Decision

Decision for Vincent Christopher Larkin (OK2060157)

Published 19 July 2023

0.1 In the South Eastern & Metropolitan Traffic Area

1. Written Decision of the Deputy Traffic Commissioner

1.1 Vincent Christopher Larkin (OK2060157)

2. Background

Vincent Christopher Larkin (trading as Solid Construction Services) applied for restricted operator’s licence on the 24 October 2022. The application is to authorise three vehicles and the proposed operating centre is Unit 5, Clearmount, Woking, Surrey GU24 8TP.

Mr Larkin has held operator’s licences previously, both as a sole trader and as a director of limited companies. Applications by Mr Larkin and other individuals or companies linked to him have been refused and licences have been revoked following findings that regulatory requirements have not been complied with, and repute has been lost. The full history is set out in the case summary compiled as part of the bundle prepared for this public inquiry. The background includes a decision following a public inquiry on the 3 December 2018 in respect of V Larkin Limited T/A Olympic Scaffolding when that licence was revoked and Mr Larkin was disqualified for two years from holding or obtaining an operator’s licence as an individual or as a director of a company that holds a licence. The period of this disqualification concluded on the 18 February 2021.

The current application prompted an objection in relation to the suitability and availability of the proposed operating centre from Surrey Heath Borough Council together with representations from the Council regarding the fitness of Mr Larkin to hold a licence based on his past history and an alleged existing unlawful use of the site.

On examination of the application for a licence it was noticed Mr Larkin had failed to disclose that he had held licences in the past that were revoked, that he had been disqualified and that he had been refused licences. A check on Companies House records also revealed that V Larkin Limited was a company which had been subject to liquidation proceedings and Mr Larkin had been disqualified for a period of six years from acting as director of a company with effect from the 8 November 2022.

As a result of the past history and the failure by Mr Larkin to disclose relevant information on the application form a notice was sent to Mr Larkin on the 13 April 2023 saying that the Traffic Commissioner was proposing to refuse the application and Mr Larkin requested a public inquiry.

3. The Public Inquiry

Mr Larkin attended the public inquiry and was not represented. Mr Lewin, counsel, attended to represent Surrey Heath Borough Council together with Environmental Health Officer, Ms Priestman.

I asked Mr Larkin about the connections between the companies detailed in the case summary whose names included the words “Solid Scaffolding” and noted that his proposed trading name was Solid Construction. He said that Solid Scaffolding Limited was nothing to do with him now although he did know the director Mr Benson and had worked for him previously. Solid Scaffolding Berkshire Limited was his son’s company although he (Mr Larkin) worked for him sometimes and had been a director of the company when an application for an operator’s licence was made and subsequently withdrawn in August 2022. Mr Larkin said that his son’s company used 3.5 tonne vehicles only so did not need an operator’s licence.

I asked Mr Larkin about the disqualification order made in relation to him acting as a company director and he said that he had not attended the hearing when the order was made. He said that he had agreed to a three year disqualification order and was surprised when a six year period was ordered. I pointed out the passage in the liquidator’s report which related to “payments made out of the company’s bank account that did not relate to the company” and queried whether these were genuine business expenses. Reference was also made to a press release from the Insolvency Service included in the bundle prepared for Surrey Heath Borough Council. This stated that Mr Larkin had failed to pay £209,000 in taxes prior to liquidation and the money due had been diverted elsewhere. Mr Larkin said that he had explained to the liquidators what the payments had been made for and said he would “take whatever order you want” It was noted the disqualification order was made on the 18 October 2022 and this application received on the 22 October 2022.

I asked Mr Larkin why he had completed the application form saying that he had not held licences before, had not had licences revoked or been disqualified. I pointed out that he had also stated that he had not been involved in a company or business that had gone (or is going) into liquidation. Mr Larkin said that he had interpreted the questions wrongly as he did not think applying in his own name meant he needed to disclose previous licences or issues in relation to limited companies.

He said that he had not been trading in advance of a licence being granted. His son was using the site which he had proposed as an operating centre and he (Mr Larkin) was helping his son in that business. Mr Lewin alerted me to a photograph showing a vehicle WU12MXD at the proposed operating centre. The vehicle looked to be of a size requiring an operator’s licence. Initially Mr Larkin said he did not know the registration number and then gave details of it. He said that the vehicle had not been used and was placed on the site by someone else. Checks revealed that the last registered keeper of the vehicle was On Point Construction Limited who had acquired the vehicle on the 12 February 2018. Mr Larkin said that company had been run by his ex-girlfriend but I pointed out that my decision when I refused an application by that company for a licence included a finding that the application was a “front” for him. Nevertheless he stated that he did not know the vehicle was registered to that company and he did not know who parked the vehicle at the proposed operating centre.

