Decision

Written decision for Joshua Webster & Kayleigh Webster t/a Webster & Sons

Published 18 October 2023

0.1 IN THE SOUTH EASTERN AND METROPOLITAN TRAFFIC AREA 

1. JOSHUA WEBSTER AND KAYLEIGH WEBSTER t/a WEBSTER & SONS OK2061689

1.1 GOODS VEHICLES (LICENSING OF OPERATORS) ACT 1995

1.2 GOODS VEHICLES (LICENSING OF OPERATORS) REGULATIONS 1995. 

1.3 [Annex A – Driver Conduct Decision – Joshua Webster]

2. TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER WRITTEN DECISION – SHORT FORM

(APPLICANT AND DRIVER DID NOT ATTEND).

3. DECISION 

The application by Joshua Webster & Kayleigh Webster t/a Webster & Sons for a Restricted Operator Licence is refused as I remain to be satisfied that they meet the requirements of sections 13B, 13C and 13D of the 1995 Act.

4. REASONS 

5. Background

Th full history is set out in the Public inquiry bundle, which includes a copy of the call-in letter setting out the legal basis for and findings and conclusions at the end of the case. These documents were served on the Applicant on 24 May 2023, with a hearing date of 6 July 2023 at 2pm. The papers confirm that Joshua Webster (‘Mr Webster’) is also called to a co-joined driver conduct hearing. The bundle case summary (pages 4 – 6) includes the following: -

The licence application was initially made in the name Joshua Webster as a sole trader, This was later changed in an email dated 22/12/23 to a partnership in the name Joshua Webster & Kayleigh Webster t/a Webster & Sons

On 22/11/22[1] vehicle GN14 WMA was stopped by DVSA loaded with a static caravan. The driver was Joshua Webster who claimed he was working as a driver for Len Webster Caravans. The following was found

• Vehicle not displaying a licence disc or specified on a licence

• No movement order was produced (the one produced was dated after the vehicle encountered)

• No special Transport General Order was displayed

• Vehicle did not have a road fund licence in force

• Prohibition issues for vehicle overlength for £50

• Trailer nearside axle 1 and 2 with deflated tyres

• Five driving offences were found for Joshua James Webster

On 22/11/22 DVSA commenced an investigation into who was responsible for vehicle GN14 WMA. The movement order applied for was in the name Joshua Webster. It was noted 66 Esdal movements orders had been issued to Len Webster Caravans in 2022 using an operators licence OK2045976. A check on the licensing system confirms this licence number does not exist. The TE also visited the address McKenzie Close, Aylesford on the Esdal which is a residential address and noted “it would not be possible for a unit & trailer of the size that is in use to easily park there laden without causing significant problems of other residents”

The TE noted the vehicle was taxed and the registered keeper details changed after the DVSA stop.  A DVSA registered keeper check confirmed the vehicle was registered to Len Webster Caravans from 25/08/17 to 27/11/22 when the registered keeper changed to Josh James Webster. The vehicle has not been listed on an operators licence since 18/05/17. The VE noted the address used for Len Webster caravans was at the address of Joshua Webster

A check on VED details confirms the VED had ended on 30/04/22 records show the tax then started again on 01/11/22 this could have been backdated. The vehicle was marked as SORN on 30/03/23.

ANPR data also confirmed the vehicle had been used seven times on the public road between 25/10/22 to 16/11/22

The VE noted the investigation has been problematic as he has not been able to establish contact with Mr Leonard Webster interview letters had been sent to five different addresses all returned addressee unknown

On 07/02/2023 The driver Mr Joshua Webster was interviewed by DVSA . Mr Webster states he did work for Len Webster Caravans but now works for himself and he has bought the lorry off Len (his Father) . He states he was unaware vehicle GN14WMA was untaxed as he was “just the driver”. He confirmed he put in the movement order and used licence OK2045976 as it was the one given to them by Len. He stated he did not know that vehicle GN14WMA was operating without a licence and if he had know he would not have taken the vehicle out.

When asked about vehicle GN14WMA being used on 16/01/2023, 18/01/2023, 21/01/2023 and 23/01/2023, Mr Webster stated “I know a couple of times it’s been out to pick up my broken-down van, it’s not been to work, and the other time it was on the M20 it’s been up and had its 6-week check, cause it’s in there again now, but the A14 I don’t know about.”

