Decision

Decision for J R Bailey’s Ltd - OH1141579 and Transport Manager Christian Nuta

Published 1 June 2022

J R BAILEY’S LTD

OH1141579

TRANSPORT MANAGER CHRISTIAN NUTA

PUBLIC INQUIRY IN BRISTOL

23 NOVEMBER 2021

1. DECISION

The Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (the “Act”)

Pursuant to adverse findings under Section 27(1), loss of good repute, the licence is revoked. The licence is further revoked pursuant to my findings under Section 26(1)(a), and 26(1)(e), use of unauthorised operating centres, Section 26(1)(f), persistently failing to keep vehicles and trailers fit and serviceable and Section 26(1)(f) again, failure to make proper arrangements to comply with the rules on drivers hours and tachographs. Revocation will take effect from 23:59 hours, 7 January 2022.

Pursuant to Section 28(1), Mary McDonnell and JR Bailey’s Ltd are each disqualified from holding or applying for an operator’s licence in any traffic area or Member State of the European Union from 8 January 2022 until 7 January 2025.

Mr Christian Nuta’s good repute is tarnished but not lost.

I refer licence OC1121407 to my North West colleague to consider action under, as a minimum, Section 27(1)(a) and Section 27(1)(b) due to the lack of professional competence since, at least, summer 2020. I further refer it for consideration of Section 26(1)(h), material change, in that the transport manager does not live in Rochdale as was detailed on her form TM1 at time of application, and she has not done so for some considerable time, if ever. There may of course be other matters.

I refer licence OF2034607, pursuant to Section 26(1)(i), to my colleague in the Eastern Traffic Area following the disqualification order made against the ultimate shareholder of that business and for any other relevant matters.

2. BACKGROUND

J R Bailey’s Ltd is the holder of a Standard National goods vehicle operator licence authorising the use of fifteen vehicles and six trailers from an operating centre in Witney and another at Speedway Farm in Slough. The sole director is Mary McDonnell, the transport manager until 23 July 2020 was Christian Nuta.

The licence was granted on 7 December 2015. The sole director at that time was Joe Bailey and the transport manager was Colin Tricker. There have been several changes in the management of the business over approximately the past three years:

	Director change	TM change
23/9/18	Joe Bailey resigns
	David Hemming appointed
18/3/19	Paul McDonnell appointed
25/3/19	David Hemming resigns
30/7/19		Colin Tricker resigns
		Cristian Nuta appointed
18/11/19	Mary McDonnell appointed (notified to me on 30/3/20)
23/7/20		Cristian Nuta resigns
20/10/20		Richard Cussons appointed
12/2/21	Paul McDonnell resigns
10/3/21		App for Terrance Marshall
23/3/21		Richard Cussons resigns
28/6/21		App for Parvinder Athwal
12/8/21		App for Marshall withdrawn

On 13 March 2020, DVSA Traffic Examiner Sadie Clarke encountered vehicle GK09UGF. It was being driven by Martin McDonnell. Analysis of the vehicle unit showed that there had been four days in the previous fortnight when the vehicle had been driven without a tachograph card in the head. Driver Gavin Horsted’s card had been in the head on 14 February and was removed after 3 hours and 9 minutes driving. Following another 34 minutes driving, Mr Horsted’s card was reinserted and the vehicle driven for another 1 hour 7 minutes. These anomalies caused TE Clarke to begin an investigation.

On 20 March 2020, TE Clarke requested that the company provide tachograph and associated records for all vehicles and drivers for the period 1 October 2019 to 29 February 2020. It became apparent that the transport manager, Cristian Nuta, was in Romania. TE Clarke saw evidence to the effect that he had travelled there for a short holiday but Covid restrictions caused his flight home to be cancelled. The operator enlisted the services of transport consultant Rick Nugent to assist in Mr Nuta’s absence.

The data supplied showed that two vehicles had been used when not specified on the licence. The vehicle unit data for those two vehicles was not initially supplied but was provided when specifically requested by TE Clarke.

Analogue records showed numerous occasions when days started and ended in Denham where there was not an authorised operating centre. Some charts had centre-field offences, rest offences, missing mileage or were missing altogether. Digital tachograph records were provided for two drivers who had never driven for the operator, the obvious suggestion being that other drivers had used their cards. One driver was found not to have had a valid CPC.

Due to these concerns, I called the operator to public inquiry on the following grounds:

under Section 26(1)(a) of the Act, use of unauthorised operating centre;

under Section 26(1)(c) of the Act, vehicles had been issued with prohibition notices;

under Section 26(1)(e) of the Act, that vehicles would be normally kept at the operating centres in either Speedway Farm or Witney;

under Section 26(1)(f) of the Act, vehicles not kept fit and serviceable, driver defect reporting, that the drivers hours rules would be complied with;

under Section 26(1)(h) of the Act, material change in that vehicles were kept at 9 Field Road, Denham;

under Section 27(1)(a) of the Act, that the operator was not of sufficient financial standing, good repute or professional competence, or that the transport manager is not exerting continuous and effective control.

Mr Cristian Nuta was called in his own right to consider his good repute as transport manager. Five drivers were also called to conjoined conduct hearings.

3. THE PUBLIC INQUIRY

Mary McDonnell, Sean McDonnell, Melanie Underwood, Parvinder Athwal, Rick Nugent and Richard Cussons attended for the operator represented by Aled Owen, solicitor of Harrison Clark Rickerbys. Cristian Nuta did not attend in person but was represented by Paul Mason, solicitor of Lewis Nedas Law. Ms Sadie Clarke attended for DVSA.

Two drivers attended and their hearings were concluded. The only point of note was that one driver was clear that his instructions came from Martin McDonnell.

4. Preliminary matters

Finance was settled. Due to a reliance upon two recent significant transfers, an undertaking was recorded to provide fresh financial information for February to April 2022 by May 2022.

I confirmed that Mr Owen had received the supplementary report from DVSA with analysis of recent drivers hours data.

5. Opening submissions

Mr Owen told me that the Traffic Examiner’s statement was largely accepted. The issues were caused by the company taking on a contract in Southampton which was larger than they thought and some distance from the operating centre. The transport manager had been remote from the matters and not able to have the required input. There had since been substantial positive change within the company.

