“No damage” won’t save you: Traffic Commissioner bans driver after bridge strike

A UK Traffic Commissioner has warned that Mawdsley-Brooks & Company Ltd’s operator repute has been “tarnished” following a second bridge-strike incident within a year, cautioning that any repeat will “assuredly” lead to regulatory proceedings.

The case was considered at a preliminary hearing in Cambridge on 2 December 2025, where the Commissioner assessed whether the operator should be called to a full Public Inquiry. The decision was published on 24 February 2026.

Mawdsley-Brooks holds a Standard National goods vehicle operator’s licence authorising 12 vehicles and 6 trailers, with a declared operating centre at Fingle Drive, Stonebridge, Milton Keynes. Preventative Maintenance Inspections were stated to be carried out at six-weekly intervals by Dawson Group.

Two bridge strikes in two years

The regulator’s file already contained details of an infrastructure strike on 17 October 2024 involving a double-deck trailer that was diverted off the M1 due to a closure and struck a height barrier before a low bridge. The operator reported the incident to the Traffic Commissioner’s office in October 2024, and at the time, the Deputy Traffic Commissioner decided to take no action, noting the incident could be taken into account in any future proceedings.

A further bridge strike was then reported relating to 2 September 2025, when an 18-tonne rigid vehicle struck a height barrier on the A4180 West End Road in Ruislip. The operator’s incident report stated the vehicle’s height was 13’8”, while the bridge was signed at 11’9”. The Commissioner noted that the report described visibility as excellent and that the driver would have encountered multiple warning signs and road markings before the barrier.

Police attended the scene, and the rail authority was notified. There was no structural damage to the bridge reported, but damage to the vehicle was recorded.

“Driver error” was not the end of the matter

In the operator’s internal investigation, the 2025 incident was initially attributed to driver error, with the driver reporting that his view of signs had been blocked by a vehicle in front. However, the Commissioner’s focus went beyond the immediate cause.

In evidence, the operator accepted that further investigation identified serious flaws in how routes were executed, despite the company’s assertion that delivery drops were centrally planned.

The Traffic Commissioner referenced guidance from the Senior Traffic Commissioner reminding operators that bridge strikes are preventable risks and that operators are expected to have effective control measures in place, including (among other things) route planning “so far as reasonably practicable”, training for drivers and planners, and reliable access to vehicle height data for anyone planning or altering routes.

Route planning systems: planning isn’t control

A central theme in the decision was the gap between what the operator’s systems were capable of and what was actually happening in-cab.

The operator described the use of a central planning platform (“Stream”), which generates delivery drops and routes, and an integrated commercial vehicle navigation solution (“Turn”) intended to build safe routes based on pre-populated vehicle dimension data.

But the evidence also indicated that there had been no robust method of ensuring drivers used the truck-appropriate routing consistently. After the 2024 strike, the operator’s standard operating procedure reportedly required the use of HGV sat nav only for vehicles pulling double-deck trailers. Following the 2025 incident, the operator stated that the use of the integrated system was being made mandatory for all drivers, not only for double-deck operations, and that the pre-departure check would include confirmation of the approved truck-navigation solution being in use.

The Commissioner underlined that measures must be “suitable and sufficient” and highlighted the operator’s wider health and safety duty to the risks it presents to other road users.

While acknowledging the seriousness with which senior management approached the issue, the Commissioner concluded that what was described as a “root and branch review” was, in substance, more like a root-cause analysis of the specific incident and did not amount to a full, suitable and sufficient risk assessment or review.

Board-level response and operational changes

The decision records that board members attended operator licence awareness training, which the Commissioner regarded as a step towards better oversight.

The operator also presented extensive documentation on compliance processes and training materials, and referred to additional controls and technology, including updated procedures on vehicle dimensions and measures aimed at strengthening bridge strike prevention. The Commissioner noted the operator’s intention to test improvements through an upcoming annual audit by the Road Haulage Association, booked for March 2026.

Outcome: no Public Inquiry—for now, but a clear warning

After considering the evidence, the Traffic Commissioner decided it was not currently necessary to call the operator to a full Public Inquiry. However, the warning was explicit: the operator’s repute had been tarnished by the events, and any repeat would result in regulatory proceedings.

For operators, the message is straightforward: a bridge strike is treated as a high-consequence safety risk, and regulators will examine not only the driver’s actions but whether the business can demonstrate effective, auditable control measures that prevent recurrence.

Driver conduct: vocational entitlement suspended

The hearing also included a conjoined driver conduct case relating to the driver involved in the 2 September 2025 strike.

The Commissioner recorded that the driver had carried out a walk-round check, including photographing the height marker, and accepted that he was aware of the vehicle height. However, the Commissioner was concerned by the driver’s reported failure to observe multiple warning signs and by the level of care and attention shown.

In the driver conduct decision, the Commissioner cited statutory guidance indicating that bridge strikes can justify severe action and that the starting point can be revocation with disqualification. In this case, the Commissioner imposed a six-week suspension of the driver’s vocational entitlement, starting 23:45 on 7 December 2025, allowing time for the driver to notify his agency.