When asked about incidents of his driver card being withdrew and replaced with Mr Leonard Webster card on 25/10/2022, 27/10/2022 and 10/11/2022 he stated his child was injured and Len had to bring the van up and take over on 25/10/2022 and suggests for the other dates that “someone may be using both cards”. The TE noted that Mr Webster actions were irresponsible “ as he stated his drivers card, driving licence and DCPC placed in a wallet and left in the vehicle were other persons had access to the vehicle “

Mr Joshua Webster did not provide any contact details for Mr Leonard Webster he stated “ The day you pulled us up I said things had to change , we had a big falling out I don’t speak to him no more, I bought the lorry, I’ve given the trailer back , bought a new trailer , just trying to do things how they should be done”

The new licence application was received on 28/11/22 letters were sent to the applicant  from licensing on 06/12/22 requesting further information concerning finance and advertisement details and further clarification of which type of licence was being applied for as “ Haulage “ was stated on the application . It was also noted vehicle GN14 WMA was subject to a DVSA stop on 22/11/22 and proof of ownership was requested

The applicant responded by email on 06/12/22 and uploaded a copy of a hand written letter. They explained A P Webster is “ one of my savings accounts “ and Leonard Webster is his father the large payment was made to him for the purchase of the lorry .he also noted “I incorrectly put haulage on my application as my nature of business is buying and selling mobile homes, therefore I only will be transporting homes that I own.”

“The DVSA vehicle stop on 22/11/22. The lorry was running through my fathers business and I was just a hired driver. Due to my fathers ill health forced retirement I decided to buy the lorry from him and this is the reason I am applying for my own O licence and starting my own business venture. I Bought the vehicle on 27/11/2022.”

It was also noted his father in law is a qualified TM and “ is going to help me going forward with all of this “

Licensing sent a further letter dated 22/12/22 requesting further information and the applicant replied by email on 22/12/22 that some of the information requested had previously been answered on the uploaded letter. They stated “As this being a new venture for myself therefore I haven’t actually done any transporting of goods I have bought or sold “

Emails were received from Kayleigh Webster on 22/12/22 and Joshua Webster on 23/12/22 confirming the licence should be in a partnership name and a signed from was received dated 24/12/22 Licensing changed the application to a partnership licence on 03/01/23. 

An interim had been requested on the application “As i need to move my own personal items immediately for my business to be able to bring in money.” The matter was referred to the Traffic Commissioner and a letter was sent to the applicant dated 10/01/23 refusing the interim for the following reasons

• Whether the correct type of licence was being applied for

• Possible unauthorised use of vehicle GN14 WMA and the business transports goods for third parties………..

On 15/05/23 a letter was sent to the applicant confirming the Traffic Commissioner had decided to consider the licence application at a Public Inquiry

6. Additional information:

A search on Facebook Webster Caravans shows a possible long-standing operation by Len Webster. It has also been noted Joshua Webster appears to have an existing business Maidstone Mobile Movers vehicle MX09 KWE shown on Facebook pages was registered to Joshua Webster from 04/05/19 to 08/08/19. A check on the licence records confirms this vehicle was last specified on a licence on 04/05/19. A copy of the relevant pages is included in the Public inquiry Brief papers.

The following licence was held by Leonard Webster

OK1009329 Leonard John Webster t/a L & P Haulage restricted licence granted on 09/03/62[2] for 1v. The licence was called to Public Inquiry due to maintenance and drivers hours failings and no operating centre. At the PI on 19/03/04 the licence was revoked with immediate effect.

7. Hearing

The call-in letter dated 24 May 2023 included the following case management directions:

What you must do now:

Confirm your attendance using the form attached. The traffic commissioner is unlikely to allow a postponement, unless the circumstances are exceptional.  If you do not attend, the case will be heard in your absence. In confirming your attendance please refer to ‘Notification Preparation’ in Annex A.

Prepare your evidence of financial resources.  The partnership needs to show access to an average of £3,100 over the last 28 days. Evidence of your financial resources should include the following original documents;

• (if available) the latest certified profit and loss account and balance sheet that have been prepared for the business,

• original bank statements for the last 28 days,

• details of any overdraft facility or other loan arrangement.

The document ‘A Guide to Public Inquiries’ gives further details of what is required. Banks can take time to provide statements – send in internet printouts or shortform statements now if that is all you have, but you will need to provide original or authenticated bank statements on the date of the inquiry. You are strongly advised to sort this out now, not on the morning of the inquiry.

