Decision

Decision for D & G Couriers Ltd

Published 26 February 2024

0.1 IN THE EASTERN TRAFFIC AREA

1. D & G TRANS COURIERS LTD – OF2054142

AND

2. ZSOLT VASAS – FORMER TRANSPORT MANAGER

AND

3. CATALIN-ALEXANDRU VASILE – TRANSPORT MANAGER

4. CONFIRMATION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER’S DECISION

---

5. Background

D & G Couriers Ltd holds a Standard International Goods Vehicle Operator’s Licence authorising 1 vehicle and 1 trailer. The Directors are Dinel Dan and Tatiana Georgina Dan. The previous Transport Manager, Catalin-Alexandru Vasile, was appointed from 1 August 2023 and resigned in December 2023. Zsolt Vasas acted in that capacity from 3 July 2022 to 2 May 2023.

There is one Operating Centre at the Red Lion Truckstop, Weedon Road, Upper Heyford, Northampton NN7 4DE. Preventative Maintenance Inspections are said to be carried out by JPS Commercials, Ford & Slater Daf, and RAF Trans Spedition Ltd (see below) at 6-weekly intervals.

In the application (page 32) the operator confirmed that it had permission from the site owner to use the premises for the purposes of parking the authorised vehicle and trailer and (page 39) undertook to notify changes in those arrangements or other requirements of the operator’s licence.

6. Hearing

The Public Inquiry was listed for 16 January 2024, in Tribunal Room 1 of the Office of the Traffic Commissioner in Cambridge. The operator was present in the form of the Directors, Mr and Mrs Dan. Mr Vasas and Mr Vasile were also present as was Ms Hodor, an interpreter in the Romanian language.

7. Issues

The public inquiry was called at the request of the operator and following notice that I was considering grounds to intervene in respect of this licence and specifically by reference to the following sections of the Goods Vehicle (Licensing of Operators) Act:

• ·       26(1)(b) – conditions on licence to notify changes, in this case relating to establishment, repute, and a Transport Manager meeting Schedule 3.

• ·       26(1)(e) – statements relating to the Operating Centre, and to abide by conditions on the licence.

• ·       26(1)(f) – undertakings (vehicle and trailer to be kept fit and serviceable, driver defect reporting, complete maintenance records, drivers’ hours, and tachographs).

• ·       26(1)(h) – material change:

• ·       27(1)(a) – stable and effective establishment, repute, financial standing, and a Transport Manager meeting Schedule 3.

• ·       28 – Disqualification.

Mr Vasas was also called to consider whether he exercised effective and continuous management of the transport operation when Transport Manager, to consider a direction under section 27(1)(b) and Schedule 3.

Mr Vasile was called to consider whether he exercised effective and continuous management of the transport operation when Transport Manager, to consider a direction under section 27(1)(b) and Schedule 3.

The operator was directed to lodge evidence in support by 2 January 2024, including financial, maintenance and other compliance documentation. The operator failed to comply with those Case Management Directions to the point that it was suggested that it might even produce raw driver data on the day of the Public Inquiry (email 5 of 4 January 2024). I acknowledged that Mrs Dan was ill from 9 to 21 December 2023 but the email traffic with the Office of the Traffic Commissioner in the immediate period leading to the hearing, suggested a lack of basic understanding on the part of both Directors. The emails were numerous to the point that a supplemental bundle was prepared by my office. The communications with DVSA suggest that the operator had not obtained its records from its supplier (see 2 January 2024). The email from Mrs Dan of 4 January 2023 appeared to be highly confused as to what was to be supplied and to whom. The Office of the Traffic Commissioner took great effort to assist the operator. Mrs Dan’s email suggested that the driver defect reports had been retained by Mr Vasile, despite his resignation (see below). The one book was in use by her husband who was away tramping. She confirms that the operator had none of the Preventative Maintenance Inspections in its possession. The lack of evidence of basic licence requirements was blamed on Mr Vasile.

The operator failed to supply me with evidence against which I could satisfy myself as to financial standing. I was unable to take account of funds not available to the operator but owed by a customer. A schedule of monies owed and an email from a start-up consultancy was not sufficient to meet this mandatory requirement. I was told that the projected warnings had not materialised and that this became evidence from the first fortnight of operation. The operator failed to notify of any relevant change.