6. The evidence of Sadie Clarke, DVSA

Ms Clarke updated on more recent encounters. In January 2021 there was a clear encounter. In May 2021, no disc displayed but the vehicle was recently acquired. In June 2021, an inspection notice for a headlamp.

Ms Clarke had never met the TM at the time, Mr Nuta but had been satisfied that he had been detained in Romania at the time due to Covid travel restrictions. From analogue charts, the site in Denham had been used for parking on many occasions. It was more than just for maintenance.

I asked Ms Clarke about a comment at page 12 of her public inquiry where she had stated “it appears that the situation had improved greatly since Mr Nuta’s involvement ceased”. I was not clear whether the improvement had come about from the cessation of Mr Nuta’s involvement or from the contemporaneous engagement of Mr Nugent as a transport consultant. Ms Clarke told me that the improvement may have been because of Mr Nugent’s involvement. In relation to the two drivers who had said they had never driven for the operator, she had spoken to both and seen evidence that they had both been driving elsewhere at the time.

Mr Owen asked Ms Clarke whether the type of work might mean that more frequent maintenance might be needed which might provide some context to the vehicles visiting the operating centre in Denham. Ms Clarke accepted that it might. She went on to confirm that Mr Nugent had provided everything she asked for as it became available.

7. Submissions on behalf of Cristian Nuta, Transport Manager

Mr Mason told me that, whilst this was Mr Nuta’s second appointment as a transport manager, it was in effect his first as his first operator never started business. He had been transport manager from July 2019 to March 2020. It was shown by the screenshots that he had tried to manage the vehicles and maintenance and this was apparent from the WhatsApp conversations.

Mr Nuta had been aware of the drivers hours matters but had not been able to get to the bottom of it. He could not access the vehicles that did not attend the operating centre. Towards the end of 2019, he began to express his concerns. He was at that time still at what he thought would have been an early stage of engagement with this business. He had gone to Romania for two weeks in March 2020 and had no idea how long he would be away. When his March return flight was cancelled, he had sought to re-book it and had done so on several occasions. He continued in the belief that he would be returning soon albeit he never actually returned until January 2020. He drew comfort from the engagement of Mr Nugent and his belief that lockdown would have meant the vehicles were not being used as intensively as they might. It was accepted that it was not possible to manage the operation from such a remote location. With hindsight, it would be easy to say that he should have withdrawn as transport manager sooner but it was not that clear at the time.

Mr Nuta had taken the analogue charts with him as he had just received them. He believed he had posted them back following cancellation of his second flight in April but there was no evidence of that.

Mr Owen told me that some of Mr Nuta’s assertions were challenged. It did not appear that Mr Nuta had sufficient reason not to be present and to avoid cross-examination. Mr Owen wished to make three points in relation to Mr Nuta. First, it was accepted that remote monitoring was not equal to what the regulations required and was not suitable. The second issue is that it was accepted that the operator was not overseeing the role effectively. It was wrong to say that Mr Nugent was in place at an early stage so could provide some comfort; Mr Nugent was brought on later.

Mr Owen’s third point was that there seemed to be issues with the flow of the WhatsApp messages such that there may be messages missing. Without Mr Nuta present, it was not possible to verify them. I asked for details. There were cut-off points between some messages and the flow isn’t clear. Other messages start such that there was a flow beforehand. There is nothing between 8 and 11 November when it is believed there was communication. Messages were cut at different points. Whoever was administrator for the group could delete conversations or messages. It was essential that messages were produced in their entirety. This was compounded by the fact that Mr Nuta had made himself an absentee. Nonetheless, the company accepts that the remote monitoring was unacceptable and should have been dealt with accordingly.

8. The evidence of Mary McDonnell

Mrs McDonnell told me that she had been a director for two years. She became a director so that she would know better what was going on. She had some knowledge prior to that but no real involvement. The issues had not been brought to her attention. She had known Mr Nuta for 12 months before he became transport manager. He had been working with them to get FORS Bronze. He had his own company in Romania and passed his CPC. He did well initially. It was only after he went back to Romania and through no fault of his own couldn’t return. At that point, they had engaged Mr Nugent and he had arranged for Mr Cussons to take over.

Mrs McDonnell dealt with all aspects that needed to be dealt with. Day-to-day, she focussed on finances, purchases and sales, and anything that needed to be dealt with including driver defecting. She had a team around her; Cristian, Imelda and latterly Regina. Martin, her son, was responsible for looking after the lorries, making sure the work was done and the vehicles were roadworthy.

Because Mr Nuta had his (TM) certificate, he knew what he was doing. They were all in the office every day. It was a small office. He had never raised any concerns with her. She had knowledge of what the transport manager needed to do. Imelda does all the invoicing and deals with the bills. They sit together.

Martin gets the work and the drivers. She spoke to Martin almost every day. When they took the Southampton job on, it was day-work only. Then they wanted day and night and that became difficult. All driver inductions were done locally. It was very hard to get drivers. Every week one driver would not turn up. Southampton was different because it was motorway work. Vehicles needed to be on-call all the time. She had never attended the site. Martin was responsible for it. He had told her that they had taken on something that was too big. They had to finish the job to get paid.

The main problem was the amount of pressure they were put under despite the fact that they were not a big company and didn’t always have enough drivers. It was Martin’s job to deal with the driver shortage. They would have to have their licences and papers to check they were valid. They got some drivers in Southampton area but they didn’t stay after induction. They had to keep on with the job until it was finished to get paid. They couldn’t throw it in and leave it.

It was accepted that there were wholesale tachograph breaches. She didn’t know how that had happened. Drivers were supplied with local accommodation. It had been a disaster. They now had another transport manager, Ms Athwal, and Ms Underwood. All the tachograph issues had come to light after the job had ended. She had then contacted Mr Nugent. He recommended Richard Cussons to take over which he did but it was a long way away. She asked Mr Nugent to conduct an audit to see where they were. When she read the audit, it was not nice to listen to, but they had to focus on going forward. There was then daily contact with the drivers. Mr Cussons would go to see the drivers wherever they were. Once Mr Cussons was in place, they notified Mr Nuta that they no longer needed his services. Mr Cussons generated a massive change. He was much more on top of what was going on. He brought stability. He had given drivers a warning and one had been sacked.