Start to collect your own evidence to allow you to set out your case on the day.  This might include at least the following documents:

Details of the proposed vehicle maintenance system, including:

• sample safety inspection records;

• the proposed daily defect reporting system;

• the original maintenance contract;

• Forward Planner (or photographic evidence thereof if large);

Details of how you will comply with the laws regarding drivers’ hours including evidence of proposed systems for:

• driver licence checks;

• drivers’ hours infringement reports;

• vehicle unit download reports (sometimes called missing mileage reports or unknown event reports);

• evidence of continuous professional development of the responsible person;

• evidence of a recruitment and disciplinary process for drivers and managers;

Anything else which you think will help show you will be a compliant operator or are taking steps to address the failings identified.

The above documentation must be provided within at least 7 days of the public inquiry and should if possible be sent by email. If you are having problems emailing any documentation please post by tracked delivery to this office 7 days before the hearing.

Before 29 June 2023, you must:

• Submit your financial evidence

• Send the documentation you have assembled to help you make your case

• If you wish, submit any written representations or evidence you want the commissioner to see

Any failure to adhere to the timescales set out in this letter could lead to the traffic commissioner making a finding that you have failed to cooperate with the inquiry and the evidence will not be taken into account.   

These are standard directions designed to assist parties to present their application on point, positively and in detail, whilst making it clear there may be consequences if not met. The overarching purpose is part of the Tribunal’s duty to ensure a fair hearing. On 26 June 2023 @ 21.09 Mr Webster e mailed my office to say he was withdrawing the application after undergoing emergency surgery after an accident. On 27 June 2023 he expanded to say he had been rushed to hospital, the recovery period was said to be 12 week and suggesting the hearing to be cancelled. As Mr Webster was also called to a co-joined driver conduct hearing, I declined to accept the application withdrawal or vacate the co-joined hearing until I received supporting medical evidence, as per STC Statutory Document No. 9 paragraphs 26 to 33 on adjournments.

No medical evidence was received in relation to Mr Webster. What follows are some further attempts to stop the hearing, none of which included relevant medical evidence as per Statutory Document No.9 paragraph 30 which includes:

A court is not automatically bound by a medical certificate and may exercise its discretion to disregard a certificate, which it finds unsatisfactory and in particular where:

• the certificate indicates that the party is unfit to work (rather than to attend the hearing);

• the nature of the ailment (e.g. a broken arm) does not appear to be capable of preventing attendance at a hearing

My office received an outpatient appointment to attend a dressings clinic on 29 June 2023 and then an unfit to work GP note but not unfit to attend a hearing regarding Mr Webster. I do not have anything compelling to prevent him attending to represent the partnership and for his driver conduct hearing for half a day. Those exchanges are a matter of record, which included me confirming the hearings would proceed on 6 July 2023 and if Mr Webster failed to attend, I would proceed to hear the evidence of Traffic Examiner Martin and make a decision in the parties absence, including whether to allow the application to be withdrawn.  The exchanges include my direction dated 28 June 2023:

The documents required in advance (page 10/11 of the hearing bundle) are due by close of business on 29 June 2023. I will extend this to 13:00 on 30 June as Mr Webster has his dressings changed on deadline day. However, as part of the pre PI evidence Mr Webster must download the VDU for GM14WMA (or whatever cherished plate it may now be subject to) from 8 February 2023 and submit the vehicle utilisation report showing any vehicle movement since 8 February 2023 to 26 June 2023.

No evidence linked to the case management directions was ever received. When an applicant seeks to withdraw after a call-in letter is sent Commissioner’s consider whether it may be an attempt to avoid important issues being determined. In this case the hearing bundle included DVSA reports and social media evidence to indicate that both Len and Joshua Webster were driving and operating at least two large in scope vehicles, possibly one or both of them for many years and neither with an operator Licence in force. The evidence for the application and driver conduct hearing is inextricably linked for the most part. The first withdrawal request came just a couple days before the partners deadline to submit all required information in advance. The keenness to withdraw was at odds with the original interim request requiring an urgent start to in scope operations. As per the Upper Tribunal in 2019/030 T A Trucking Limited: “There is in general terms a public interest in not allowing regulatory proceedings to be delayed with insufficient cause…”.  Whilst this is an Application there is the potential pior operating without a Licence. There is an absence of proper medical evidence to support any adjournment of the driver conduct hearing. Taking all those matters into account, I concluded prior to the hearing start time that it remained in the interests of justice to proceed with both hearings in the parties absence.

The Traffic Examiner Malcolm Martin (‘the TE’) attended and gave evidence via Microsoft Teams. I confirmed at the outset that I would issue a written decision in due course as the parties are absent.

