Decision

Decision for Armson Engineering 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)

2. ARMSON ENGINEERING LTD OB2058952

2.1 Public Inquiry held at Hillcrest House, Leeds on 17 November 2022

3. Background

On 5 August 2022 Armson Engineering Ltd applied for a restricted goods vehicles operator licence for one vehicle. The sole director of the company is Thomas Armstrong. Mr Armstrong did not declare on the application form that he had been the director of a company which had previously held an operator licence (Pipetawse Ltd) and which had gone into administration in June 2020 and subsequently liquidation. He similarly failed to declare that Armson Engineering Ltd had had a previous application for a standard national licence refused on 25 July 2022 owing to the lack of a valid advertisement.

In correspondence, the company secretary Karen Armstrong stated that Thomas Armstrong had been a PAYE employee of Pipetawse Ltd, not the owner, so they had not considered that this needed to be declared. The central licensing team noted however that a Thomas William Armstrong – with the same date of birth as Thomas Armstrong on the current application - is listed on Companies House records as a director of Pipetawse Ltd. Who owns or owned the company is not a relevant consideration.

In view of these discrepancies, the traffic commissioner decided to consider the application at a public inquiry. He was also concerned that the company might already be using the 7.5 tonne vehicle it had declared on the application, and wished to seek clarification as to how the company had been meeting its transport needs since incorporation in March 2020 (shortly before Pipetawse Ltd entered administration).

4. Public inquiry

The public inquiry was duly arranged to take place in Leeds on 18 November 2022. This date was later moved to 17 November, as Mr Armstrong was flying out on holiday on 18 November.

At 1538 hours on 16 November 2022 the inquiry clerk received an email from Karen Armstrong stating that the company would not be attending the inquiry. The email described the need to travel 200 miles to and from the inquiry and waste fuel and time as “ridiculous”. Ms Armstrong believed that there was “no reason why a licence could not be approved; all requested information has been supplied so we have nothing to add to our application”. She stated that the company had now purchased two smaller vehicles which fell outside the operator licensing regime and “do not require your rude questionings”. The implication was that the company wished to withdraw its application, although this was not explicitly stated.

5. Consideration

As expected, the company failed to appear at this afternoon’s inquiry so I proceeded to determine the application on the available documentary evidence. The inquiry was called because there are legitimate questions over the company’s failure to declare Thomas Armstrong’s role as a director of Pipetawse Ltd (alongside Patricia Armstrong, believed to be Mr Armstrong’s mother). There is legitimate concern – in view of the timing of the entry into administration of Pipetawse Ltd and the incorporation of Armson Engineering Ltd - that some of the assets of Pipetawse Ltd may have found their way to Armson Engineering Ltd (no transfer of assets was declared on the application form). There is a legitimate concern as to what vehicle NU63 YHW has been doing while not on any operator’s licence: I note that it had a valid MOT between February 2021 and February 2022.

Of course, there may be perfectly satisfactory explanations for all these issues, but by failing to attend the public inquiry the company has missed the opportunity of providing them. The dismissive and contemptuous tone which the company has adopted towards the inquiry and the legitimate concerns described above do it no service.

6. Conclusion

The implication of Karen Armstrong’s email was that the company wished to withdraw its application as it no longer intended to operate a 7.5 tonne vehicle. But in view of the lateness of her communication (less than 24 hours before the inquiry), the company’s apparent failure to declare on the application form matters which should have been declared, and the fact that her intemperate email betrays a lack of willingness to acknowledge the legitimacy of the questions asked and of the regulatory process itself, I am refusing the application under Section 13B of the 1995 Act. Because of the company’s conduct, I cannot be satisfied that it is fit to hold an operator’s licence.

Nick Denton

Deputy Traffic Commissioner

17 November 2022