Mrs McDonnell believed Mr Nuta could manage remotely and there was no contrary feedback. She had felt a responsibility to keep employing him. He had good computer skills. Mr Cussons had stayed with them until this year but he lived in Wales; there were long journeys. They then took on a semi-retired transport manager but it was too much for him. It needed a younger person. A key quality of a transport manager was being able to deal with drivers. Mr Owen asked “are your drivers a particular kind?” to which Mrs McDonnell responded that they were all nationalities. Some were easy to deal with, some were not. Those put more work on the transport manager as they would need to have more than one conversation with a driver.

Mr Nugent had been involved with the business quite a while. Ms Athwal had been engaged since July. They were very happy together. Ms Athwal was on the ball. There had been a massive improvement. Everything was done on time. Mr Owen asked “the fact that Pivvy [Parvinder Athwal] is a lady in a world of men, how does that affect you?”, Mrs McDonnell told me that she was doing well, it wasn’t easy.

Ms Underwood did a lot of the work and had been in the business for 30-odd years. She was there in the morning and gave the drivers their maps. She tasked the drivers every morning. Mrs McDonnell was planning to step down. Ms Underwood and Ms Athwal would continue. Ms Underwood was very good with the drivers.

Martin was more for the work side, getting the work, assessing the type of work, its duration and that changed every day.

The pandemic had been very difficult but they were coming out of it. She had learnt that you couldn’t take your eyes off anything. It was a 24/7 job. There would be a continuing need to work where it came up. A lot of lessons had been learned from the Southampton job. She was confident with her team and hoped they would be able to carry on. Things had moved on to a better place.

I asked Mrs McDonnell when she last went to Manchester. She told me it was summer 2020. I enquired how McDonnell Haulage had satisfied the requirement to have a transport manager since that time. Mrs McDonnell was in touch with David (McDonnell, her son and the director of McDonnell Haulage Ltd which is based in Manchester). She had decided last week that she should stand down because changes to regulations were so quick and David needed someone more up to date. There had been a recent satisfactory audit. I noted that she had been critical of the remote management of the subject licence while seemingly doing the same herself on a North West operation.

I commented that the offences which were the subject of the inquiry took place over the period September to November 2019 which pre-dated Mr Nuta’s movement to Romania. Mr Nuta had never raised any issues with her. Only two vehicles were based at Colnbrook. Mr Nuta had gone to Denham to see the vehicles. Her son had a repair shop in Denham. Mr Nuta had been to Southampton, she thought. Mr Nuta had gone to Southampton because that is where the vehicles were being kept. The vehicles would come back for an MOT but it wasn’t viable to bring them back, especially when it moved from being day-work.

I took Mrs McDonnell to her statement where she said that Martin would hire drivers without having met them. The hiring had been done by word of mouth. It wasn’t known whether the tachograph cards were downloaded before the drivers started work but they would have copies of all their cards and driving licences before they went on the road. The primary contractor was Driver Services Ltd. The drivers were self-employed because no-one stayed long enough to go on the books. Current drivers were employed direct and they were in a much better place.

The Southampton contract ended long ago. It was for six months and went on a bit longer. I asked about the two vehicles that had been used when not specified. In Mrs McDonnell’s statement, she had said that was Mr Nuta’s shortcoming. Mr Nuta said in his statement that he had not been aware of the vehicles. Mrs McDonnell told me that the vehicles may have been used off road. They had a contract within the port of Tilbury unloading boats.

I asked about driver Breen who had been highlighted in the pre-hearing DVSA analysis as problematic. There had been offences from July 2021 that had been allowed to continue. Mrs McDonnell told me that he had got warnings four times. They had to get rid of him because he was not complying. He had reversed into a lamp on the site and was sacked the next day. I suggested that the reason for the dismissal, which was stated in a copy of the dismissal letter in the operator’s evidence bundle, had no reference to his drivers hours shortcomings. They seemed never to have triggered any action. He had been given warnings. The DVSA pre-hearing analysis had also found one full day driving where the tachograph had been set to “out of scope” and another with no card inserted. Mrs McDonnell could not assist and I was asked to put the question to the transport manager. I was asked to do the same in relation to maintenance.

Mr Mason asked when Mr Nuta had first started working for them. It was a “good bit earlier”, about a year before he became transport manager. Mr Nuta’s position was that he had been in Romania from April 2018 to February 2019 which seemed inconsistent.

It was accepted that Mr Nuta was engaged to help the company achieve FORS status and that had been successful. He had introduced a number of processes and policies. Mrs McDonnell confirmed that Mr Nuta’s main contacts were Martin and Imelda. Mrs McDonnell was not initially a member of the WhatsApp group. Mr Nuta had been given transport to travel wherever he needed to travel so he could see the vehicles based at Southampton and Denham.

Mr Mason asked Mrs McDonnell to confirm that Mr Nuta had never raised issues around drivers hours when it was clear that he had raised the issues with Martin and had succeeded in getting most vehicles fitted with remote downloading. Mrs McDonnell confirmed that. She had also not been aware of missing maintenance files and safety inspection sheets. Every lorry had its own file. Mc McDonnell was unaware that Mr Nuta had raised on the WhatsApp group that a vehicle appeared to be being used on the Southampton job for which they had no records. Mr Nuta had also raised the fact that a driver, Mr Wrigglesworth, appeared to be driving for some considerable period with no records held.

Mr Mason referred to Mrs McDonnell’s statement where she felt “a sense of betrayal” in relation to Mr Nuta not bringing matters to her attention. He put it to Mrs McDonnell that Mr Nuta felt he was raising it appropriately. Mrs McDonnell said that Mr Nuta should have raised the issues with her.

