Decision

Written decision for Super Speedy Transport Limited (OK2013271) Speedy Transit Limited (OK2027956)

Published 16 November 2020

In the South Eastern and Metropolitan Traffic Area.

Decision of the Deputy Traffic Commissioner.

Public Inquiry heard at Ivy House, Ivy Terrace, Eastbourne on 1 September 2020.

1. Decisions

1.1 Super Speedy Transport Limited

Repute of operator lost, and licence revoked with immediate effect in pursuance of Section 27(a) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators), Act, 1995.

No adverse findings made in relation to transport manager Stephen Davies.

1.2 Speedy Transit limited

Application refused on the ground that repute required under Section 13(A)(2)(b) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act, 1995 is not established.

2. Background

The operator Super Speedy Transport Limited is the holder of a standard international licence authorising eight vehicles granted on the 20 August 2018. The sole director of the company at the date of inquiry is Mehdi Fadimanesh and the transport manager is Stephen Davies. Mr Fadimanesh is also the sole director of Speedy Transit Limited who is applying for a standard international licence for four vehicles, Mr Davies is the nominated transport manager in relation to that application.

The application by Speedy Transit Limited (STL) was made on the 22 October 2019 and this prompted enquiries in relation to the licence held by Super Speedy Transport Limited (SSTL). Enquiries through Companies House showed that Mr Fadimanesh ceased to be a director and a person with significant control of SSTL on the 2 December 2019. Shanaz Kahkeshani was added as a director and a person with significant control,through ownership of 75% or more of the shares, on the same date.

Ms Kahkeshani had been the sole director of MED Transport Limited whose operator’s licence was revoked on the 19 July 2015 and a former director of RDS Transport Limited whose operator’s licence was revoked on the 1 March 2016. Dawood Fatemi Noroozani was the transport manager on both licences and the director of MED Transport Limited when that licence was revoked. He lost his repute as a transport manager and was disqualified until he took and passed a CPC transport manager examination.

During a telephone conversation with a member of staff from the Central Licensing Office on the 3 December 2019 there was discussion with Mr Fadimanesh in relation to his continuing involvement in SSTL and the length of time that Ms Kahkeshani had been involved in the business. His answers seemed to imply that she had been involved since the commencement of the business in 2018.

In light of the history, involvement of Ms Kahkeshani and the possibility of “fronting” for her and/or Mr Noroozani it was decided to call both the existing licence for SSTL and the new application for STL to public inquiry.

On the 7 February 2020, the record of SSTL at Companies House was varied to reinstate Mr Fadimanesh and remove Ms Kahkeshani as a director but to leave her as a person with significant control.

3. The Public Inquiry

Mr Fadimanesh attended the public inquiry together with transport manager Mr Davies – neither were represented. Ms Kahkeshani also attended and was accompanied by Mr Noroozani. When the attendees arrived Mr Noroozani introduced himself as the husband of Ms Kahkeshani and said that he was present to assist her with any language issues. It was only during the hearing that the complete picture emerged.

Mr Fadimanesh told me that SSTL had undertaken haulage of goods exclusively for a company called Heritage Limited up until September 2019. A trailer owned by Heritage being hauled by one of SSTL vehicles was stopped and found to be to carrying a large quantity of illegal drugs. The tractor unit was subsequently returned to SSTL. Thereafter the work from Heritage had ceased and that company had gone into liquidation owing SSTL £52,000. Since then he had sold the vehicles that had been authorised under the SSTL licence and had not been operating. He decided to sell the business to Ms Kahkeshani and Mr Noroozani and this was why the Companies House records were changed. He had not, in fact, received any money because this was put on hold when the concerns over these two individuals were raised in the communication from the Traffic Commissioners. He accepted that Ms Kahkeshani was still showing as a person with significant control in SSTL but this was an error.

I asked Mr Fadimanesh about the conversation with the Central Licensing Office concerning the involvement of Ms Kahkeshani in SSTL from the outset and he said that this had not been what he said. He and Mr Noroozani did reveal however that following the revocation of the MED Transport licence in 2016 a licence had been obtained in Romania by Mr Noroozani under which he undertook “sub-contract” work from Heritage within continental Europe and under the rules of cabotage in the U.K.

Mr Fadimenash said that he wanted to start the new company STL to take on new work for different companies undertaking container work. I asked why if he taken back the directorship and financial control that work could not be done by SSTL as there is an authorisation for 8 vehicles. He said that all the plans were waiting on the outcome of the public inquiry.

Mr Noroozani was not a party to the proceedings but was nevertheless very keen to give his view on a variety of points that were raised, and I allowed him to do so to a limited extent. He told me that he and Ms Kahkeshani were still keen to be directors and shareholders of SSTL and that I would be able to trust them if they could proceed on that basis. I explained that consideration of his suitability was not something I could determine at the inquiry.

