93% of operators face sanctions at Public Inquiry – what's the one thing you've checked today that could save your licence?

[Invergold]

I've been looking at the latest Traffic Commissioner data, and one statistic stopped me cold: of 920 Public Inquiries held, regulatory action was taken in 853 cases. That's 93% of operators facing sanctions, including licence revocation, suspension, or curtailment.

The common thread in almost every case? Maintenance records that couldn't withstand scrutiny.

The DVSA has quietly raised the bar for 2026. Brake performance assessment at every PMI isn't a recommendation anymore – it's an expectation Traffic Commissioners are enforcing rigorously. And those safety inspection sheets, brake evidence, and defect records? You need to keep them for at least 15 months now, immediately accessible.

But here's what's really keeping me up at night – the risks most operators don't see coming.

The third-party blind spot

You send vehicles out for overnight servicing to agents or dealers who aren't audited like operators do. They say the work is done. You collect the vehicle in the morning. If it's defective on the road, who carries the liability? You do.

One transport compliance manager I spoke with put it bluntly: "The biggest risk right now is agents and dealers. They're not managed or audited like operators, but you carry the liability if something's missed."

The "we disciplined the driver" trap

I've seen two recent Public Inquiries where transport managers genuinely thought they'd done a good job. Both had investigated S-mark prohibitions (worn tyres), documented everything, and disciplined the driver. Both were criticised by the Traffic Commissioner for not investigating the cause of the worn tyre – tracking issues in one case, over-inflated tyres in the other.

The expectation now is that Transport Managers should interrogate everything. Brake test imbalance percentages. Tyre wear patterns. PMI interval stretching. Even advisory notes from previous inspections.

The question for you

What's the one thing you've checked in your operation this week that you weren't checking six months ago?

I'm asking because I genuinely want to know how other operators are keeping up with standards that keep shifting.

A few things I've learned from operators who stay ahead:

• Don't just download tachograph data – interrogate it for patterns, not just infringements
• Build walkaround checks so drivers can't progress jobs until mandatory items are cleared
• Audit your third-party agents. Their compliance gap is your liability gap

What's your biggest compliance headache right now? And what's actually working?

 

[DavidAshdown]

I've been looking at the latest Traffic Commissioner data, and one statistic stopped me cold: of 920 Public Inquiries held, regulatory action was taken in 853 cases. That's 93% of operators facing sanctions, including licence revocation, suspension, or curtailment.

The common thread in almost every case? Maintenance records that couldn't withstand scrutiny.

The DVSA has quietly raised the bar for 2026. Brake performance assessment at every PMI isn't a recommendation anymore – it's an expectation Traffic Commissioners are enforcing rigorously. And those safety inspection sheets, brake evidence, and defect records? You need to keep them for at least 15 months now, immediately accessible.

But here's what's really keeping me up at night – the risks most operators don't see coming.

The third-party blind spot

You send vehicles out for overnight servicing to agents or dealers who aren't audited like operators do. They say the work is done. You collect the vehicle in the morning. If it's defective on the road, who carries the liability? You do.

One transport compliance manager I spoke with put it bluntly: "The biggest risk right now is agents and dealers. They're not managed or audited like operators, but you carry the liability if something's missed."

The "we disciplined the driver" trap

I've seen two recent Public Inquiries where transport managers genuinely thought they'd done a good job. Both had investigated S-mark prohibitions (worn tyres), documented everything, and disciplined the driver. Both were criticised by the Traffic Commissioner for not investigating the cause of the worn tyre – tracking issues in one case, over-inflated tyres in the other.

The expectation now is that Transport Managers should interrogate everything. Brake test imbalance percentages. Tyre wear patterns. PMI interval stretching. Even advisory notes from previous inspections.

The question for you

What's the one thing you've checked in your operation this week that you weren't checking six months ago?

I'm asking because I genuinely want to know how other operators are keeping up with standards that keep shifting.