9. The evidence of Ms Melanie Underwood

Ms Underwood had been with the family for 32 years and with J R Bailey from the start where she assisted Mary on a daily basis. Martin had dyslexia and jointly they did the logistics and directed the lorries. She intended to take over from Mary with immediate effect to carry on with J R Bailey to take it forward. She worked very strongly with the transport manager and kept a strong eye on the drivers and the maintenance.

“Tipper drivers, grab drivers are a different breed and you need a strong hand to be able to deal with them”. The Southampton job was taken on and that was meant to be day-work. The company they were working for would give sometimes as little as three or four hours notice that a night-shift was required. “We as a company can’t be held responsible for if drivers have done things that they shouldn’t be doing. We can’t be in the cabs of the lorries with the drivers. We can’t physically stop them pulling out their cards if that is what they have been doing but, in my view, Cristian had the transport, Cristian had the means to keep on top of these drivers”.

Mr Nuta had done too little too late. He should have been driving to the site as soon as he was aware of a problem. Everyone was busy and he was being well paid to be a transport manager. Mr Nuta did not want the confrontation with the drivers. It was his first role and he wasn’t confident. There may have been a language barrier. Ms Underwood was not aware that Mr Nuta had told anyone that there had been a problem. The Southampton job was one that they took on and had to complete to get paid. They had got their fingers burnt and had learned a harsh lesson from it.

Ms Underwood told me that she didn’t believe in a remote way of working. She believed in a hands-on approach. You have to be able to speak to the drivers. They need to know that they will be punished if they do something wrong. It was allowed to continue because Mr Nuta was focussing too much on getting [FORS] Bronze or Silver, He didn’t let Mary know what was happening. Martin doesn’t respond to WhatsApps because he is dyslexic. Nine times out of ten Martin would cover a night-shift. Drivers are hard work and hard work to find.

Martin was definitely not a shadow director. Everyone took direction from Mary. She would raise her concerns with them. “We can deal with these people” – referring to drivers. They would not take on another contract like that again. It looked like a simple job. They now look into their customers before taking on work. Ms Underwood said the plan was to allow Mary to step down and her to step up. Drivers now were very different to drivers years ago when Mary first started out. They were a different breed and harder to deal with.

Ms Underwood was her own person and Martin didn’t influence her in any way. He would be treated the same as any other driver. The succession plan could be done as quickly as anyone would like her to. In relation to the regulatory issues, she would work very closely with Ms Athwal. Ms Underwood planned to do the CPC herself. An OLAT was being organised with Mr Nugent. Mr Nugent would continue to be engaged.

The garage was not used as an official operating centre. The lorries were under massive strain. They will get punctures and need repairs. Doing repairs in-house kept costs down. As a team, they were a strong team of women in a men’s world. They could push it forward and keep it in line. The company would undertake to provide quarterly audits.

Mr Mason referred Ms Underwood to her statement where she had said that she and Martin were “the first port of call for the drivers”. Ms Underwood clarified that was purely about giving them work. Mr Nuta should have made sure that he was in Southampton to meet the drivers. He was the transport manager.

I referred Ms Underwood back to her comment “We as a company can’t be held responsible for if drivers have done things that they shouldn’t be doing. We can’t be in the cabs of the lorries with the drivers.”. Ms Underwood told me that comment had come out badly.

I noted that there appeared to be a conflict in the evidence. Ms Underwood had told me that she was in the office in Staines every day. She had also told me that Mr Nuta was in the office in Staines every day. She then told me that she rarely saw Mr Nuta. Mrs McDonnell told me it was a small office. Ms Underwood clarified that she had until recently been working from her home in Denham. She had to be there to sort the drivers out. She was at home and could speak to them. The office isn’t open at 5 in the morning. I referred to GN06HOF which had journeys on 3, 4,5,6 and 7 January 2020 which started and finished in Denham. Ms Underwood told me that vehicle had issues at that time. I noted that the driver was Martin McDonnell. Ms Underwood would have to go back to check records. On the Southampton contract, the vehicles were parking at junction 9 of the M3, near Winchester. That was because of the night-work.

Steve Jones of Driver Services had contacted Martin about the Southampton job. They then looked into it and it seemed straightforward. There was no written contract.

10. The evidence of Ms Parvinder Athwal

Ms Athwal passed her CPC in 2012. She had her own company and had been to a public inquiry in Eastbourne where her licence had been curtailed from seven to five. She had been working with Mr Nugent. She joined J R Baileys in June or July this year. In her own business, there was remote downloading, defects on an app. She spent a day a week at J R Baileys in Staines or Denham. Her first point of contact was Mary but she spoke to Ms Underwood and others daily. For the last 6 – 8 weeks, communication was more open.

Ms Athwal has met all the drivers and done toolbox talks. She had made it clear that no vehicle should be moved without a driver card. When she joined, she realised that infringements were at a very high level. In relation to driver Breen, there was a non-documented verbal warning. She had done a toolbox talk on drivers hours and walk-round checks. Mr Breen had an incident and he was dismissed on that incident based on CCTV evidence. She felt that the incident was serious enough to warrant dealing with on its own. She had now learned from that and would produce the letters with the analysis. In relation to the two instances in the DVSA pre-hearing analysis, of driving without a card, on the first, there was a printout and the driver had left his card in another vehicle. On the second instance, the driver had actually lost his card. Overall, infringements were being brought down. Drivers were booked on a driver improvement course in January. If infringements continued, she would “give them a disciplinary”.

On maintenance, they were looking at a new maintenance provider who would do the roller brake test with the inspection. Ms Athwal’s initial priority had been drivers hours and she was now moving on to maintenance. She hadn’t given the company a choice about changing maintenance providers. If there was resistance from the company, she would put it in writing and ultimately inform the traffic commissioner.

The operating centre is at Speedway. She was not aware of it being changed. Overall, there had been a lot of improvement since the engagement of Mr Cussons and Mr Nugent.