8. Summary of Evidence

DVSA inquiries regarding the operating centre identified that the owner’s business model relies on operators to pay £40 a year for a contract which allows the operators to nominate this site as an Operating Centre. The operator is then issued with an agreement for parking at the site, but spaces are not specified or allocated and are only available on a first come, first served basis. This effectively means that the operator is not guaranteed a parking space at the designated Operating Centre and passing trade may also use the site for parking resulting in the site being full before the operator arrives at the site. The site is therefore not available to the operator. DVSA enquiries have identified that more vehicles are               specified at the site than there is parking available.

As a result of these inquiries the DVSA wrote to the operator and then Transport Manager on 25 April 2023 in order to undertake a desk-based assessment. On the same date, Mr Vasas, notified me of his resignation. In that correspondence (page 103) he indicated that the operator was non-compliant. He referred to a breach of contract and that the operator ran its business with no intent of meeting the legal requirements. He referred to an absence of meaningful communication with the operator and that he had not been provided with access to maintenance documentation, daily checks, reports, or evidence of rectification. He indicated that no driver or vehicle data was provided to him and so he would notify the operator of his resignation.

The operator was chased by DVSA on 10 May 2023. On the same day, Mr Dan emailed to indicate that the operator would ask for the paperwork and then did not reply. The DVSA has yet to receive a completed questionnaire.

Correspondence with Mrs Dan dated 22 May 2023 (page 124 to 125) referred to her position as Director and as a full-time employee of another company, Costco Wholesale. She claimed to be responsible for the paperwork but suggested that she could not access the bank account. Her response suggested little contact with Mr Vasas. The response suggested that there had been no operation for over 6 months, but that her co-Director has been tramping. There appeared to be an admission that he has not kept all of his records and that the operator has only latterly received the ‘tachograph kit’. She referred to only 2 Preventative Maintenance Inspection records. The annual test history suggested that only one vehicle had been presented for an annual test, with an initial failure rate of 100%.

Mr Vasas was asked to provide details of how he had met the statutory duty. He indicated that, at the time of grant, the operator did not have access to a vehicle. He heard nothing more (and was not paid). By October 2022 he was on the point of resignation, but the operator persuaded him to be patient, and that when they started working, he would start receiving pay. Mr Vasas provided screenshots of Whatsapp communications on or around 17 April 2023 (page 118) between himself and the operator demonstrating some communication, but little else as to how the statutory duty was met by him.

Email correspondence from Mr Vasas (page 114) dated 23 October 2023, suggested that he had only them (both Directors) once, in a cafe in Corby on 12 June 2022, where the operator advised him that his services were needed to acquire the licence. He gained the impression that they did not know much about transport or the legal requirements within Great Britain. He claimed to have advised them of the responsibilities of an operator and a Transport Manager before contracts were signed. He claimed that he was not told that they were operating. He claimed to have supplied them with a pack of information on 27 February 2023 and advised of how he should be able to access vehicle information and other data. In response dated 2 March 2023, he was supplied with information regarding the unnamed contractor. As far as he was aware, they were not in the country on 29 March 2023. He made his decision to resign on 20 April 2023.

The operator was put on notice of concerns regarding access to the nominated Operating Centre under cover dated 22 June 2023 (page 135). The operator was advised that the site was not deemed suitable for use as an Operating Centre and that failure to have an Operating Centre could result in revocation of the Operator’s Licence. There has been no application to vary the Operating Centre.

The operator was granted a Period of Grace to 26 June 2023, on the basis that two candidates for Transport Manager had been identified, although the Director, Mrs Dan, intended to sit the examination in September 2023. This was extended to 31 July 2023, pending the outcome of the DVSA investigation. For some reason, the nomination of Mr Vasile was not referred to a Traffic Commissioner and purported to be made by a member of staff of the Office of the Traffic Commissioner.