8. Evidence

The TE adopted unamended his Public Inquiry Report dated 16 May 2023, which also formed the evidence for Mr Webster’s driver conduct hearing. By e mail to my office just before the hearing Mr Webster asked the TE to prove that he was driving on each occasion. My Webster has missed the point of a driver conduct hearing before a specialist tribunal – I need to hear from both the DVSA witness and the driver. DVSA has produced evidence and Mr Webster has provided some answers at the roadside and interview. However, he has failed to attend to deal with my lines of questioning. The DVSA roadside findings on 19 November 2022 and interventions and interview thereafter are set out in the Background section above. The interview under caution had a number of areas where I identified a need to obtain clarification. By way of example (and certainly not exhaustive):

• Mr Webster admits driving for his father for many years. Mr Len Webster had no O Licence since 2004 and therefore the intimation is Mr Webster failed to note every time there was no Licence disc in the vehicle window.

• If Mr Len Webster was the owner and Operator up to the roadside encounter, why Mr Webster was always the one applying for the movement order (ESDAL showing 66 occasions albeit no such movement order in place when the vehicle was stopped on 19/11/23). In the absence of wider explanation, obtaining the movement order is not generally a driver role.

• Mr Webster says “..when we go self-employed the operator’s licence will come back with me….”, which is confusing without wider explanation. An Operator’s Licence never existed and even if it did, it is not transferrable.

• the links between Mr Webster’s address and that on the registered keeper check when the keeper was his father. The registered keeper had to be changed to tax the vehicle but why would Len use his son’s address.

• the failure to produce corroborative evidence by 29 June 2023 or at all for period of driving since he owned the vehicle from 27/11/22 (e.g. preventative maintenance inspection invoices) or why he failed to insert the driver card and change the tacho to out of scope.

9. Conclusion:

The Operator Licence ‘Number’ used for movement orders which did not exist caused some confusion for the hearing. As the number did not exist the Traffic Examiner proceeded on the basis it was made up. I can see why. As the Licensing Authority and data owner, I asked the VOL Product owner to establish if the number ever existed. My office received the following response: “This was an un-submitted application that was deleted by the data retention rule on 04/08/2022.” It follows that either Len or Joshua Webster started an application earlier in 2022, did not follow through but used the number generated to obtain tens of movement orders to assist unlawful operation and whereby one or both gained a pecuniary advantage. This is dishonest and seriously undermines the level playing field Traffic Commissioners exist to ensure.

Whether Mr Webster and/or the partnership was operating illegally before or after 27 November 2022 is a matter to be left on the file. The social media posts indicate both Joshua and Len have operated unlawfully. The vehicle stopped on 19 November 2022 had not been re-registered and was untaxed since 2017. This is a ruse sometimes used by those seeking to avoid an audit trail. Len and Joshua Webster are the only two drivers since October 2022.   The movement order arranged by Kayleigh Webster for Joshua Webster during the intervention on 19 November 2023 gave the starting location as Mr Webster’s address and not an address for Len Webster. This indicates the Operator to be the partnership, but the content is false as identified by the Traffic Examiner on page 38 of the bundle – not possible for the laden combination to be parked at the residential address. This will all need to be addressed if Joshua, Kayleigh, or Len Webster apply again for a Licence in the future. However:

• Mr Webster knew the vehicle had no disc in the window for over a year and did not question this in relation to the existence of a Licence or the number used for the Esdal movement orders.

• Mr Webster failed to do an effective walk round check of the vehicle – the vehicle examiner found two deflated tyres on the trailer likely to cause overload on the other tyre of the twin fitment rear – a road safety concern.

• Mr Webster knew he had no movement order on 19/11/22 when he set off.

• Mr Webster failed to meet other essential ‘special types’ requirements.

• Even if Mr Webster’s account of the driving on 25 October 2023 is accepted, he failed to make a manual entry or take a printout. In any event he has not produced any evidence in support of his account despite the case management directions and driver conduct hearing.

• Either Mr Webster used Len Webster’s driver card after leaving the vehicle on 25 October until 19 November 2023 OR he allowed Len Webster or another to use his digi card (see driver conduct decision).

Operator Licensing is based on trust. Trust must exist at the time an application is considered. If a Licence is granted, then the requirement for trust is ongoing. With circa 75,000 Operators and half a million in scope vehicles plus trailers this is the only way the regime can be effective. Traffic Commissioners apply the principles for the benefit of all operators to ensure a level playing field. It is why Traffic Commissioners take their responsibility to scrutinise new applicants carefully. The findings set out above and in the driver conduct decision are evidence that Joshua Webster and possibly Kayleigh Webster cannot be trusted and is therefore are unfit to hold a Licence. I have no evidence regarding section 13C (systems) or section 13D (financial resources).  Accordingly, I have reached the decision set out in paragraph 1 above.