I asked about the maintenance. Ms Athwal had not yet visited them. I referred to a PMI dated 11 September 2021, for LK14BXX. A defect was noted “ABS lamp on”. It is not signed-off as roadworthy and no road-test conducted due to the ABS defect. The action is to advise to get repaired ASAP. The defect reports around that date said Nil Defects” and was signed by Martin McDonnell and others by a driver Chris. Six weeks later the vehicle is submitted for its next PMI with the same defect still present and the same comment from the provider having covered 6,000 kms. I asked Ms Athwal how the vehicle was allowed to return to service. She accepted all responsibility and told me that the PMI sheets were coming back some time after the vehicle returned to service. They had now told drivers not to take a vehicle away unless signed-off. Martin collected the vehicles.

11. Closing submissions of Mr Mason for Cristian Nuta

The conduct needs to be considered in the context of the two periods. The first is July 2019 to March 2020 and then March 2020 to June 2020 when Mr Nuta was detained outside the country.

Mr Nuta’s evidence was that his primary contact was Martin. He was concerned at the lack of action and set up the WhatsApp group to record his position. He had been criticised for his relationship with the drivers. It is a transport manager’s responsibility to manage drivers but not to employ them. It appears from the evidence that, for a period of time, the operator had no idea of who was driving for it. Drivers were employed by Martin. It is disingenuous to suggest that Mr Nuta should drive around the country to find drivers who may only be engaged for a few days. His responsibility was to attend the operating centre at which only two vehicles returned.

It was clear from the snap-shot from the WhatsApp group that he was on top of his obligations, he steered the company towards FORS Bronze introducing policies and documents. On becoming the transport manager, he was over-ridden by the operator, whoever the operator was at that time. The criticism is that he failed to notify the Office of the Traffic Commissioner. It is understandable that Mr Nuta would allow a period of time to see if his criticisms are being acted upon. But it becomes a task of impossibility when he does not have access to vehicles or drivers. The question is really whether he should have been more robust, not with the drivers, but with the operator. A transport manager is not a “fit and forget” appointment. Responsibility in this case was not delegated but was abrogated and Mr Nuta was thwarted at every attempt.

12. Closing submissions of Mr Owen for the operator

It was accepted that the arrangements were not a good example of a business that sought to expand for a short time. The assistance of the transport manager was such that it would not meet the requirement of continuous and effective control. The use of the remote system whether because of the pandemic or otherwise was not good enough. There is a willingness to move things forward.

There was an issue of the weight to be given to the evidence of Mr Nuta in his absence. There were concerns in relation to the presentation of the WhatsApp and it had not been possible to test the statement of truth of Mr Nuta.

Martin McDonnell is not an officer of the company and does not carry a corporate responsibility. His information was dealt with by the individual who will carry out that role, Melanie Underwood. In relation to whether he is a shadow director, that would be disputed. This is a family business and the roles can become blurred. He was directing vehicles and drivers but not the company. There was limited evidence only in the statement of Mr Nuta and from drivers who might want to provide mitigation.

Mary McDonnell though quiet, of a certain vintage is measured and has surrounded herself with a good team who are tough and combative. There is a steel in what she says. It is a time of transition for the family. She still feels she has an active contribution but a different contribution.

Mrs Underwood was combative and confrontational and that possibly befits the nature of this industry. The comments made in relation to Mr Nuta were probably unhelpful. The question is whether she could be trusted to move things forward. Any concern of the influence of a third-party was dealt with head-on.

In relation to the transport manager, the company was still on a journey. Tachograph matters were well in hand. There are issues that need attention. Mrs Athwal came over well. She wants to be a catalyst for change. There is support in terms of the other consultants who attended today. The company had been compliant, had fallen and had now recovered. That ebb and flow was disappointing.

In terms of the guidelines, seriousness was accepted but much time has elapsed. A curtailment to five vehicles would be appropriate, allied to continuing engagement of Mr Nugent and an audit report to confirm compliance going forward. This is a combative and tough industry and it needs combative and tough people in it. Regulatory action is appropriate but this is not a case where all hope is abandoned. Enough steps had been taken.

13. CONSIDERATION AND FINDINGS OF FACT

This investigation was made more difficult having started just ahead of the first national lockdown. For that reason, it has taken far longer to come to a conclusion than had recently been the case. I am grateful to all parties who were involved, particularly then Traffic Examiner Clarke and transport consultant Mr Nugent for attempting to progress the investigation as speedily as circumstances would allow. I remind myself that hindsight is a wonderful thing. When my office was closed in March 2020, I was of the belief that it would reopen after three weeks. The whole nation watched intently as the pandemic progressed and decisions were taken based on what was known at the time. This is particularly relevant given the circumstances in which Mr Nuta found himself, in effect, excluded from the United Kingdom. Of course, the arrangement was wholly unsatisfactory but it was meant to be for a 2-week holiday, not indefinite. I have that uncertain and dynamic context in mind in producing this decision.

The lack of attendance of Mr Nuta is unhelpful. It necessarily limits the weight that I can attach to his witness statement where there is not corroborative evidence. The WhatsApp screen shots are usable evidence but I read them having close cognisance to Mr Owen’s concerns as to their completeness.

I am asked to accept that the site in Denham is used for maintenance only. The operator had only one vehicle fitted with an analogue tachograph during the period of the investigation. That vehicle is GN06HOF. Many tachograph records are missing. From those appended to the statement of Ms Clarke, the following had a start or finish location in Denham:

Date	Start	Finish
16/10/19	Denham	Denham
17/10/19	Denham	Denham
18/10/19	Denham	Denham
21/10/19	Denham	M3 J9	Driver: Martin McDonnell
28/10/19	Denham	?
30/10/19	Denham	?	Night work
30/10/19	Denham	Winchester	No driver identified
9/12/19	Denham	Denham	Driver: Martin McDonnell
11/12/19	Denham	?	Driver: Martin McDonnell
11/12/19	Denham	Winchester	Night work
16/12/19	Denham	?
19/12/19	Winchester	Denham
20/12/19	Denham	?
3/1/20	Denham	Denham	Driver: Martin McDonnell
4/1/20	Denham	Denham	Driver: Martin McDonnell
5/1/20	Denham	Denham	Driver: Martin McDonnell
6/1/20	Denham	Denham	Driver: Martin McDonnell
7/1/20	Denham	Denham	Driver: Martin McDonnell
10/2/20	Denham	Denham	Driver: Martin McDonnell
14/2/20	M4 J5	Denham	Driver: Martin McDonnell
25/2/20	Denham	M4 J5	Driver: Martin McDonnell
27/2/20	Denham	Denham
28/2/20	M4 J5	Denham	Driver: Martin McDonnell

Vehicles equipped with digital tachographs record their start and finish positions only as the Member State, or country. Tachograph analysis is therefore of no assistance with the majority of the fleet. When I asked Ms Underwood about the week of 3 January 2020, when this one vehicle started and finished at Denham, her home, for a full week, starting there Monday morning and ending there Friday night, she told me that vehicle had some issues at the time. The journeys recorded on the charts are not test drives as might be associated with maintenance. They are not all full days but the distances travelled are 63km, 55km, 18km, 136km and 59km. The tachograph traces shows repeated similar journeys across the days.

