Decision

Decision for Parks Haulage Ltd, Keith Parks, Dennis Parker and Scrap Haulage Ltd

Published 24 November 2022

1. Decision of the Deputy Traffic Commissioner for the North East of England

1.1 In the matter of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (“the Act”) and

1.2 Parks Haulage Ltd OB2027286

1.3 Keith Parks Transport manager

1.4 Dennis Parker Former Transport manager

1.5 Scrap Haulage Ltd OB2051364

2. Public Inquiry at Leeds on 24 October 2022.

3. Background:

3.1 Keith Parks

Parks Haulage Ltd has held a Standard National Goods Vehicle operator’s licence for 4 vehicles and 6 trailers since 28 October 2019. Keith Parks is the company’s sole director and has been a nominated TM since the outset of the licence.

Whilst Parks Haulage Ltd has no prior regulatory history, Keith Parks had also held a sole trader operator’s licence in his name (OB1070249) for 8 vehicles and 10 trailers, until its revocation on 4 March 2022.

That revocation had followed an unsatisfactory maintenance investigation to which no operator response had been provided to DVSA’s report of its findings (exactly the same approach as will be seen to be evidenced in the current matter). Propose To Revoke (PTR) processes had then been initiated. At the time, it had been indicated on behalf of Keith Parks that he wished to surrender that licence [REDACTED]

Additionally, it was stated he was to stand down as the TM on the Parks Haulage Ltd operator’s licence. In that regard, whilst an application was made nominating Dennis Parker to the TM role on the company licence, and that Mr Parker was subsequently approved as an additional TM, he only remained in post for the period 25 April to 6 September 2022. Keith Parks was never removed as the company’s TM and holds the role as sole TM, as at the date of this Inquiry.

3.2 Abbie Parks:

Scrap Haulage Ltd made an application for a new Standard National goods vehicle operator’s licence for 4 vehicles and 6 trailers on 7 January 2022, shortly before Keith Parks’ sole trader licence was revoked. She is the company’s sole director and was initially proposed as TM on the licence too.

She is the daughter of Keith Parks and has been involved at some level in the business of her father for a number of years, albeit she works up to 24 hours per week as a Night Senior in a care home. She had passed the TM CPC examination in 2021.

The application form for the licence discloses a correspondence address, proposed operating centre, email contact details, proposed licence type and fleet size which mirrors the existing licence of Parks Haulage Ltd. The applicant director also has links to her father through the company, Waste and Scrap Recycling Ltd, where she is the current director and he previously held that role. That company has not held an operator’s licence.

3.3 Proposal to seek to nominate Brian Colman as TM

I was told that Brian Colman, a well-experienced professional within the haulage industry will, in the near future be nominated to take over as TM on whichever (or both) of the operator’s licences, are valid after this decision.

I heard from him, gleaned that he has held senior positions on licences, and subject to anything that might be disclosed in an application form or revealed during the checking process, consider it very likely that he would be judged suitable to act in the role for them.

3.4 Calling-in to Public Inquiry

The new application made by Scrap Haulage Ltd triggered DVSA to launch an investigation in respect of the existing licence of Parks Haulage Ltd. The subsequent Maintenance Investigation Visit Report (MIVR) generated by VE Hodgson raised concerns of some seriousness and requiring their reporting to the Office of the Traffic Commissioner.

The large number of issues raised by him were not the subject of any dispute in the Public Inquiry. The following were the most prominent;

• Preventive maintenance records were incomplete in the vast majority of cases,

• There was an absence of regular laden brake testing at inspections,

• Stretching of maintenance frequencies was evident,

• An ineffective driver defect reporting regime with driver detectable defects found at preventive maintenance inspections was witnessed,

• There were concerns about staffing capacity within the maintenance facility,

• Absence of proper protocols to manage tyre, wheel and load security,

• Vehicles had no been parked at an authorised operating centre.

A Traffic Examiner Visit Report (TEVR) in June 20 had raised fewer matters but nevertheless required its author to report those matters to the Office of Traffic Commissioner.

Parks Haulage Ltd had chosen (again) not to respond to the MIVR, as had been requested by DVSA, but to reserve their response for any Public Inquiry that might follow. I should point out that this strategy is seriously flawed and an entirely unhelpful one, since it prevents DVSA from giving immediate feedback on the proposals to address shortcomings and thereby reduce risk, but it must also undermine the credibility of the operator and TM, in terms of the likelihood they will comply with the legitimate requests of relevant agencies.

The calling-in raised issues in relation to the use of an unauthorised operating centre, the issue of prohibition notices come up which is of statements of intent and undertakings attached to the licence and material change. Such were the concerns that good repute, financial standing and professional competence were brought into question. In addition, Keith Park’s good repute as TM was also raised, alongside that of Dennis Parker.

