-
My son managed to get a PCV licence and had been working for a major coach company for a few months when he was sacked for looking down at his phone on which he was playing music whilst driving which were connected to his earphones (stupid thing to do he now knows) his employer reported him at the time to the traffic commissioner this was December 2023 and now a year later he has been sent a letter advising of a hearing before the traffic commissioner in 7 days time, he needs to respond by post to a) confirm he is attending and b) if he will have representation?
He is now working for a smaller coach company and is very careful whilst driving.
He could potentially lose his license and his livelihood 😭
What can he do to ensure his licence isn't taken away and he can remain in his job? Is there a way to do this? Is it worth getting a solicitor? If so will it be expensive?
Any help would be greatly appreciated as we are now quite desperate as there's a lot on the line 🙏 -
-
Looking at this document (Senior Traffic Commissioner Statutory Document No. 6 - Vocational Driver Conduct):
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65956a19614fa2000df3a865/Stat_Doc_6_Driver_Conduct_-_Version_11.0.pdf
It looks like he can expect his vocational licence entitlement to be suspended for four weeks (see page 30 - 1st CU80 in a commercial
vehicle. CU80 is the endorsement code for use of mobile phone). This is assuming the transgression took place whilst he was driving a commercial
vehicle.
Did he actually receive a conviction or fixed penalty for the offence? I'm not sure whether this makes a difference. -
-
Thank you for the response and link. He did not receive a penalty or a fixed notice the police were not involved it was his company who caught him on camera and dismissed him from his job and reported it to the traffic commissioner at the time.
Would he need representation? -
-
to clarify, when you say he "looked down at his phone" which was "connected to his earphones"....
where was the phone? in his hand? on the seat? in a cradle?
connected by cable, or Bluetooth? -
-
On his lap I believe and connected by cable
-
-
how did they catch him? dash cam? someone reported him?
did he touch the phone AT ALL? -
-
They have cameras fitted inside the vehicle and if the driver closes their eyes for too long it sets the camera off, they also have cameras if the driver brakes too harshly / suddenly. I wouldn't be able to confirm if he touched the phone or not but I can confirm that later.
-
-
We have a regular poster - Roythebus - who I believe knows a bit about the Traffic Commissioners.
-
-
yes, I was going to suggest Roy might have views on this.
I'm just trying to see if there is even a case to answer for the OPs son.
if he looked at the phone but didn't touch it, that would be no different imo to looking at any other instrument.
this may also bring into question his dismissal.
(subject to any specific conditions in his contract)
NOT that I'm condoning a bus driver having his phone on his lap
-
-
So the TC is an interesting one. Not been in front of them myself (I drove PCV and work elsewhere in the industry now) But have had to study them and learn for CPC related reasons. One thing I would say off the beat, is TC driver hearings are generally open to the public, so if you want to go with your Son to watch what goes on, you can do (unless it states it's closed doors on the day) and there's the possibly that he may not be speaking to the actual TC, but a deputy on the day. Deputy's have the same power as the TC itself mind, so that point's rather moot.
My understanding is there are solicitors that deal with the TC as well, but unless you're looking at a revocation of the license or a winnable argument, I wouldn't bother personally.
The TC generally tends to take four courses of action depending on what's going on. No action, A verbal warning, A suspension or a revocation of the license. Generally we could rule out revocation and no action as they are the extreme end of the scale for both ends if you will.
The fact your son was driving and I assume, moving at the time will make this most likely lean towards as Newjudge said, towards the 4 week period. Length of service may come into account too with the TC potentially being more harsh based on less experience. One driver I spoke to who had been in front of the TC for mobile phone use (Looking at a bus stop, doors open handbrake on) was given a ban of 5 days instead of 4 weeks due to 27 years of service with no issues, this particular issue also being a report from the company (Most companies are obliged to inform the TC of these actions as part of operator license related duties)
On a note as well, with how the TC is (to my admittedly only researched and spoken to drivers viewpoint) the fact the phone was in the lap shouldn't reduce the violation. Coach/Bus/Lorry drivers shouldn't have the phone on anything but a cradle in a cab period.
This may be useful for a read to give you a heads up on how things work along with some other info
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/a-guide-to-driver-conduct-hearings/a-guide-to-driver-conduct-hearings
IF you want to see what kind of examples of punishments that have been meted out, this is on the government website as well, however it does not include why they were at the TC, just the punishment.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-decisions-made-about-the-conduct-of-professional-drivers
Not really sure of anything else truth be told, I made an account just to respond to this post
-
-
Has your son really only had 7 days notice? Solicitors/representation are not cheap, and with only 7 days to go a bit short notice. Your son can represent himself and you can attend as a member of the public. Your son would need to be very humble/contrite and go into the meeting with expectations of having his PCV entitlement suspended. (If he goes in guns blazing, thinking he can talk his way out of it then it probably wont end well). Has he discussed with his new employer what the outcome will mean for his ongoing employment? Possibly get a letter from them if it supports him being careful driver/reformed character. Also if they will continue to employ him.
Cost of solicitor for a Public Inquiry that I worked on last year was £5k for the first solicitor who then due conflict of interest had to stop representing and £6k for the solicitor who represented the operator at PI. So £11k total.
You could write back and request an adjournment if you feel 7 days notice is not enough. From your description would probably be putting off the inevitable. -
-
Quote
"if he looked at the phone but didn't touch it, that would be no different imo to looking at any other instrument."
But the offence is using the phone, not touching it. And there is a specific offence prohibiting the use of a hand-held phone whilst there isn't one prohibiting the use of (say) a speedometer.
I don't know very much about the work of the Traffic Commissioner and I assumed that any action taken by him would be following a conviction. But it seems not. From the same document this under the "Standard of Proof":
"In the vast majority of driver conduct cases, a traffic commissioner will be able to proceed on the basis of the facts following a conviction, fixed penalty, an endorsement or an admission of guilt. However, where no such findings have been made, the standard of proof required (in such civil proceedings) is the balance of probabilities, but the more serious the allegation the more cogent is the evidence required to overcome the unlikelihood of what is alleged and thus to prove it."
And this under "Double Jeopardy":
"The concept of double jeopardy is sometimes raised in relation to traffic commissioner led regulatory action taking place in parallel with criminal proceedings. However, the principle of double jeopardy does not apply. Case law clearly indicates that regulation would be turned on its head if disciplinary proceedings could only be taken in the less serious of cases, where there are no concurrent criminal proceedings. However, if a traffic commissioner decides to proceed in advance of the criminal proceedings elaborate steps may have to be taken to protect the fairness of those proceedings. Ultimately the decision whether or not to continue is one for the traffic commissioner hearing the matter."
Perhaps Roy can help is out. -
-
does that not also require holding or touching it if not in a cradle?Quote"if he looked at the phone but didn't touch it, that would be no different imo to looking at any other instrument."
But the offence is using the phone, not touching it. And there is a specific offence prohibiting the use of a hand-held phone whilst there isn't one prohibiting the use of (say) a speedometer. -
-
he TC themselves do not hand out convictions, nor can they do anything to your private licences, however they do have the ability to take action against your professional licences, convention or not. If there's cctv showing the driving driving and changing music on his phone, even without a conviction the TC can take appropriate action against a licence holder.
I suspect regardless of convictions the TC would take punitive action here against the driver -
-
If we can assume that the TC is solely concerned with alleged criminal offences...
Holding (variously as opposed to touching or otherwise not holding) is a key ingredient of the offence - albeit that evidence that it must have been held at some point during the use, rather than necessarily evidence that he was actually holding it when he was "caught" would be required. -
Like x 1
View List