A few things I've learned from operators who stay ahead:

• Don't just download tachograph data – interrogate it for patterns, not just infringements
• Build walkaround checks so drivers can't progress jobs until mandatory items are cleared
• Audit your third-party agents. Their compliance gap is your liability gap

What's your biggest compliance headache right now? And what's actually working?

This really hits the mark.

None of this is new in isolation, brakes, tyres, PMI discipline, we’ve all known the importance for years. What’s changed is the level of scrutiny and the expectation that operators can evidence not just what they did, but why.

That’s where good operators are getting caught out.

From what we’re seeing (having been in the industry 30+ years and now working across multiple operators), the biggest shift in the last 6–12 months is:

Moving from “record keeping” to pattern recognition and root cause thinking

• Not just logging defects, but asking why are we seeing repeat issues?
• Not just completing PMI, but challenging intervals and outcomes
• Not just using third parties, but actively auditing and verifying them

To your question, one thing that’s now getting real attention that wasn’t 6 months ago:

Third-party accountability

Outsourcing doesn’t outsource responsibility. If anything, it increases risk unless it’s tightly controlled.

What’s actually working?
The operators staying ahead are building simple but disciplined systems:

• Drivers can’t progress jobs without closing defects
• Data is reviewed and challenged, not just filed
• Third parties are treated as extensions of the operation, not separate

We’re seeing this so often that we’ve started developing a practical system (not just software, but process-led) to help operators streamline this and stay on top of it. It’s still early days, but it’s clearly where things need to go.

Completely agree, the bar hasn’t just moved, it’s still moving.

 

[Mark T Jones]

I've been looking at the latest Traffic Commissioner data, and one statistic stopped me cold: of 920 Public Inquiries held, regulatory action was taken in 853 cases. That's 93% of operators facing sanctions, including licence revocation, suspension, or curtailment.

The common thread in almost every case? Maintenance records that couldn't withstand scrutiny.

The DVSA has quietly raised the bar for 2026. Brake performance assessment at every PMI isn't a recommendation anymore – it's an expectation Traffic Commissioners are enforcing rigorously. And those safety inspection sheets, brake evidence, and defect records? You need to keep them for at least 15 months now, immediately accessible.

But here's what's really keeping me up at night – the risks most operators don't see coming.

The third-party blind spot

You send vehicles out for overnight servicing to agents or dealers who aren't audited like operators do. They say the work is done. You collect the vehicle in the morning. If it's defective on the road, who carries the liability? You do.

One transport compliance manager I spoke with put it bluntly: "The biggest risk right now is agents and dealers. They're not managed or audited like operators, but you carry the liability if something's missed."

The "we disciplined the driver" trap

I've seen two recent Public Inquiries where transport managers genuinely thought they'd done a good job. Both had investigated S-mark prohibitions (worn tyres), documented everything, and disciplined the driver. Both were criticised by the Traffic Commissioner for not investigating the cause of the worn tyre – tracking issues in one case, over-inflated tyres in the other.

The expectation now is that Transport Managers should interrogate everything. Brake test imbalance percentages. Tyre wear patterns. PMI interval stretching. Even advisory notes from previous inspections.

The question for you

What's the one thing you've checked in your operation this week that you weren't checking six months ago?

I'm asking because I genuinely want to know how other operators are keeping up with standards that keep shifting.

A few things I've learned from operators who stay ahead:

• Don't just download tachograph data – interrogate it for patterns, not just infringements
• Build walkaround checks so drivers can't progress jobs until mandatory items are cleared
• Audit your third-party agents. Their compliance gap is your liability gap

What's your biggest compliance headache right now? And what's actually working?

Very few haulage operators on here - the closest you'll get is @JEREMY HAWKE - who may give real human input

 

[JEREMY HAWKE]

We run under the 3.5 tonnes limited
We have a EU O licence for vans ready for the new EU requirements. I act as TM

We are members of The Road Transport Association and members get daily updates

I would say the golden rule is if you dont have in house mechanics to have a dedicated local mechanic/workshop that you can trust .
There is no harm in having them double check any work undertaken by the main dealer or any other company before the vehicle is back on the road

The most effective way to monitor driver daily checks now is for the drivers to use an App they are very cheap
Fleet check is good

FleetCheck Driver Landing Page

Manage all your vehicle & driver information with our robust & compliant Fleet Management Software. Book a FREE demo today - Reduce costs & increase efficiency!

www.fleetcheck.co.uk

 

[Invergold]

This really hits the mark.