In his email of 3 January 2024, Mr Dan alleged that both former Transport Managers had done nothing. He placed them in a section of CPC holders who Mr Dan claimed only want money and nothing else. He appeared to suggest that Mr Vasile only attended twice: 31 May 2023 and 16 December 2023 (following the call letters regarding a Public Inquiry). Mr Dan described Mr Vasile as panicking. It was only following that correspondence from my office that he attended and read the driver’s card and tachograph unit. He was said to have printed out the infringements but did not sign them. That did not appear to make sense, so I was persuaded to believe Mr Vasile. He was also said to have taken the “daily defect book” and copies of the/a Preventative Maintenance Inspection. Mr Dan appeared to question why the Transport Manager had not previously asked to see the Preventative Maintenance Inspection reports.

His resignation apparently arose during a telephone call from the operator. Mr Vasile is alleged to have said that he would resign but did not communicate this in writing. Mr Vasile told me that the language barrier meant that most communication was via the telephone. Confusingly, the operator thought that he might then assist in the preparation for the Public Inquiry. He was alleged to wanted to be paid for this “help”. Mr Dan admitted knowing that Mr Vasile was not fulfilling the responsibilities of Transport Manager. He alleged that Mr Vasile had tried to “blackmail” the operator. When the operator declined to pay him for the last two months, Mr Vasile is alleged to have said that it did not matter that he had not done his job and that he should be paid regardless, as his name was on the operator’s licence. That did not accord with the evidence of payments.

The email from Mrs Dan of 4 January 2024 suggested that the operator would be able to supply evidence of conversations with Mr Vasas; proof of payments made to Mr Vasas; some completed Preventative Maintenance Inspections (no dates given); a contract with the current maintenance supplier; photographs of a planner; a driver licence check (4 January 2024); one set of signed infringements (dated 8 June 2023, signed by an unspecified driver and counter-signed relating to multiple insufficient breaks after the 4.5 hour driving limit and for daily rest, with a Working Time infringement in April 2023); the infringements from December 2023 do not appear to have been signed; some financial evidence. The compliance documents were said to have been sent by special delivery, to arrive with DVSA on the morning of 5 January 2024.

I was also supplied with a copy of an email from a Ms Fray of Enterprise Transport Training in Stockport suggesting that Mr Dan had registered to undertake the CPC examinations to become a Transport Manager on 8 March 2023. Looking at the surrounding communications, this is clearly an error in the date, but I could not help but note the level of disorganisation suggested by Mr Dan’s communications with the training provider.

I referred to the email of 24 October 2023 from Mr Vasas to the caseworker in Leeds. As set out above, he suggested that during his tenure he only met the operator once and for the purpose of the application. He produced text messages, with partial disclosure suggesting contact on 2 November 2022. It suggested that Mr Vasas was aware that one of the Directors had been ill. On 29 November 2022 Mr Vasas apparently alerted the operator to the fact that he had not been paid. The response suggested that the operator was aware and then authorised payment via Natwest, which he acknowledged. The next message was dated 11 January 2023, from Mrs Dan, explaining “My husband didn’t work at all all this period. He started on the 4th Jan 23, first day/time ever. We are going to pay you this month for December and next month (with God help) for month Jan and Feb. Thank you so much for your understanding. The payment will be done, no worries” which Mr Vasas acknowledged. He chased for the January payment on 27 January 2023.  The operator responded the same day: “I’ve told, you will be paid. He’s coming home every 2 weeks to save diesel. For, I don’t know what reason, he was aid just for 1 week(work) – to have for petrol = we’ve been left without money for petrol. If by any chance he’s coming home this weekend (he will make 1st payment), if he’s not, he will be home next week. And he will make the payment then.”  I was not notified of any changes in the circumstances of the operator. A message from Mrs Dan suggests that Mr Vasas was paid for December on 29 January 2023. The exchange of messages acknowledged the operator’s difficult financial position.

In evidence I was told that operations only commenced in January 2023. The operator confirmed that Mr Vasas was only notified after the event (by text of 11 January 2023), prior to which Mr Dan had been driving through an agency. He started work on 4 January 2023 undertaking work provided by ‘Vico-vanu’. There was no first use inspection of the vehicle, which he had purchased in November. Mrs Dan then suggested that the record might be at their house. From my assessment of the witnesses, it did not occur to Mr Dan that a first use inspection was required, as he was content with the purchase documentation. I was also satisfied that Mr Vasas was not notified at the time of purchase. It was equally clear that there was no check of Mr Dan’s driver’s hours when he commenced operations.