This analysis of one vehicle aligns with the evidence in interview under caution of driver Trevor Kiff who said that the vehicles parked at Denham. There was no benefit that I can see to him saying that. Ms Underwood said that she worked from home, at Denham, because it was easier to deal with the drivers. I questioned her on that point and she provided no further explanation why it was easier to deal with the drivers from Denham rather than from the nominated operating centre. I find it more likely than not that 9 Field Road, Denham has been a place where vehicles are normally kept when not in use. It is an unauthorised operating centre.

It emerged in the hearing that vehicles were kept at some form of compound at junction 9 of the M3 for the duration of the Southampton contract. This was not raised in the DVSA report. Of the 88 charts included in the DVSA report, 55 both started and finished at either M3, J9 or Winchester, which I was told was the same place. An operator may keep vehicles for a temporary period not exceeding 3 months at a site in another traffic area but it may not do so within the same traffic area. Winchester is within the Western Traffic Area. Of the 55 charts, most depict a single shift in a day. I therefore find that M3, J9 was used as an unauthorised operating centre. This operator seems to have scant regard for where its vehicles are kept or operated from. Convenience of running them from the family home appears to outweigh the requirements of the law. I find Section 26(1)(a) made out. Given the extent of the abuse and the size of the abusing vehicles, I attach significant weight. It is accepted that only 2 vehicles were normally kept at Speedway Farm and none in Witney. Section 26(1)(e) is also made out and significant weight attached.

This operator has had seven roadworthiness encounters in the last five years. Whilst not prohibited due to being encountered in the hours of daylight, YK65OCM was, on 24 June 2021, found to have a defective headlight. On 13 October 2020, PN16FMD was prohibited for having a foreign object lodged between the twin wheels and because a tyre was punctured. On 13 March 2020, GK09UGF was prohibited for a loose wheel nut. Having regard to the nature of the operator’s work, I find Section 26(1)(c) made out but attach relatively little weight.

I was told that vehicles went frequently to 9 Field Road Denham because of the many defects that were incurred as part of their arduous working conditions. I have reviewed the maintenance documents supplied by the operator. They include driver defect reports. There are 256 completed driver defect reports. There are five which identify a defect, four of those completed by driver Aaron. Unfortunately, he reports a side indicator not working on 29 October and again on 1 November. The vehicle has apparently continued in use with a known defect.

In contrast with the 2% defect reporting (that is 5 in 250), the PMI reports record many driver reportable defects. Vehicle LK14BXX is inspected on 11 September 2021. The technician declines to sign the declaration of roadworthiness. He declines to carry out a road test as the ABS warning lamp is on. The vehicle is collected by Martin McDonnell who records no defects. Driver Chris also records no defects and the vehicle is in service until re-presented for inspection on 23 October 2021, 5,593 km later. The ABS defect is still present. On 31 October 2021, Marius Ciobanu records under work carried out “ABS light it’s off”. I am told nothing of the rectification action – has he just removed the bulb? Between the second PMI where the vehicle is again declared unfit and its rectification a week later, the vehicle had covered a further 1,375 kms.

Brake testing is sporadic at best. Frequently the PMI technician advises that a brake test is needed. These are 3 and 4 axle tippers with complex braking systems on 6 or 8 wheels. It is impossible to tell from a road test that every part of every braking system is working as it should be – a layman’s description of the legal requirement. On 30 October 2021, vehicle YK65OCM undergoes a laden brake test. This identifies, the technician’s words “No brake pass side 4th axle, weak brake on driver side 3rd axle”. The vehicle records only 38% brake efficiency. The vehicle had been in to the in-house workshop on 18 October where brake shoes were replaced on axles 2 and 4 and the technician records “adjust brakes axle 1/2/3/4”. The action taken to rectify the failed brake test on 30 October is, unbelievably, to adjust the brakes again. Vehicle are required to be fitted with automatic slack adjusters and have been for nearly 30 years. If they wind off, then they are broken or there is a more fundamental problem with the foundation brake system. Adjusting them makes them fail more quickly. This is a grossly incompetent person working in a grossly incompetent business.

Several other PMIs tell equally shocking tales. NU65VZG is not declared roadworthy on 15 September 2021. The defects are a blowing exhaust and a tyre cut to the cords. The rectification occurs on 10 October, 2000 kms later. On 27 October, the same vehicle is not signed off as roadworthy. The technician notes, with some understatement, “vehicle needs work done on it”. There are seven defects including the engine emissions warning lamp on and a tyre bulging. On 2 October 2021, YK64MBU is not signed off. There is no road test because the vehicle is in limp mode due to a blocked emission control system. Brakes have worn on one side of one axle. The technician quite correctly advises replacing the brake pads and then having a brake test to identify the problem of the uneven wear. Pads are recorded as being changed but there is no evidence of any attempt to identify the underlying fault and no confirmatory brake test.

So I find Section 26(1)(f) made out as vehicles have not been kept fit and serviceable. On the contrary, they have been returned to service with potentially lethal brake system defects. As for driver defect reporting, if it were not for Aaron, there would be just the one positive defect to show from a fleet of five tipper vehicles in a three-month period which I must say I find immensely unlikely and is unsupported by the PMI evidence. Indeed, it is the company’s own case that the prevalence of parking at Denham was due to the need to rectify defects on a frequent basis. Section 26(1)(f) is further made out.

