Police failed to monitor heavy towing contractor
AN OFFICIAL INVESTIGATION HAS FOUND THAT for eight years Police failed to properly monitor whether a consortium of heavy vehicle towtruck operators – contracted by the Police – were compliant with the law.
The Independent Police Conduct Authority finding, released in August, was triggered by a complaint from another heavy vehicle towing company about the circumstances under which the contract to recover vehicles on Auckland motorways was awarded in 2013….
And its concerns that since then the individual companies making up the contracted consortium had regularly used non-complying tow vehicles.
The IPCA found that the 2013 contract was conditional on Police inspecting the consortium’s vehicles to ensure they were compliant and fit for purpose: “However, this did not occur, and despite renewals of the contract, Police had never undertaken any systematic inspections of operational vehicles,” says the report.
Police had no knowledge whether the consortium complied with the requirements of the contract – and the IPCA says that Police should not have entered into the contract…nor subsequently renewed it… “as it had real safety and congestion-management implications for road users.”
The Authority concludes that “the consortium has not had sufficient vehicles with the necessary towing capacity and have therefore been able to fulfil the terms of the contract only by using unsafe and non-compliant vehicles.
“Although Police were aware of these non-compliance issues, they did not take appropriate action to address them,” says the IPCA.
Authority Chair, Judge Colin Doherty, says: “Quite apart from contractual matters, the need to ensure the safety of road users makes it incumbent on Police to ensure any contractor is a compliant operator under the contract.”
The IPCA also criticised the way Police responded to complaints about the consortium’s operation – finding its response “inadequate.” The only investigation into the complaints was “by an officer who was involved in the matters complained about and therefore lacked impartiality.”
Police Assistant Commissioner, Deployment and Road Policing, Bruce O’Brien, says Police are “addressing the concerns highlighted in the report, including a national audit of heavy vehicle towing contracts to ensure best practice and compliance.
“We accept that this was not good enough and not up to Police’s usual high standard of managing contracts.”
He says that Police acknowledge that the contract awarded to ‘Company Y’ to remove broken-down heavy vehicles from Auckland motorways, “was conditional upon regular inspections being conducted by Police: These inspections did not occur.
“We acknowledge the importance of removing heavy motor vehicles from the road and understand the potential impact failing to inspect these vehicles could have on road users.
“Police will ensure going forward that there is a focus on the compliance of heavy vehicle towing contractors to ensure the safety of all road users.”
O’Brien says that Company Y’s offered donation was not accepted and “was not a contributing factor in the score which resulted in awarding the contract with Company Y.”
He says that Police continue to use Company Y for heavy-vehicle recovery on the motorways – “with the exception of vehicles in excess of 36,000kg.” Police have notified Company Y of “concerns regarding the company’s capacity to tow loads of more than this weight.
“Police will not use this company for towing heavy vehicles with a weight in excess of 36,000kg until the matter is resolved…”
O’Brien says that annual audits of Company Y’s fleet will be conducted in accordance with the contract obligations.
And he says Police apologise to Company X “for failing to properly address the initial complaint. In retrospect, we also acknowledge that the officer who did eventually investigate the complaint should have been a different investigator to ensure impartiality.”
He says that a process was introduced last year that involves supervisers from different CVST areas investigating complaints, “to ensure impartiality and mitigate conflict of interest risks.”
T&D