Decision

Decision for James March T/A Wigston Skip Hire (OF2055487)

Published 22 December 2022

0.1 In the Eastern Traffic Area

1. Written Decision of the Deputy Traffic Commissioner

1.1 JAMES MARCH T/A WIGSTON SKIP HIRE (OF2055487)

2. Background

James March t/a Wigston Skip Hire applied in April 2022 for a restricted goods vehicle operator licence for two vehicles. The central licensing office in Leeds made inquiries as to the intended nature of the business, to establish whether a restricted licence would suffice or whether a standard national licence might be necessary. An email dated 1 June 2022 asked Mr March to provide the following information:

• i) Does/will your business hold, and rely on when carrying those goods, a type of insurance policy that covers carriage of goods for reward? Please provide evidence;

• ii) Does/will the carrying of goods result in payment, direct or indirect, which benefits the owner or user of the vehicle?

• iii) What is the predominant part of your service?

• iv) Is transport part of your wider business, such as converting or processing of the goods as opposed to simply conveying them to another place? Please provide copies of relevant documentation, (eg waste processing licences or certificates of exemption).

Mr March responded on 6 June 2022 to the effect that he did not have any insurance in place yet as he was not operating. He did not directly address the other questions but asserted that a restricted licence was definitely appropriate as this is what his previous skip businesses had had. In a further email of 11 July 2022 he added that all skip hire businesses in his area were operating under a restricted licence: “And I do not mean companies with waste transfer stations. I mean business owners who are operating EXACTLY THE SAME AS ME with 1 or even 2 vehicles hiring out skips to local residents and transporting the waste to other people’s waste transfer stations”. Having been told that the traffic commissioner was proposing to refuse the application because the correct type of licence had not been applied for, Mr March requested a public inquiry.

3. Public inquiry

The public inquiry was held in Cambridge on 24 October 2022. Present were James March and Chris Harris, transport consultant, representing.

Mr Harris made the following points in support of the application for a restricted licence:

• i) both the skips and the waste therein would belong to Mr March;

• ii) waste was not “goods” in the traditional sense, and no “goods in transit” insurance would be needed;

• iii) requiring Mr March to apply for a standard national licence (with all the expense and difficulty of acquiring the services of a transport manager which that would entail) would put him at a competitive disadvantage against those many skip operators in the Eastern Traffic Area which operated under a restricted licence (Mr Harris provided me with a list of these operators);

• iv) James March held a sincere belief that a restricted licence was appropriate for his intended business;

• v) there was a small element of recycling at Mr March’s operating centre (currently the business is carried out with miniskips carried by 3.5 tonne vehicles): batteries and some metal was recycled. Such recycling might expand if the business were granted a licence.

At this point I adjourned the inquiry in order to consider the evidence and issue a written decision. I was satisfied on the issue of finance and that Mr March had suitable arrangements in place to ensure proper maintenance of vehicles and observance of drivers’ hours rules.

4. Considerations

In considering the issue of which type of licence is appropriate, I have reminded myself of Section 3(3) of the 1995 Act and of paragraphs 45 and 46 of the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Guidance Document 0.

Section 3(3) of the 1995 Act states that “A restricted licence is an operator’s licence under which a goods vehicle may be used on a road for the carriage of goods for or in connection with any trade or business carried on by the holder of the licence, other than that of carrying goods for hire or reward.” In simple terms, if goods are to be carried for hire or reward, a restricted licence cannot be granted. Who owns the goods at the time of transport, if they are being carried for hire or reward, is immaterial.

I also considered paragraphs 45 and 46 of the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Guidance Document 0. The second half of paragraph 46 appeared particularly pertinent to the case, stating that “Where a predominant part of the service is the transportation of goods, that is likely to fall within the definition given to hire or reward adopted by the Upper Tribunal. Where the transport is part of the operator’s wider business, such as converting or processing of the goods as opposed to simply conveying them to another place, that is likely to fall within the definition of section 3(3).”

Mr March’s operation, as he described it in his email of 11 July 2022, will involve “hiring out skips to local residents and transporting the waste to other people’s waste transfer stations”. In other words, there is no converting or processing involved (other than perhaps extracting batteries or metals, although no evidence of this was provided). Local residents will pay Mr March to transport their waste in a skip from their homes to a waste transfer station operated by a third entity. The predominant part of the operation would therefore appear to be the transport of goods (goods are defined as a “burden” on the vehicle – they need not be valuable or insurable) and therefore “likely to fall within the definition of hire or reward”.

I note Mr Harris’s argument that fair competition would be prejudiced if Mr March were denied a restricted licence. However, I note too that, for the past three years at least, traffic commissioners have been applying the hire or reward definition in a more robust and consistent manner than might previously have been the case; they have been refusing applications for restricted licences by would-be skip hire and grab hire operators whose sole or main function would be the transport of waste (unaccompanied by any or much processing). As the restricted licences of such businesses have fallen for renewal, the opportunity has been taken to require them to upgrade to standard national licences or face having their restricted licences revoked. It would be unfair on these operators if I now followed a different approach and granted Mr March’s application.

5. Conclusion

From Mr March’s own description of the business, it is clear to me that the intended operation would fall firmly into the definition of hire or reward, as transport of goods in return for money would be its only or primary focus.

The application for a restricted licence therefore falls foul of the requirements for such licences set out in Section 3(3) of the 1995 Act. The application is not eligible for grant and I am thus refusing it.

Nicholas Denton

Traffic Commissioner

25 October 2022