I asked Mr Larkin what he had done in an attempt to satisfy me that his repute/fitness to hold a licence was regained and he said that a lot had changed in his life. He had attended an OLAT course, had a transport manager ready to help if a licence was granted and would agree to “a probationary period” if necessary. He had sent in documentation including a maintenance contract with a provider “Dave’s Autos” although no record could be located of this being received. I asked him to resend the documents and a copy contract with the maintenance provider was received together with a commercial lease agreement between Mr Larkin and the owner of the proposed operating centre. The maintenance agreement was dated 5 July 2023 and the lease agreement 11 November 2022.

On behalf of Surrey Heath Borough Council, Mr Lewin submitted that the increase in number of vehicles and movements in and out of the site would make the existing concerns in relation to dust, noise and danger to vulnerable road users worse. It was accepted that other operators were approved at the site and that those licences were subject to conditions including restrictions on hours of operation. It was also accepted that a report by a Traffic Examiner and included in the bundle concluded that the site would be suitable subject to the same conditions as the operator already based there. Mr Lewin submitted that in light of Mr Larkin’s history he was not likely to comply with conditions and there was a photograph of a vehicle being used outside of the limited hours. Mr Larkin responded by saying that the vehicle in the photograph was one of his sons and was below the weight requiring an operator’s licence therefore not subject to the conditions in any event. Finally Mr Lewin emphasised that the use of the site was subject to a planning enforcement notice and this was itself the subject of an ongoing appeal.

4. Findings and Decision

In making my decision I remind myself that this is an application and the onus in therefore on Mr Larkin to satisfy me that the criteria for the grant of a licence are made out. In particular I need to be satisfied that Mr Larkin has demonstrated that he is not unfit to hold a licence as a result of relevant activities or conviction” – Section 13B of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act, 1995 refers. In other words, can he be trusted to be a compliant operator if a new licence is granted?

There can be no argument that Mr Larkin has a bad record in relation to operator licensing. His history of non-compliance and regulatory action being taken culminated in the order for revocation and two year disqualification made by me on 3 December 2018. As I explained to Mr Larkin at the current inquiry repute/fitness is not automatically regained at the conclusion of a disqualification. I need to consider what he has done to demonstrate fitness to be granted a licence and balance this with any aspects of the case that show otherwise.

On the positive side I accept that Mr Larkin has attended an Operator Licence Awareness Training course and note his statement that he “is in a better place now to deal with lorries”. He said that he could bring a transport manager onto the licence even though it is of a restricted category and that “ a lot had changed” since he was disqualified.

On the negative side I do not accept that Mr Larkin’s failure to declare his history of revoked and refused licences was a result of him misinterpreting the questions. He has held sole trader licences as well as being a director of limited companies which have held licences. Action has been taken against him in both capacities and it would have been obvious to him when reading the questions that he should answer differently than he did. Even if I accepted that he made an error (which I do not), it would have been negligent in the extreme for him to overlook the questions or misinterpret them.
The liquidation of V Larkin Limited and order of disqualification against Mr Larkin from acting as a director for six years is a major negative factor. Whilst Mr Larkin was vague in his explanation as to what had occurred, the press release issued by the Insolvency Service was clear in respect of the actions found against Mr Larkin and show a high level of wrong doing.
Mr Larkin did nothing at the inquiry to redress the balance in that he said initially that he did not know the registration number of vehicle WU12MXD, then told me what it was but still denied knowledge of how the vehicle got to the place it was parked. When enquiries revealed that the last registered keeper was a company for which I had found someone else was “fronting” for him he still denied knowledge. He was adamant that documentation including a maintenance contract had been sent to the Office on the Traffic Commissioner in advance of the inquiry and yet when the contract was seen it was dated the 5 July 2023 which was two days after the inquiry. I do not believe he was telling the truth in respect of vehicle WU12MXD or his claim to have sent the maintenance contract in advance of the hearing.

In relation to the objections by Surrey Heath Borough Council I find that with a different applicant the imposition of conditions in line with other operators at the site would have been sufficient bearing in mind the limited number of journeys anticipated by Mr Larkin The wider issue in relation to the outstanding planning enforcement action is not something upon which I need to adjudicate. Once this is resolved it may impact on the suitability of the site for all operators currently based there. However, I do find weight in the argument that Mr Larkin would be less likely than other operators to comply with conditions on any licence, particularly permitted hours of operation, bearing in mind his past attitude towards and performance of regulatory conditions and requirements.

5. Decision

As a result of my findings detailed above I refuse this application. In summary my reasons are that Mr Larkin has failed to show that he is not unfit to be granted a licence as a result of his making several false declarations on the application form, the circumstances surrounding the six year disqualification from acting as a company director, the aspects of his evidence which I did not find to be the truth and the likelihood that he would not comply with environmental conditions if a licence was granted.

John Baker

Deputy Traffic Commissioner

11 July 2023