The first indication of any management involvement by Mr Vasas was in a message dated 19 February 2023: “On Thursday we are going to have the 6 weeks service. Is any chance for you to arrange a viewing for you to check us? The service is in Leicester and after we park the unit near to our house, in Leicester (you can do it even till Sunday)”.( I later heard evidence that the operator continues to park in an industrial estate close to the residential address when it is more convenient for him. This continued even into last week and despite Mrs Dan having commenced her CPC studies.) In evidence Mr Vasas and Mr Vasile confirmed that neither of them had visited the authorised Operating Centre and were unable to confirm its suitability. Mr Vasile had been told that the operator was parking on an industrial estate. The operator claimed to have been told not to take action pending DVSA intervention. Mr Vasile contradicted that evidence and said that it reflected a lack of finance and work. The operator appeared to have ignored the specific advice provided by the Office of the Traffic Commissioner in correspondence dated 22 June 2023. Mrs Dan told me that they had obtained permission to park at a client’s address: REMS Transport Services Ltd in Market Harborough but had not paid for an advert or lodged an application. It continues to be the case that the operator is parking the vehicle away from the authorised site, when not in use.   

The Whatsapp responses from Mr Vasas suggest that he only then be included in communications with the maintenance contractor. A further message from the operator dated 19 February 2023: “How is with the tyres? If I need to ask someone to check the pressure of the tyres, who can I ask, please?” Mr Vasas advised that this should part of the inspection. However, on 24 February 2023, the operator advised of a need to change the arrangement as Mr Dan was due to attend a CPC course. I was concerned by the content of Mr Vasas’s message of 27 February 2023 suggesting that the operator did not know how to access its Vehicle Operator Licence record and was only then advised on the need to access Tachograph analysis software and a download tool. Mr Vasas advised fortnightly downloads but no later than 30 days. Mrs Dan was prompted to seek advice in a message dated 2 March 2023. His response of 29 March 2023 directed the operator to the tachomaster site, but his message of 17 April 2023 indicates: “Sent you over actual monthly invoice. Also I still haven’t received any documents and no access granted to your drivers hour analysing system. PLs do these ASAP!!!!!!” Mr Vasas ceased to be named as the Transport Manager after 2 May 2023.    

In answer to questions from me, it was clear that Mr Dan had little inkling to the relevance of a retorque policy or even the need to tighten the wheel nuts. He simply relied on the fact that no-one, the maintenance contractor or Transport Manager had advised him of the need. This is indicative of the whole approach to compliance by this operator and goes a long way to explain what I found to still be the case at Public Inquiry.

Mr Vasile emailed my office on 12 January 2024, in response to the allegations made by the operator. He refers to those allegations as unfounded and misrepresenting the way in which he discharged his responsibilities. In that email he refers to various documents, which demonstrated his commitment and approach:

• Infringement Reports: I have located the original infringement reports generated from Tachomaster on my laptop. While the signed copies remain with the operator (as mentioned in my previous communication with you), these documents substantiate my active engagement in monitoring compliance during my tenure.

• Financial Transactions Summary: Contrary to Mrs. Tatiana Dan’s statement that I was inactive and consequently not paid for the last two months, the transaction summary clearly indicates that my payments were received on 17/07, 01/10, 29/10, and 16/12. This record corrects the timeline of payments and suggests that the lapse in payment was not for the last two months but rather from July to October. Furthermore, had my motivation been solely financial, my resignation would have occurred much sooner upon non-payment.

He asked me to note that the operator had been informed about the necessity of wheels retorque and AdBlue usage reports, alongside the provision of a maintenance calendar. He stated that he usually orders two copies of a planner, one for the operator and one for himself. This accords with the hard copies produced to my office.   

Mr Vasile referred to payments made to him by the operator on 17 July, 1 and 29 October, and 16 December 2023 of (redacted) each. Unsigned infringement reports for insufficient breaks or rest by Mr Dan on 14 June, 24/25 August, 4,6,7,8,13,15, 19, 21, 22 September, 17, 18, 20, 23, 24, 30, 31 October, 1, 3 November 2023; Nil infringement report for the period 24 July to 20 August 2023, confirming his involvement with the operator. Mr Vasile produced copies of the following maintenance documentation:

• 24 October 2023 – inspection of FN67 UYA with roller brake test but in the name RAF Trans Spedition Ltd. No stamp and signature on declaration not provided.