None of this is new in isolation, brakes, tyres, PMI discipline, we’ve all known the importance for years. What’s changed is the level of scrutiny and the expectation that operators can evidence not just what they did, but why.

That’s where good operators are getting caught out.

From what we’re seeing (having been in the industry 30+ years and now working across multiple operators), the biggest shift in the last 6–12 months is:

Moving from “record keeping” to pattern recognition and root cause thinking

• Not just logging defects, but asking why are we seeing repeat issues?
• Not just completing PMI, but challenging intervals and outcomes
• Not just using third parties, but actively auditing and verifying them

To your question, one thing that’s now getting real attention that wasn’t 6 months ago:

Third-party accountability

Outsourcing doesn’t outsource responsibility. If anything, it increases risk unless it’s tightly controlled.

What’s actually working?
The operators staying ahead are building simple but disciplined systems:

• Drivers can’t progress jobs without closing defects
• Data is reviewed and challenged, not just filed
• Third parties are treated as extensions of the operation, not separate

We’re seeing this so often that we’ve started developing a practical system (not just software, but process-led) to help operators streamline this and stay on top of it. It’s still early days, but it’s clearly where things need to go.

Completely agree, the bar hasn’t just moved, it’s still moving.

David – this is a brilliant breakdown.

You've nailed the shift: it's not about having records anymore. It's about interrogating them. Why are you seeing repeat defects? Why is that brake imbalance percentage still there after three PMIs? Why did no one question the advisory note from last inspection?

Third-party accountability is the silent killer. Operators assume the agent or dealer is doing the work properly. But when an S-mark prohibition lands, the Traffic Commissioner doesn't ask the agent – they ask the operator. Their compliance gap is your liability gap.

The operators staying ahead are doing exactly what you said:

- Drivers can't progress jobs without clearing defects
- Data is reviewed weekly, not just filed quarterly
- Third parties are audited like internal departments

*We're covering this at Transport Conference 2026 – root cause analysis, third-party auditing, and building compliance systems that withstand scrutiny. 23 September in Birmingham. Invergold Associates Ltd

Would be great to hear more about the system you're developing – sounds like exactly what the industry needs.

 

[DavidAshdown]

David – this is a brilliant breakdown.

You've nailed the shift: it's not about having records anymore. It's about interrogating them. Why are you seeing repeat defects? Why is that brake imbalance percentage still there after three PMIs? Why did no one question the advisory note from last inspection?

Third-party accountability is the silent killer. Operators assume the agent or dealer is doing the work properly. But when an S-mark prohibition lands, the Traffic Commissioner doesn't ask the agent – they ask the operator. Their compliance gap is your liability gap.

The operators staying ahead are doing exactly what you said:

- Drivers can't progress jobs without clearing defects
- Data is reviewed weekly, not just filed quarterly
- Third parties are audited like internal departments

*We're covering this at Transport Conference 2026 – root cause analysis, third-party auditing, and building compliance systems that withstand scrutiny. 23 September in Birmingham. Invergold Associates Ltd

Would be great to hear more about the system you're developing – sounds like exactly what the industry needs.

Appreciate that Invergold, thank you.

You’ve nailed the shift, it’s no longer about having records, it’s about being able to stand behind them under scrutiny.

What’s becoming clear to us is that most operators aren’t short of data, they’re short of a consistent way of challenging it and joining it up, especially once third parties are involved.

That gap is where a lot of the risk is sitting.

We’re developing a more structured, practical way of dealing with that, part system, part process, but focused on making it work day to day rather than sitting on the side.

Still early, but it’s been shaped by exactly the kind of issues you’ve highlighted here.

Be good to compare notes at some point, feels like we’re looking at the same problem from similar angles.