Decision

Decision for Teifi Blocks Limited

Published 21 July 2021

1. DECISION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER FOR WALES

1.1 Public Inquiry held on 16th December 2020 at Pontypridd Municipal Building

1.2 Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (“The Act”)

1.3 In the matter of Teifi Blocks Limited OG2032480

1.4 In attendance at the public inquiry

• Mr Leslie Glover, proposed transport manager

2. Background

This decision relates to the application for a standard national goods vehicle operator’s licence in the name of Teifi Blocks Limited. The sole director of that company, Mr Patrick O’Keeffe, was called to attend a Public Inquiry at the Municipal Building in Pontypridd, at 10.30am on 16 December 2020, by a call up letter dated 9 November 2020. That letter set out the areas of concern including Mr O’Keeffe’s past compliance history, which he failed fully to divulge in this application, and indicated that Mr O’Keeffe would be expected to demonstrate how the company meets the requirements to hold an operator’s licence. It also recommended that Mr Leslie Glover, the nominated transport manager, attend the Inquiry prepared to give evidence as to how he would undertake his duties.

Mr O’Keeffe returned the attendance slip attached to the call up letter confirming that Mr Glover would attend the hearing and that Mr O’Keeffe would be legally represented by Camron Stubbs of Stephenson’s solicitors.

On 10 December, Mr O’Keeffe emailed my office to advise that he was self- isolating whilst awaiting the results of a test for Covid-19 and so would not be able to attend the Public Inquiry. Ms Crosby of my office responded by email that same day and advised that the Public Inquiry on Wednesday 16 December 2020 would only be adjourned in the event of a positive test, and that Mr O’Keeffe should supply my office with his test results in that event. There was no further communication from Mr O’Keeffe in advance of the Inquiry.

On the day of the Inquiry, Mr O’Keeffe failed to attend and nor did any legal representative appear on behalf of the company. Mr Glover, the nominated transport manager, did attend and advised me that Mr O’Keeffe had sent him a text message on 12 December informing him that he was in hospital with Covid-19. Mr Glover could not provide any further details, nor explain why Mr O’Keeffe had not notified my office.

Mr O’Keeffe failed to provide any evidence in advance of the hearing to demonstrate how he intends to operate compliantly, despite the call up letter clearly stating that such evidence should be submitted at least 7 days in advance of the Inquiry. In particular, I had no evidence in respect of the applicant’s proposed vehicle maintenance system, no sample safety inspection records, no information about proposed daily defect reporting system or a maintenance contract. Nor had I received any evidence as to how the applicant intends to comply with the laws regarding drivers’ hours. Mr Glover was not in possession of any of those documents.

In the absence of the applicant, I decided to allow a period of 24 hours to enable Mr O’Keeffe or his legal representative to provide evidence of his attendance at hospital on the date of the Public Inquiry. Should that confirmation be received, I indicated that the matter would be relisted for a date when Mr O’Keeffe is fit to attend. However, as of today’s date, no such evidence has been received.

3. Determination and reasons

The burden of proof is on the applicant to satisfy me that the statutory requirements of the Act are met.

Having regard to the information set out in the Public Inquiry Brief and call up letter, and the lack of any evidence presented on behalf of the operator, I am not satisfied that the requirements of section 13A(2) of the Act as to the applicant’s good repute or professional competence are met. Nor am I satisfied that there are satisfactory arrangements for securing that the rules on drivers’ hours and Community rules will be complied with, as required by section 13C(2) of the Act, that there are satisfactory arrangements for securing that vehicles used under the licence are not overloaded, or that there are satisfactory facilities and arrangements for maintaining the vehicles used under the licence in a fit and serviceable condition, as required by section 13C(3) and (4) of the Act.

On the basis of the applicant’s failure to satisfy me as to the statutory requirements set out in section 13(1) of the Act, the application for a standard national licence authorising the use of one vehicle is refused under section 13(5) of the Act.

Victoria Davies

Traffic Commissioner for Wales

22 December 2020