24 November.
TM Stringer did offer his resignation in the initial email he sent Mr Wakerley on 23 November informing him of the MoT situation, which said that only 4 vehicles were affected. The TC suggested that this was a considerable underestimation of the extent of the issue and indicative of his continuing efforts to mislead the operator as to the true picture.
The operator initially declined to accept the resignation, and the TC agreed that that Mr Stringer then worked into the night as part of the team tasked with urgently rectifying the position. However, the TC did not consider that Mr Stringer should be given credit for his part in those efforts as he was the cause of the issue. He was suspended the following morning after the extent of the problem became apparent, and his resignation was then accepted.
TC Evans was not convinced that Mr Stringer offered his resignation to protect the company’s interests, and thought it more likely that he realised the extent of his failures would result in dismissal. The TC found that not only did Mr Stringer fail to ensure the vehicles were submitted for annual test as required, but from the evidence he had seen believed that TM Stringer actively and dishonestly sought to conceal the true position on testing from his senior managers for several months.
Regulatory action
TC Evans was clear that the issue with annual testing persisted for several months and was not a situation that should have been allowed to arise in a competently run business, especially one of this size. He found that the grounds for regulatory action were satisfied in relation to the failure to fulfil its undertakings to observe the laws relating to the operation of vehicles used under the licence and to keep those vehicles fit and serviceable.
The TC believed that the situation which had arisen must be considered as falling into the most severe category for regulatory action. He weighed up the positive and negative aspects of the case. As positive features, he identified that the issue with the tests, whilst serious, can be said to be confined to a specific period of time and a specific aberration on the part of the then Transport Manager. “Whilst it is a stretch to describe this as an isolated incident, I do not consider it would be right to describe the issues as persistent or long standing,” TC Evans noted. He was satisfied there is now effective management control and appropriate systems and procedures in place to prevent operator licence failings, including those in relation to annual test.
Additionally, he took account of the fact that this issue arose during the unprecedented challenges of the pandemic, and gave the operator credit for its swift notification to the Office of the Traffic Commissioner of the issues once identified and the rapid action taken to rectify matters. He also noted that this is the operator’s first call to a PI in the 27-year life of the licence.
Presenting the negative aspects, he found the actions of the Transport Manager in allowing vehicles to be operated without annual test to be deliberate, as he was clearly aware of that situation and permitted it to continue, leading to an undue risk to road safety.
The operator must also take accountability for its failure to properly oversee the Transport Manager, he said, since the fact the situation arose, and to such an extent, must inevitably lead to a finding that at the relevant time there was ineffective management control and insufficient systems and procedures in place to prevent operator licence compliance failings.
Mitigation
In closing submissions, Mr Backhouse argued that it was not unreasonable for an operator to place trust in staff such as Transport Managers. The TC accepted that trust must play a part and that it could be counter-productive to have an overly intricate and inefficient system of double or triple checking each individual’s decisions and actions. On the other hand, he noted that a responsible operator should ensure it properly assesses the risk of reliance on one individual and has appropriate checks and balances in place to address any risk of impropriety or incompetence by that person.
The TC concluded that the operator’s systems in 2021 were not adequate for that, but accepted that this was in part a consequence of the pandemic. However, by the time these issues arose, he noted that over a year had passed since the first restrictions were introduced. “I would have expected the operator to have re-implemented at least some of the compliance and assurance measures it had in place prior to the pandemic. This is especially so as the recovery of its operations had increased in pace in the latter part of 2021,” he said.
Impressed
He went on to add that he was impressed by the evidence of Mr Wakerley, noting: “He is clearly a conscientious individual who cares deeply about his company’s reputation and compliance and is very embarrassed by these events. Whilst Mr Wakerley’s desire to personally be involved in managing the compliance of the operator is admirable, he may wish to discuss with other senior managers how that burden can be shared to ensure the most effective systems of assurance are in place.”
Having considered the evidence, the TC considered the operator’s position called for action in the moderate to serious category. He took into account the impact of any regulatory action on the operator’s recovery after the pandemic and most importantly the passengers and community it serves.
“The irony is not lost on me that it is those passengers who were exposed to potential risk by the operation of untested vehicles,” he said. “However, I consider it would be inappropriate to impose a suspension or limit the current number of vehicles being operated as that would cause disproportionate disruption to the members of the public who rely on the operator’s services.
For that reason I determine that the events that led to the Public Inquiry should be appropriately marked by direction limiting the number of authorised vehicles to those currently in possession for a period of 28 days.”
TC Evans also recorded a formal warning on the firm’s operator licence.
TM Stringer
The Traffic Commissioner was satisfied from the evidence presented that Mr Stringer failed in his responsibilities as Transport Manger to ensure that vehicles were kept in a fit and roadworthy condition and subjected to properly recorded periodic inspections and annually tested as required. For a Transport Manger to allow 28 passenger carrying vehicles to be operated without a valid MoT is inexcusable, he said.
He also found that the failure was aggravated by the reassurances about compliance that Mr Stringer provided to senior management over several months, which he was satisfied were false. Mr Stringer knew fully well he was misleading the operator, the TC believed, and his actions had subsequently been described by his former employer as deceitful.
The Commissioner noted that Mr Stringer appeared to have been a highly respected employee with external plaudits for his work as well as earning the trust of his senior managers and colleagues. Without hearing from Mr Stringer, he said it was difficult to understand why there was such a catastrophic change in his approach in 2021.
In trying to weigh the positives and negatives, the TC felt that there were limited positive features that could be identified in the absence of hearing evidence from Mr Stringer himeslf, though gave him some credit for his previously unblemished record and the fact he appeared to concede that he cannot continue to act as a Transport Manger. However, these did little to outweigh the significant aggravating features, the TC believed. Consequently, he found that Mr Stringer’s good repute as Transport Manager was lost, leading to an inevitable disqualification from acting as a transport manager. The gravity of Mr Stringer’s conduct was such that the TC considered a longer period to be justified, which he set at 2 years. Having not been able to understand the reasons for Mr Stringer’s failings, the TC found it difficult to identify what rehabilitation steps might be expected if he sought to restore his good repute after the disqualification had ended. “At the very least I would wish to hear a full explanation about the events in 2021 together with tangible evidence of any relevant rehabilitative steps taken ince,”
he concluded.