• 9 September 2023 – inspection of FN67 UYA with no brake test and in the name RAF Trans Spedition Ltd with reference to a defective off-side rear light and nearside first axle tyre cut. No stamp and signature on declaration not provided.

• 20 July 2023 – inspection of FN67 UYA with no brake test and in the name RAF Trans Spedition Ltd with reference to a defective off-side rear light and nearside first axle tyre cut. No stamp and signature on declaration not provided.

• 12 June – roller brake test printout: 57%, 25%, 12%.

• 10 June 2023 – annual; test certificate after rectification at the test station.

• 8 June 2023 – inspection of FN67 UYA by Ford and Slater with brake test: 31% and 20% despite a heat crack in the brake discs and brake pad sensor, with reference to a defective step and nearside tyre etc. All defects left to be monitored. Mr Dan apparently relied on the contractor and was unaware that there was anything wrong.

• 3 May 2023 – inspection of FN67 UYA by Ford and Slater with brake test: 70% and 43% but no secondary brake reading despite heat cracks in brake discs, with reference to a defective front registration plate, nearside fog lamp surround and fixings, nearside front side lamp, bumper damage, nearside front tyre worn light, nearside first axle tyre cut and front step (not fixed).

Driver defect reports on or between 6 June 2023 to 20 October 2023 which were all Nil bar 20 September 2023 which is illegible.  

1. Whilst the operator was unable to produce any driver defect reports, it additionally provided me with the following:

• A maintenance agreement between Raf Trans Spedition Ltd of 15 Blount Road Leicester, LE4 8LJ and an unnamed contractor of “5 Chantress Close, Dagenham RM10 9YWT” dated 1 July 2023.

• 23 February 2023 – inspection of FN67 UYA by Ford and Slater with brake test: 23%, 8%, 3% despite brake pads being replaced, with reference to defective second axle and rear wear sensors, nearside wing, number plate cracked, coolant hearer tank leaking, offside fog light bracket, nearside rear lamp etc.

• A calendar print out for the months of June, July and October 2023 referring to a total of two inspections and the annual test. A copy of a calendar for 2024 with “PMI” dates.

• Payment confirmation slips referring to Natwest and “Zsolt Vasas Transp” (redacted)

• References to a contractor overcharging for work on a radiator were not evident in any of the paperwork, further suggesting a failure to retain a complete maintenance record.

Mr Lewis prepared an update to his original report, based on the material produced by the operator on 4 January 2023, including:

• confirmation of a booking for Tatiana Dan to undertake both parts of the Transport Manager CPC examination on 8 March 2024.

• A gov.uk driving licence check record in pdf format for Mr. Dinel Dan dated 4 January 2024.

• A single page driver’s infringement report produced on 31 May 2023 for the period 9 March 2023 only.

• A single page driver’s infringement report produced on 31 May 2023 for the period 12 March only.

• A 2-page driver’s infringement report produced on 31 May 2023 for the period 4 April 2013 only.

• A single page driver’s infringement report produced on 31 May 2023 for the period 5 April 2023 only.

• A single page driver’s infringement report produced on 31 May 2023 for the period 6 April 2023 only.

• A 2-page driver’s infringement report produced on 31 May 2023 for the period 12 April 2023.

• A 2-page driver’s infringement report produced on 31 May 2023 for the period 13 April 2023.

• A 3-page driver’s infringement report produced on 31 May 2023 for the period 14 April 2023.

• A single page driver’s infringement report produced on 31 May 2023 for the period 15 April 2023.

• A 2-page driver’s infringement report produced on 31 May 2023 for the period 19 April 2023.

• A 6- page driver’s infringement report produced on 16 December 2023 for the period 5 to 8 December 2023.

In addition, on 7 January 2024, he received the raw tachograph data for FN67 UYA for the period 2 January 2023 to 6 January 2024 inclusive, and for Driver Dinel Dan for the period 20 July 2023 to 6 January 2024 inclusive. A driver infringement report for the period 5 to 8 December 2023 inclusive was also provided.