Mr Davies had submitted written representations prior to the inquiry and supplemented these with evidence. He said that he had worked for SSTL since his appointment in October 2018 and his dealings had been exclusively with Mr Fadimenash. He was made aware of the new director and owners of the company in November 2019 and made initial contact with them agreeing to continue in his role as transport manager for them. Limited business was conducted using one vehicle in January 2020 and he requested documentation and asked to meet the driver of this vehicle. He had received no response to these requests to date. His understanding was that the use of the vehicle was discontinued at the end of January following receipt of the call-up letters.

4. Findings and Decision

This case is unusual in that the existing licence for SSTL is being considered at a public inquiry despite the absence of adverse compliance history in relation to maintenance or other regulatory requirements. The sole concern is the involvement of Ms Kahkeshani and Mr Noroozani in the company. Their records in operator licencing, and particularly, that of Mr Noroozani are poor. The decisions of the Traffic Commissioner in 2015 and 2016 which were included in the documents supplied for this inquiry list the many failings that were found. In disqualifying Mr Noroozani as a transport manager, the Traffic Commissioner set out what would be required before he was considered for appointment again.
I need to determine whether, if the licence for SSTL is allowed to continue, Ms Kahkeshan and/or Mr Noroozani are more likely than not to be involved in the transport operation of the company despite the fact that Mr Fadimenash has been reinstated as a director. Mr Fadimenash told me that they will not be involved but Ms Kahkeshan is still shown as a person with significant control and Mr Noroozani told me that they are keen to be directors and shareholders. It was revealed during the hearing that Ms Kahkeshan and Mr Noroozani have been “sub contracting” work from SSTL from the outset through the use of an operator’s licence issued in Romania. It was also agreed that they had operated as SSTL in January 2020 even though Mr Fadimenash was saying no money had changed hands. A further factor is the behaviour of all three individuals during the inquiry. Ms Kahkeshan said very little and was prompted by Mr Noroozani when she did. On several occasions Mr Noroozani attempted to prompt Mr Fadimenash in his answers and late in the hearing asked for a short recess so that issues could be discussed between them. I have also concluded that it is significant that Mr Fadimenash could not provided a satisfactory explanation why he needed to keep the SSTL licence with 8 vehicles when his aim was simply to operate the STL licence with 4 together with 2 on the licence for SSTL.

Having considered all these factors I do find that it is more likely than not that if the licence for SSTL is continued Mr Noroozani and Ms Kahkeshan will resume what they started to do in January 2020 which is to operate vehicles. The interaction at the inquiry between the individuals and the history lead me to conclude that this will happen even though Mr Fadimenash is the sole director of the company. The risk if that occurs is that the level of regulatory non-compliance that was found in MED Transport Limited and RDS Transport Limited would be repeated. The failure to provide Mr Davies with the documentation etc sought by him in January 2020 provides corroboration of this risk.

Having considered all of the factors detailed above I have asked myself the question set out in the case of Priority Freight Limited & Paul Williams i.e. how likely is it that this operator will operate in compliance with the operator’s licensing regime? In other words, can the operator be trusted going forward? I have decided that I cannot be confident that standards will be met for two reasons. Firstly, the named director will not be the person in control of the business and secondly the people who will be in control have not demonstrated to me that they have repute which is required to hold a licence. Having made this initial decision I also find that it is necessary and proportionate for this operator to be put out of business.

My decision therefore is to find that the repute of the operator is lost, and the licence is revoked under Section 27(a) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act, 1995. As no vehicles are authorised at present, I make the order with immediate effect.

In relation to the application for Speedy Transit Limited it is for the applicant to satisfy me that the statutory requirements for holding a licence, including repute, are made out. Mr Fadimenash is a director of a company which has just lost repute and whilst I believe that it may have been his initial intention to operate the new company as a separate entity, I am not satisfied that he will be able to fully disentangle himself from the involvement of Mr Noroozani and Ms Kahkeshan particularly as the licence for Super Speedy Transport Limited has been revoked. I therefore refuse the application for this licence on the ground that repute has not been made out as required.

I have considered the question of disqualification and have decided not to make any order in respect of Mr Fadimenash. I have taken into consideration the previous good regulatory record and wish to give him a chance to apply for a licence in the future if he decides to do so. He should be aware that if he does, findings in this case will be considered and he should expect to demonstrate without any doubt that neither Mr Noroozani nor Ms Kahkeshan are involved in his application or business. If either of those individuals wish to pursue an application themselves I recommend they take expert advice as to the sort of actions they need to consider before doing so.

I do not make any adverse findings against the transport manager Stephen Davies. I do not believe that he was complicit in the dealings between the other individuals and the regulatory record of Super Speedy Transport Limited goes to his credit. Nothing in my findings should be taken as a negative factor if he is being considered for transport manager appointments on other licences.

John Baker

Deputy Traffic Commissioner

4 September 2020