This public inquiry was generated from a drivers hours investigation. The findings of DVSA Officer Sadie Clarke have not been questioned. I summarise them as follows. One hundred and fifty two days were analysed and produced one hundred and fifty six offences. So, on any given day, it was likely, indeed more likely than not, that a driver would be committing a criminal offence. I use the phrase “criminal offence” for a reason. It is all too easy to be drawn in to talk of “infringements” and to dismiss them as some sort of technical matter. Each infringement is a criminal offence. In the case of false records, and in particular if it had been identified who had been driving the vehicles using the cards of drivers Wrigglesworth and Allen, they are imprisonable.

I remind myself that tachographs record driving time and rest periods so that, as far as it is possible for legislation to achieve, drivers do not drive tired. The Drivers hours rules address the matter in two ways. First, they limit driving and rest for the driver at the material time such that fatigue is minimised. Equally importantly, they set a context for competition between hauliers – and therefore drivers – by specifying maximum driving periods and minimum rest periods so that these are not a factor that can influence one operator’s competitive position above that of another. Operators, and it follows drivers, cannot compete on the basis of driving excessively.

I also remind myself that the research shows that between 1 in 5 and 1 in 6 deaths on the extra-urban road network is caused by a driver who is asleep at the time (Vehicle accidents related to sleep: a review; Jim Horne, Louise Reyner; Occup Environ Med 1999; 56:289–294). A sleep-related vehicle crash is characterised as one where the driver had a clear view of the object being struck for at least seven seconds and took no avoiding action. The resulting collision will therefore be heavy, particularly when, as is the case with the vast majority of heavy commercial vehicles, the vehicle has cruise control and full speed is maintained until the point of impact. Sleep related vehicle crashes are particularly pronounced at certain times of the day, specifically early afternoon and the early hours of the morning, responding to the body’s circadian rhythms.

The offence count of 156 in 152 days does not include the offences of using an unauthorised operating centre, the breaches of the 6 hour working time limit, the transgressions of weekly working time and exceeding ten hours duty at night. Nor do they include the fifty-two overspeed warnings of which the highest speed recorded was 109 kph, 21% over the speed limiter set speed, and the longest duration which was over 11 minutes which indicates that the speed limiter was disabled or set well above 90 kph. Perhaps most striking is that nineteen out of twenty drivers were found to be offending suggesting a deeply-embedded, cultural failing.

Centre-field offences can also seem a little technical, almost an oversight. Those committed here have, in my view, been far more than that. They have been the omission of the start or finish location, or even the name of the driver. They are major omissions that render the record incomplete and possibly fraudulent if the omissions are to conceal an offence.

Most serious of all is the company’s complete failure to identify the drivers using the cards of other drivers. The company must surely have records of who was driving what and when, for pay if no other reason. Its position is that it does not which shows that systems were entirely broken. I find Section 26(1)(f) further made out in relation to drivers hours and again I attach significant weight.

I now go on to consider the conduct of the individuals involved so that I can correctly target regulatory action.

The company’s case is that the failure lies primarily with Cristian Nuta and on allowing the position to persist where he was attempting to manage the transport operation remotely. This was Mr Nuta’s first transport manager role. The extent to which he was previously known to the company is unclear as there is conflict between the evidence of Mr Nuta and Mrs McDonnell. But it is accepted that he worked for the company putting together FORS systems prior to becoming transport manager. In terms of the duration of that engagement, Mrs McDonnell was in my view honest, and honestly imprecise. It matters little as it is accepted that each knew the other reasonably well before Mr Nuta became transport manager.

Mrs McDonnell said that everything was fine prior to Mr Nuta going to Romania in March 2020. That is evidently not the case as the focal period for the offending predates that by as much as six months. Again, it would have been helpful had Mr Nuta attended the inquiry.

She was clear that remote transport management didn’t work but she did just that for McDonnell Haulage Ltd, at least since summer 2020 and possibly for the past eight years. Mr Owen used a phrase that I found uncomfortable when he referred to Mrs McDonnell as “being of a certain vintage”. I have no interest in Mrs McDonnell’s age. She is the sole statutory director. She was until very recently the sole transport manager for a separate fleet of ten vehicles operating in the Manchester area. She was appointed to this licence just two years ago. This is not a case, as Mr Owen suggested, where a long-standing company officer needed encouragement to retire.

All the operator’s witnesses were clear that Mrs McDonnell was in control of the business operation. Whilst I found she lacked knowledge of the detail, for example, the cause of the dismissal of a driver, I have no reason to doubt that she is a controlling mind of the business. I find her statement (para 10 of her witness statement) really disingenuous: “I am disappointed that this was allowed to go on over such a long period without it being brought to my attention by Cristian. I do feel a sense of betrayal as he has let us down, despite the fact that we gave him a job and accommodation so that he could start to make a better life for himself and his family”.

Let’s look at the reality of the situation. It is the operator’s case that the wholesale drivers hours offending was brought about by taking on a contract that, in simple terms, they were under-resourced to fulfil. Mr Nuta had no part to play in the decision to take on that contract. It was entered in to by Martin McDonnell and Mrs McDonnell failed to ensure it was deliverable, nor was there a written contract to allow for termination. It was Mr Nuta’s first transport management role since qualifying. Mrs McDonnell told me in evidence that, because Mr Nuta had passed his CPC, he knew what he was doing. Mrs McDonnell is a very experienced operator who will know that holding an academic qualification is not all that is required to be able to manage a transport operation.

It was the duty of the sole statutory director to ensure that her transport manager was up to the job of managing such an unusually large and distant operation. Mrs McDonnell told me all was well until Mr Nuta found himself stuck in Romania. It was not. It had gone wrong a long time before. Mr Nuta had a right to be called to account by his employer. He had a right to support from his employer. Mrs McDonnell is the only statutory duty holder of his employer. Her daughter-in-law was clearly of the view that tipper and grab drivers were challenging to manage. I give Mrs McDonnell credit for not accepting the proposition that they “were a breed of their own”. But she did acknowledge that some could be harder work than others. She should have been standing alongside her transport manager when he was dealing with these difficult issues, not standing some way distant, expecting a newly qualified person, doubtless eager to please and to be seen to succeed, to have to come to her seeking help. I find that Mrs McDonnell is primarily responsible for what she herself accepted to be wholesale breaches of the tachograph rules or put more correctly, wholesale criminal offending.