In comparison to the given starting point of quarterly driver licence checks, the operator provided a single pdf file downloaded from the gov.uk system for driver Dinel Dan, undertaken on 4 January 2024. He noted that the individually dated infringement reports for 9 March to 19 April 2023, appeared to have been generated on 31 May 2023. He referred to the driver’s hours and working time infringements recorded, all of which appeared to have been signed on 8 June 2023 and countersigned in the Manager section by a Bogdan Todor. Mrs Dan told me that it was on his advice that a company card was finally applied for. I compared that knowledge with the failure to ensure regular reporting. No infringement reports for the period 20 April 2023 to 5 December 2023 were produced. The six-page infringement report for 5 to 8 December 2023 inclusive was generated on 16 December 2023 and disclosed a significant number of driver’s hours infringements, neither the driver or manager had signed the report, but this was rectified by email of 7 January 2024, signed by driver Dinel Dan and countersigned by co-director Tatiana Dan. There were no printouts or other mitigation attached. No vehicle Unit downloads were produced in relation to unknown mileage. No evidence of any disciplinary action was provided and no record of any remedial action. There was no raw data for Dinel Dan prior to renewal of his card on 18 July 2023. Interrogation of the raw vehicle data for FN67 UYA for the period 2 January 2023 to 6 January 2024 inclusive, and for sole driver, Dinel Dan, for 20 July 2023 to 6 January 2024 showed 44 apparent offences:

• Exceed 4.5 hours driving – 20 occurrences.

• Exceed daily driving time – 5 occurrences.

• Insufficient daily rest – 19 occurrences

Mr Lewis commented that the infringements mirrored those highlighted in the reports provided by the operator and suggested that the driver either had very little understanding of the regulations or continued to breach them knowing that no disciplinary action would be taken. Analysis of the Vehicle Unit data showed that the company tachograph card was not locked into vehicle FN67 UYA until 8 June 2023, despite being specified. However, a download was undertaken on 6 May 2022.  A second vehicle unit download report dated 16 December 2023 showed a previous download was undertaken on 9 July 2023 (a period of 160 calendar days and 70 days in excess of the maximum download period of 90 calendar days). Mr Lewis produced a table of occasions when the vehicle was driven without a valid driver’s card for the period 2 January 2023 to 6 January 2024: 23 occasions, totalling 236.49 km. Mr Lewis noted occasions where significant amounts of driving were undertaken without a driver card inserted.  The vehicle data was cross referenced with the driver data, identifying a total of 65 apparent offences recorded for the period 2 January 2023 to 6 January 2024 inclusive.

In summary, Mr Lewis found:

• The operator had failed to provide any evidence of regular driving licence checks being undertaken prior to the call up letter being issued. A single driving licence check produced on 4th January 2024 was submitted as evidence.

• Noting a series of emails, there was no evidence of any continuous professional development undertaken by directors, Transport Managers or drivers.

• Although the operator eventually produced vehicle unit and driver card data, complete data sets for driver Dinel Dan were not produced for the entire period specified. Analysis of the vehicle data indicated that downloads were not undertaken within the maximum prescribed period of 90 days; no vehicle missing mileage reports were produced and consequently no explanation was provided for periods the vehicle had been driven without a driver card inserted. Analysis of the driver card data provided indicated continuous breaches of drivers’ hours regulations by driver Dinel Dan, many of a serious nature.

• The infringement reports that were produced were not generated or actioned within a timely manner and appear to have been completed as a ‘tick-box’ exercise rather than a means of identifying and resolving continuous issues with breaches of drivers’ hours regulations. As no infringement reports were provided for the period 20th April to 5th December 2023 inclusive, it is suggested that no analysis of driver or vehicle records was undertaken during this period.

• There was no evidence of any disciplinary action against drivers or managers was provided by the operator, other than those infringement reports as detailed above.