10. Decision repeated for the benefit of web publishing

The application by Joshua Webster & Kayleigh Webster t/a Webster & Sons for a Restricted Operator Licence is refused as I remain to be satisfied that they meet the requirements of sections 13B, 13C and 13D of the 1995 Act.

Signed                                               

Miss Sarah Bell  

Traffic Commissioner for Great Britain.   

Completed on 14 September 2023 and therefore based on information available to that date.

Not issued until 12 October 2023 when TC passed to caseworker.

11. Annex A Driver Conduct Decision Joshua Webster

12. Decision

The vocational driving entitlement of Mr Joshua Webster will be suspended from 23.59 on 2 November 2023 until he attends a driver conduct hearing. It is in his interests to contact my office to arrange a mutually convenient date and time, to include the availability of the Traffic Examiner.

13. Reasons

13.1 The Statutory Background 

Section 112 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 provides that the Secretary of State shall not grant to an applicant a large goods vehicle driver’s licence or a passenger carrying vehicle driver’s licence unless he is satisfied, having regard to his conduct, that he is a fit person to hold the licence applied for. Section 121(1) defines that conduct as  

• in relation to an applicant for or the holder of a large goods vehicle driver’s licence or the holder of a LGV Community licence, his conduct as a driver of a motor vehicle, and  

• in relation to an applicant for or the holder of a passenger-carrying vehicle driver’s licence or the holder of a PCV Community licence, his conduct both as a driver of a motor vehicle and in any other respect relevant to his holding a passenger-carrying vehicle driver’s licence or (as the case may be) his authorisation by virtue of section 99A(1) of this Act to drive in Great Britain a passenger-carrying vehicle of any class, including, in either case, such conduct in Northern Ireland. 

Section 113(1) of the 1988 Act provides that any question arising under section 112 of the Act relating to the conduct of an applicant for a licence may be referred by the Secretary of State to the traffic commissioner for the area in which the applicant resides. This also complements the regional nature of traffic commissioners’ regulation who generally (but not exclusively) regulate operators based in their own traffic areas. Indeed, in many cases traffic commissioners will deal with drivers employed by operators in their own traffic area. 

Section 115 (1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 provides that a large goods vehicle or passenger-carrying vehicle driver’s licence - (a) must be revoked if there comes into existence, in relation to its holder, such circumstances relating to his conduct as may be prescribed;  (b)  must be revoked or suspended if his conduct is such to make him unfit to hold such a licence; and where the licence is suspended under paragraph (b) above it shall during the time of the suspension be of no effect. 

Section 116 (1) provides that any question arising under section 115 (1) (b) of this Act as to whether a person is or is not, by reason of his conduct, fit to hold a large goods vehicle or passenger carrying vehicle driver’s licence, as the case may be, may be referred by the Secretary of State to the Traffic Commissioner for the area in which the holder of the licence resides. 

Section 116 (2) provides that where on any reference under sub-section (1) above, the Traffic Commissioner determines that the holder of the licence is not fit to hold a large goods vehicle or passenger carrying vehicle driver’s licence, as the case may be, he shall also determine whether the conduct of the holder of the licence is such as to require revocation of his licence or only its suspension; and if the former, whether the holder of the licence should be disqualified under section 117 (2) (a) of this Act (and, if so, for what period) or under Section 117 (2) (b) of this Act. 

Section 116 (3) provides that a Traffic Commissioner to whom a reference has been made under sub-section (1) above may require the holder of the licence to furnish the Commissioner with such information as he may require and may by notice to the holder, require him to attend before the Commissioner at the time and place specified by the Commissioner to furnish the information and to answer such questions (if any) relating to the subject matter of the reference as the Commissioner may put to him. 

Section 121 defines conduct as meaning (a) in relation to the applicant for or the holder of a large goods vehicle driver’s licence, his conduct as a driver of a motor vehicle, and in (b) in relation to an applicant for or the holder of a passenger – carrying vehicle driver’s licence, his conduct both as a driver of a motor vehicle and in any other respect relevant to his holding a passenger – carrying vehicle driver’s licence.  