Scrap Haulage Ltd was itself called-in to this Public Inquiry amidst concerns that the company may not satisfy the requirements to hold this licence, principally that this application may be a “front” for that held by Parks Haulage Ltd and its director Keith Parks.

Evidence from Automated Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) official had been provided to the applicant company. Vehicle NA13 VPC had been nominated on the application form. It transpired this vehicle had been seen on the road network on 4 days between 23 July and 1 September 2022, data being captured on a total of 16 occasions in that period. It had been accepted on the half of the applicant that “some illegality” in those operations was accepted. The vehicle had not been nominated on any operator’s licence since 5 January 2022.

4. The conjoined Public Inquiry

Present at this Public Inquiry were Keith Parks and Abbie Parks (respective directors for those companies) represented by Beverley Bell, solicitor. Brian Colman, proposed TM was also present and gave evidence.

Dennis Parker was not present. I deal with the matters concerning with him at the end of this decision.

Helpfully, Mrs Bell “set out her stall” on behalf of both Mr, and Ms Parks at the outset of the hearing. This was to the effect that if Keith Parks were to have appeared alone at Public Inquiry, it was accepted it would have been almost inevitable that the Parks Haulage licence would be revoked. Her submission was however that the active involvement of his daughter and the introduction of Brian Colman could provide the level of confidence in the regulator that would allow the businesses to continue.

The sole trader licence had authorised the use of 8 vehicles and the desire now was for a licence allowing the use of the 7 vehicles in possession (there was an eighth, but it was maintained solely for show purposes). The plan had been for Abbie Parks with 4 vehicles to take up the work that had been lost when the sole trader licence had terminated. I was invited to look favourably on her becoming a director of Parks Haulage Ltd, alongside her father, in which case Scrap Haulage Ltd licence application could be withdrawn. In the event that Parks Haulage Ltd lost its licence, she would seek to proceed with her own application.

In evidence I was told that Abbie Parks previously felt that she would have been unable to work alongside her father as a director but his recent experience with this calling-in was such that he now understood what he needed to do and the importance of getting things right. There was a readiness to join the RHA, to continue to utilise the services of third party to carry out preventive maintenance inspections, in place of the former in-house facility. She felt she would benefit from the presence of Brian Colman, alongside her.

Keith Parks accepted that industrial estates had been used by drivers parking of vehicles and that the period during which this happened might have been longer than he remembered. He had accepted some lack of understanding of IT, also that reading/writing is not a strength of his. He accepted that there had been problems reflected in prohibitions issued even before 2017, maintenance had been an issue and inspections had not been carried out time.

5. Parks Haulage Ltd

I make the following findings:

• The admitted compliance failures of this operator raised by the VE and TE have been negligent ones and are disappointing. They may not have been wilful failures but they betray and absence of prioritisation of the fundamental requirements of licence holding.

• The failures will have compromised road safety, although they are not significantly reflected in the accumulation of prohibitions, or in the MOT first time pass rate, which broadly matches the national average.

• [REDACTED]

• [REDACTED]

• Opportunities to make changes presented at the time of the revocation of his sole trader licence in March 2022 were missed. He was to have stood down as TM from the limited company licence but did not do so. No coherent reason was given for him not removing himself when Dennis Parker was appointed, as he had indicated he would.

• It has taken until 2022 for this new strategy, based on the direct involvement of his daughter, coupled to the even more recent support from an experienced external professional, to be put in place. That this proposal has been made is creditable, as is his apology for getting things wrong but I question why it is taken so long, and that it comes in the context of potential regulatory action.

6. Scrap Haulage Ltd

I am prepared to take at face value that this application was not made in the form of a conventional ‘front’ for another operator of his licence might be lost. The explanation that her business might pick up work lost by Ms Parks’ father after the revocation of his sole trader licence, is credible, especially with her passing her TM CPC.

I make no further findings in relation that application, since the submission before me is predicated on the withdrawal of it, in the event that the Parks Haulage Ltd licence survives this hearing (which it does). The operation of vehicles, even though limited in extent, with no licence on force is reprehensible and is to Abbie Parks’ discredit.

6.1 Submissions

Before submissions were made, I indicated to Mrs Bell my provisional view that in the circumstances about which I had heard, I felt it likely that I would conclude that Keith Parks had lost his repute as a TM. Submissions thereafter were focused upon whether if such a direction were made, that it might also be appropriate that I find the good repute of the operator, Parks Haulage Ltd to have been lost. This being pertinent since in reaching conclusions about the repute of a corporate body with a sole director, the focus would be on whether I could trust that company through its guiding mind, Keith Parks, to comply with the expectations of a licence holder, and whether it was proportionate that it ought to be excluded from the industry because he might not be trusted.