Mr Vasile’s letter of 30 December 2023 acknowledged that from the onset he had encountered several challenges, chief among them being a communication barrier due to the directors having limited English. This apparently necessitated communication in Romanian, resulting in a total of 49 telephone calls of varying length up to 3 1/2 hours. He referred to deficiencies left by his predecessor who the operator claimed had made minimal contribution to compliance. He found that the operator had not utilised its own download facility and lacked a company card. This accords with the findings of Mr. Lewis. He also referred to the absence of driver defect checks. I noted that Mr Vasile was able to produce some driver defect reports where the operator was unable to do so. Mr Vasile claims that he had advised the operator of the importance of those checks for compliance and safety.The operator was reported to have agreed to implement driver defect reporting books. Mr Vasile stated that when he requested first use inspection and Preventative Maintenance Inspection records, he found some to be missing. He was aware of the annual test failure on 12 June 2023, which should have been identified at the pre-test inspection and he worked to address the apparent lack of awareness on maintenance requirements. He claimed to have ensured that all Preventative Maintenance Inspections were completed and on time, but difficulties emerged regarding the suitability of the Operating Centre when DVSA commenced inquiries. Mr Vasile states that his recommendation to move was resisted by the operator due to financial concerns and irregular workloads. That was reflected in the sporadic payments for his services (leaving three outstanding payments). That and the refusal to conduct inspections and tachograph downloads led him to threaten resignation in November 2023, but there was no evidence of this. He eventually resigned on 15 December 2023. This was his first appointment as a Transport Manager and now realises that he was too trusting of the operator and has revised his approach, having taken advice from training providers and more experienced CPC holders. That advice is reflected in the contracts with clients.

9. Determination

Based on the evidence summarised above, I recorded adverse findings under the following sections: 26(1)(b) – breach of the condition to notify changes, in this case relating to establishment, repute, financial standing and a Transport Manager meeting Schedule 3: 26(1)(e) – statements relating to the availability of parking at the Operating Centre, and to abide by conditions on the licence; 26(1)(f) – breach of undertakings (vehicle and trailer to be kept fit and serviceable, driver defect reporting, complete maintenance records, drivers’ hours and tachographs); and 26(1)(h) – material change (see below).

The operator failed to retain the maintenance records to a point where I was entitled to conclude that, not only did it fail to maintain vehicles to the correct standard, there was also little by way of driver defect reporting. The operator’s attempt to blame successive Transport Managers is not borne out by the evidence. The operator continued to pay the CPC holders named on the operator’s licence. Again, the operator failed to notify me of relevant changes and to the point where even basic requirements were not met. I was satisfied that the identified shortcomings placed this case within the SEVERE category for regulatory intervention against the starting points identified by the Senior Traffic Commissioner.

The cause of the shortcomings is best illustrated by the repeated answers from Mr and Mrs Dan – nobody told us what to do. Apart from the limited contact suggested by the Whatsapp messages, there was very limited proactivity on the part of the Directors. Even at the Public Inquiry, they appeared to consider that this was justified. I compare and contrast that with what the appellate Tribunal stated in 2012/025 First Class: While it is true that a transport manager must “effectively and continuously” manage the transport activities of the undertaking for which he or she works and is now required to be familiar with a wide range of topics, including the law in relation to operator’s licensing, that does not mean that the person or persons who control an entity which operates heavy goods or public service vehicles is or are absolved of responsibility.  Such a person must know enough to ensure that someone employed as a transport manager is up to the job and they must also be able to supervise them to ensure that they do a proper job.  It is, after all, for the director or directors of a company to set the standards which the employees are required to meet.

It was to the operator’s credit that Mrs Dan was so frank in admitting that the operator parked most of the time in LE16, but it also illustrates the level of ignorance displayed by both Directors. Mrs Dan told me that she is now starting to learn the rules. That was a reference to the start of her CPC studies on 8 January 2024. The reference to another unauthorised site in Market Harborough and acknowledgement had the operator should not have ignored the correspondence of 22 June 2023 from my office. It is further reflected in Mr Dan’s approach. He clearly felt that he had been taken advantage of by suppliers, because of the language issue, but the attempt to blame the Transport Managers when the operator was making sporadic payments ignores his own responsibility and that of his fellow Director. I contrast the haphazard approach to compliance with the description by the Upper Tribunal in NT2020/071 J Owens Transport Ltd suggesting that the relationship between an operator and a transport manager is dynamic and integral to the successful operation of a transport business.