13.2 The Role of the Traffic Commissioner 

Traffic Commissioners are tasked with ensuring that only those trusted with road safety and the welfare of other road users obtain and retain vocational driving entitlements. Where a driver commits offences, such as mobile phone use or speeding, this inevitably calls into question the individual’s approach and respect for road safety. That is why some applications must come to a driver conduct hearing. This approach also means that where existing vocational drivers fail to comply with other important requirements e.g. effective walk round checks and ensuring proper vehicle marking their ongoing fitness to hold a Licence will be questioned. This is essential to enable a Commissioner to make an informed assessment for the protection of all impacted by commercial vehicles. 

13.3 Case Law & Guidance 

The leading case arises from the decision of Pitchford J in Meredith & Others v Traffic Commissioner for the Western Traffic Area (2009) EWHC 2975 (Admin). 

In reaching my Decision I have taken into consideration the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Guidance and Statutory Direction No.6 (‘SGSD 6’) in relation to Vocational Driver Conduct, the predecessor of which was approved in the leading case above.  Essentially when considering what action to take, if any, the personal circumstances surrounding the offending have very limited relevance. However, I must take into account the complete driving record and so far, as relevant personal history – good and bad – of a driver up to the date of the Driver Conduct Hearing. It is unfortunate that Pitchford J was not in the course of Meredith addressed on the deterrent element as it applies to Traffic Commissioner functions in general and in particular to the leading case of Thomas Muir (Haulage) Limited [1999] SC86. As the Court of Appeal acknowledged in Bryan Haulage (No. 2) 2002/217 given the statutory intention there will be occasion where it will be appropriate to take account of the deterrent principle in reaching a decision.  It would send entirely the wrong message to the wilful and unscrupulous driver that it will not materially affect his or her livelihood once they have been caught because of the delay between being caught and the Driver Conduct Hearing.  A careful balance needs to be found. 

I remind myself of the principles articulated in Norbert Dentressangle 2001/49 that where there are repeated infringements there is likely to be some degree of deliberateness or recklessness. This principle also applies where there a repeated similar offences. 

14. Joshua Webster 

In 2021 Mr Webster failed to attend an interview under caution with DVSA regarding 7 instances whereby DVSA had concerns Mr Webster drove an in scope vehicle without inserting his digi card. Mr Webster attended a driver conduct hearing before a Traffic Commissioner on 4 November 2021 and his vocational driving entitlement was suspended for 4 weeks. This history is an aggravating feature if further adverse findings are made here.

The matters set out in paragraphs 2 – 7 and 10 - 12 of the Public Inquiry decision above are imported into this decision. For the purpose of this decision, I expand a little on the technical aspects. Mr Webster says he did not drive vocationally from when he left the vehicle on 25/10/22 until the start of duty on 19/11/22. However, the tachograph data shows his digi card in use but is card in vehicle. The use of the card is prima facie evidence Mr Webster was in the vehicle. If he seeks to refute the evidence, it is for Mr webster to produce evidence of where he was and what he was doing.  To assist Mr Webster there are areas which require some focus:

25 October 2022: Even on Mr Webster’s own evidence - Quick exchange of digi cards – admission Mr Webster left vehicle away from base without making manual entry. However, the exchange took no more than a minute which is not indicative of a driver change over and is equally explained by using his father’s card.

On 27 October 2022 another quick changeover of card (08.08 less than a minute) and even if genuine shows neither Mr Webster does a walk round check. Another quick changeover at 12.22. ANPR shows no passenger in vehicle.

Similar quick change over happens on two further dates. Mr Webster no recollection but insists someone else must be using his card. Mr Webster told the TE he leaves his cards in the vehicle. This of itself is not acceptable of a professional driver. Driver’s must keep their Licence, DCPC and digi card on their own person and safe so they cannot be used by others for wrongdoing. Where this does not happen drivers must accept, in the absence of other corroborative evidence, they may be found as the driver and using another’s card where there are quick swaps.

STC Statutory Document No. 6 (link in letter dated 24 May 2023) starting points mean this is a serious case. For these reasons it is not appropriate to deal with the case on the papers. I have put a future suspension date within the decision to ensure Mr Webster recognises that it is in his interests to attend. It is open to him to apply for that suspension order to be varied or cancelled but it will not be until he co-operates in setting an early date for the hearing to be re-convened.

Signed                              

Miss Sarah Bell  

Traffic Commissioner for Great Britain.   

Completed 14 September 2023 and therefore, based on information available to that date.

Not issued until 12 October 2023 when TC passed to caseworker.

---

[1] SBTC – should be 19/11/22 – follow up investigation commenced 22/11/22.

[2] (SBTC – should be 09/03/02)