TC Public Inquiry Preparation Guide

Public inquiry preparation starts with understanding why the hearing has been called and what evidence will be needed. A Traffic Commissioner public inquiry is a formal process used to examine whether an operator continues to meet the requirements of holding a goods vehicle operator licence. It can be stressful, but careful preparation and honest evidence are usually more effective than attempting to minimise or explain away compliance failures.

Why operators are called to public inquiry

Public inquiries are often linked to concerns about roadworthiness, drivers’ hours compliance, management control, financial standing, vehicle prohibitions, convictions or failures identified during DVSA investigations.

• Poor maintenance systems or missed inspections
• Repeated drivers’ hours or tachograph infringements
• Unsatisfactory DVSA encounters or fleet checks
• Failure to act on previous warnings or recommendations
• Questions about effective and continuous management of the licence

The calling-in letter should be reviewed carefully. It usually identifies the issues the Traffic Commissioner intends to examine.

Public inquiry preparation: what the Traffic Commissioner is looking for

The focus is not only on what went wrong. The Traffic Commissioner will also consider whether the operator understands the causes, has taken effective corrective action and can maintain compliance in future.

• Evidence of proper management control
• Accurate and complete records
• A realistic understanding of compliance weaknesses
• Documented improvements already implemented
• Commitment to ongoing monitoring and review

The Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Documents provide useful guidance on the factors commonly considered at public inquiry.

Gathering maintenance evidence

Maintenance records are often central to the hearing. Organise documents clearly and in date order.

• Preventive maintenance inspection (PMI) schedules and reports
• Safety inspection planner and forward schedule
• Defect reporting systems and repair records
• MOT history and annual test outcomes
• Brake performance evidence where available
• Maintenance provider agreements and communication records

The DVSA Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness should be used as a benchmark when reviewing maintenance arrangements.

Gathering drivers’ hours and tachograph evidence

For drivers’ hours issues, demonstrate both monitoring and management action.

• Infringement reports and analysis
• Driver debrief records
• Disciplinary or corrective action records where appropriate
• Training records and refresher training evidence
• Internal compliance checks and management reviews
• Policies covering retained Regulations 561/2006 and 165/2014

Be prepared to explain how issues were identified and what changed afterwards.

Compliance audits and independent review

An independent compliance audit can provide an objective assessment of operating systems. A credible external review often carries more weight than unsupported assurances.

• Commission the audit early enough to act on findings
• Ensure the scope covers maintenance, drivers’ hours and management controls
• Keep the full report available
• Implement recommendations before the hearing where possible
• Record actions taken and completion dates

Corrective action and genuine improvement

Traffic Commissioners generally expect evidence of real change rather than promises.

• Updated policies and procedures
• Additional management oversight
• Staff training records
• Improved reporting and audit schedules
• Clear allocation of compliance responsibilities
• Evidence that new systems are already operating

Document improvements carefully. Written records are usually more persuasive than verbal assurances.

Legal representation and attending the hearing

Legal representation is not mandatory, but many operators choose specialist assistance where the issues are serious or complex.

• Review all evidence well in advance
• Prepare clear explanations for identified failings
• Avoid defensive or speculative answers
• Be open about mistakes and lessons learned
• Ensure key managers understand the evidence being presented

A realistic approach is often viewed more positively than attempting to dispute obvious shortcomings.

This is general guidance for Great Britain and is not legal advice.