A ‘carry on regardless approach’ and without reference to the compliance with standards which the operator accepted at the time of application in 2022, undermined the trust which I could place in the operator. In the absence of a suitable establishment, financial standing and a Transport Manager who meets Schedule 3, revocation was almost inevitable. The absence was also relevant to my consideration of the question posed by the Upper Tribunal decision of 2009/225 Priority Freight, which also posed the initial question for me to consider, namely: how likely is it that this operator will, in future, operate in compliance with the operator’s licensing regime? The absence of those mandatory and continuing requirements clearly undermined the ability to comply. That appeal case went on to recognise, of course, that promises are easily made, perhaps all the more so in response to the pressures of a Public Inquiry. What matters is whether those promises will be kept. The impression left by this operator, throughout the evidence and in response to the call to Public Inquiry, was one of frantic ignorance; but it cannot all be attributed to language barriers (as the communications with the CPC holders illustrates) or indeed a lack of knowledge when a clear steer had been provided by DVSA and the Office of the Traffic Commissioner. Accordingly, the operator must be removed from the industry, and I made a further finding under section 27(1)(a) reflecting that loss of repute.

I explored the impact of regulatory action on the operator. Work is currently sourced through REMS Transport Services Ltd. Instructions are usually provided the day before or at the end of the previous job. It was suggested that it had taken time to build up this work, but in part resulted from damage to a vehicle belongs to REMS. Mr Dan is of course able to continue to drive professionally. His vocational entitlement had not been referred to me by the Secretary of State. However, I also became aware that personal finances have become entangled in the efforts to try and sustain this operation. It led to obvious distress on the part of Mr and Mrs Dan. I took this position into account when making my direction for disqualification under section 28. As recorded above, the operator appeared to be ill-prepared from the outset of the licence. It failed to notify obvious changes, to see advice or to act on it, even when alerted by my office or in advance of these proceedings. That fully justified the need for deterrent action and the order for disqualification of the operator for a period of not less than 18 months; whilst I did not make personal orders, it was clearly explained than any application featuring Mr and Mrs Dan in the future would need to be considered by a Traffic Commissioner.  

Given the admissions made by Mr Vasas, it is evident that he was in real danger of becoming a name-only on this licence. Neither he nor the operator notified me that there had been delays in the commencement of operation; consequently, I was misled into believing that there was effective and continuous management. His involvement, such as it was, around February 2023, was reactive and apart from some tweaks to the download policy, did little to equip the operator for compliance. However, the operator could not hide behind Mr Vasas. I was referred to the limited and sporadic communications with him and the lack of involvement or oversight. I therefore recorded an adverse decision under section 27(1)(b). Mr Vasas should never have allowed himself to be placed in this position. At times the Whatsapp messages displayed more concern with being paid than actually discharging the statutory duty on him. I therefore concluded that he had lost his repute and recorded that finding under section 27(1)(b). He is currently named on OF2058749 held by IConnect Logistics Ltd, but he is now disqualified from relying on his Certificate of Professional Competence unless and until he has shown evidence of attending a two-day Transport Manager refresher course to be supplied by a recognised training provider.

The evidence of Mr Vasas was, to a large degree, corroborated by the evidence produced by Mr Vasile. I agreed with Mr Vasile’s assessment that the systems were far below that required under the operator’s licence when he commenced his short tenure. Mr Lewis referred to the operator’s claim that the Directors had only seen Mr Vasile twice during his period of appointment. He produced evidence that the operator had continued to pay him and of his efforts to ensure compliance. That said, the documents indicated a significant failure to maintain effective monitoring and compliance, particularly for checking driving licences: downloading driver cards and vehicle units: undertaking drivers hours checks and analysing driver and vehicle records and initiating disciplinary procedures to ensure compliance with drivers’ hours regulations. His efforts were greater than his more experienced predecessor, but this did not amount to continuous and effective management. I took account of the fact that this was his first appointment and that he had learned from the experience. His disclosure of these proceedings at interview has affected his prospects and should act as a sufficient deterrence, nevertheless, his repute is severely tarnished by these findings.

I communicated the above to the parties at the hearing, with the revocation to take effect from 23:45 on 27 February 2024 so as to allow for a safe and orderly run down of the operation.

9.1 R Turfitt

Traffic Commissioner

17 January 2024