I accept the contention that just because Keith Parks’ repute had been lost as TM, it did not automatically follow that the company’s repute was also lost. I did however point out that case law established [The case of Alistair Walter [2017] UKUT 438 (AAC] that it was questionable whether it would be feasible or appropriate to compartmentalise repute as TM, as opposed to repute as an individual, without providing detailed reasons for reaching different conclusions.

As was clear from the decision in Alistair Walter case, and as is also the case here:

• It was Keith Parks as operator who signed the application for an operator’s licence and in doing so, gave the eleven standard undertakings which are designed to ensure that vehicles are kept fit and serviceable, that records are kept, the rules on drivers’ hours and tachographs are observed, that the operation of the vehicles remain within the law (amongst other requirements). They have not been met consistently and sustainably.

• It was Keith Parks as operator who in his letter of 31 January 2022 offered that he would concentrate on operating the company business whilst recovering and that in addition to Dennis Parker as TM, he would engage a consultant, Mr Elliott to support him. No evidence of long-term involvement of a consultant is before me, nor any material evidence of the positive impact of the short-lived term of office of Mr Parker. I find it surprising indeed that Mr Parker (who still works as a driver for this company) has not been persuaded to attend by his boss.

• It was Keith Parks as operator that offered reassurance that holding only one licence (having sought to surrender the other) that these arrangements would ensure that compliance standards were not compromised in any way. As indicated, I find they have not been.

I conclude I am unable to separate repute in a fashion that would mean I could find that I could trust him as Keith Parks as director but not as a TM. Both as a sole director and TM he has failed to manage compliance. I consider his roles and responsibility for this predicament are just as intermingled as they would be for a sole trader who was also his own TM.

This being the case, I turn to whether the company’s good repute can yet survive on the basis that Keith Parks’ resignation is accepted and that he is replaced but Abbie Parks as director, supported by Brian Colman as TM. Mr Colman assures me that other things being equal he would wish to remain in post until June 2025. I am attracted by the prospect of his appointment, especially as he would need particularly in the early stages to support sustainable changes in the ways things are done, as Abbie Parks takes over the reins of the business from her father, who would be very likely to remain involved in it but not as its director or guiding mind. His appointment is critical to the decision I now make.

[REDACTED]

On balance, and having weighed the competing arguments, I am able to find that taking that course is appropriate and proportionate.

On the basis that:

• Keith Parks resigns as director of Parks Haulage Ltd by 6 December 2022 and is replaced by Abbie Parks within the same timescale;

• That there be recorded a statement of intent as follows:

• Abbie Parks and Brian Colman will use their best endeavours to seek to ensure that on any objective view of this business (including its operator’s licence) will be led by Abbie Parks as its guiding mind and senior manager, and not be Keith Parks.

• Brian Colman will immediately submit an application for appointment as TM on the Parks Haulage Ltd licence.

• The application by Scrap Haulage Ltd for an operator’s licence is marked as withdrawn.

I find that the good repute of Parks Haulage Ltd remains intact. A formal warning is recorded.

I forfeit the good repute of Keith Parks as TM and find him unfit to act in the role. As required by the legislation, I disqualify him from acting as TM in any traffic area. In the circumstances because I do not expect him to offer himself as a TM in the future, I do not propose any rehabilitation measures and in that light set the period of disqualification as an indefinite one.

6.2 Dennis Parker, former TM:

Dennis Parker, former TM for Parks Haulage Ltd was neither present nor represented and had not acknowledged the Public Inquiry until very shortly before it was held, after several attempts by my clerk to contact him. I was told by Keith Parks he worked simply as a driver for Parks Haulage Ltd. To my considerable surprise, Mr Parker’s email indicated that he would not be in attendance, despite the fact that he said he intended to apply for an operator’s licence for himself in the near future. He offered that he would be happy to answer any questions or queries then.

I hope and trust that when he reflects on the loss of his good repute as TM and the indefinite disqualification that I now direct, he appreciates that he has left me with little alternative but to take such regulatory action. Served with papers for this hearing at a time when he was in post as TM, with clear instructions as to what he needed to do in respect of serious allegations of shortcomings on his watch, it would have been plain that he must attend. The letter calling him in included a clear warning that matters would be dealt with in his absence in the event of non-attendance. The findings of the Vehicle Examiner and Traffic Examiner have not been the subject of dispute by him, or indeed by Keith Parks. I find he has failed in his role to ensure continuous and effective management of transport operations. His lack engagement is unbecoming of somebody holding such a role and challenges whether he has the competence or understanding of the role. He has treated the regulatory process with disdain.

I forfeit his good repute and find him unfit to act in the role. As required by the legislation I disqualify him from acting as TM in any traffic area. In the circumstances described I am unable to make a thorough assessment of the suitability of any rehabilitation measures and in that light set the period of disqualification as an indefinite one.

Simon Evans

Deputy Traffic Commissioner for the North East of England

7 November 2022.