Mrs McDonnell told me that it was Martin’s job to ensure the roadworthiness of the vehicles. Again, she appears to have done little to check upon that herself. I refer her to my analysis of the driver defect reporting at paragraph 76 above, and my analysis of the maintenance at paragraphs 77 to 79. I remind her that this position is following 18 months of support from Mr Nugent and his associates. Processes and policies are worthless if they are not implemented properly and effectively. It would seem that the root cause of the appalling roadworthiness situation is the intervention of Martin McDonnell, who collected a vehicle from PMI with an ABS warning lamp on and allowed it to continue in to service for another 8 weeks, despite the maintenance provider stating that the vehicle was unsafe to road-test. Martin does not even record the warning lamp on his defect sheet. It was in Martin’s workshop that YK65OCM had its brakes readjusted for the second time in twelve days having been found to have two brakes with little to no effort. No proper investigation was undertaken. Had Martin attended, I would have put to him that the evidence suggests that he and Mr Ciobanu shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near a fleet of complex 32-tonne tippers. Mrs McDonnell was blind to all that. She is a menace to road safety.

Mr Owen’s closing submissions did not touch at all on the impact of disqualification. In T/2019/072 Cavendish School of English Ltd, the Upper Tribunal clarifies that this does not automatically lead to an unfairness. In this case, in relation to the director, I note that Mrs McDonnell is found as sole director and “Person of Significant Control” of Heathrow Holdings (HHL) Limited. Heathrow Holdings (HHL) Limited is the sole Person of Significant Control through shareholding of Mason Plant & Transport Ltd which holds a two-vehicle standard national licence based at an operating centre at 9 Field Road, Denham, the site I have found to be used as an operating centre for J R Bailey Ltd. In considering any action I might take against Mrs McDonnell, I have in mind the wider impact it could have on other businesses within her control, insofar as I am aware of them. This association was not disclosed within her witness statement.

Ms Underwood was put forward as the new face of the business to take it forward. What then followed was one of the most dreadful evidence sessions I have witnessed in almost ten years as a Traffic Commissioner. She told me that the actions of the drivers were not the company’s responsibility. She continuously referred to drivers in the most derogatory terms. I was reminded of management styles of the 1960s and 1970s, although Maslow published his benchmark “hierarchy of needs” as long ago as 1943. It is no surprise that the turnover of drivers is so high. She was immensely critical of Mr Nuta and then told me that she hardly ever met him. She denied that vehicles parked at her home address despite telling me that she worked from home because it was easier to deal with the drivers and despite the clear evidence that her husband conducted a full week’s worth of work from there. I find that Melanie Underwood is not someone I can trust to operate compliantly. She is certainly not someone on whom I could rely to turn around a deeply failing operation.

Cristian Nuta became transport manager just as the operator embarked on the “disaster” that was the Southampton contract. There is evidence from the WhatsApp conversations that he was trying to effect workable systems. I note that he did get agreement to installing remote downloading equipment on most of the fleet. He also seems to have chased PMIs and the evidence that they had been done. What concerns me is that he appears to have resorted to WhatsApp even when he was working locally. Whilst I can see that he was trying to effect change, it appears to me from the WhatsApp messages that it was a hopeless task long before he was detained in Romania. I agree with the submission of Mr Mason that he should first have been more robust with the company – though having met Ms Underwood I can see how that might not have been easy – and then he should have resigned. By trying but not succeeding, he has put the safety of road users at significant risk. Having balanced the positives with the negatives, I find Mr Nuta’s repute tarnished but intact.

Parvinder Athwal was not called to the inquiry but gave evidence. She demonstrated a good degree of knowledge and competence but has also presided over vehicles returned to service with the most serious of defects in their braking systems. She is making inroads but I would be worried that she is doing so simply because the operator wants to show a good face at the inquiry. Only time will tell, but she must be ready to be good to her word and walk away from any assignment where the operator does not cooperate fully.

I turn now to consider the appropriate regulatory action. I refer to the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Guidance and Direction document number 10, Annex 4 thereof. I have in front of me an operator with both dangerous maintenance practices, allowing vehicles with known dangerous defects back into service for a period of many weeks. I also have an operator who had a quite staggering number of drivers hours offences. Some of those were very serious such as those where a third-party’s card was used for what can be no other reason than to conceal drivers hours abuse. That the operator could not tell DVSA who was driving those vehicles is quite simply unacceptable. There has been ongoing use of two unauthorised operating centres “because it was not viable to bring the vehicles home”. Those are numerous reckless and deliberate acts that compromised road safety and were committed to gain a commercial advantage. The starting point is “severe”.

I find few positive features. Mr Nugent was brought in to assist and did assist, on the operator’s behalf, with the investigation. There is improvement in drivers-hours offending. The new transport manager seems competent but I am told so did Mr Cussons and yet the situation has not been resolved. There are relatively few mechanical prohibitions. I make little criticism of the company or the transport manager for allowing the remote arrangements to persist longer than they should given the fluid nature of the pandemic restrictions.

In the negative is the entirely reckless acts of putting vehicles into service with known defects, of failing properly to induct and record drivers, in failing to have vehicles and driver cards downloaded resulting in massive missing mileage. The sheer amount and nature of offending that I have analysed at paragraphs 81 – 86 above is a hugely strong negative feature. I note the almost complete absence of positive driver defect reporting. Whilst I give credit for the engagement of Mr Nugent to assist the investigation, it beggars belief that the operator could not identify from any records whatsoever the users of the third-party driver cards.

This balancing exercise leaves me in the Severe category. I turn now to the two questions posed by the Upper Tribunal to assist Traffic Commissioners in deciding whether a business should continue. The continuing failures of systems, both drivers hours but more notably maintenance, despite 18 months of transport consultant support suggests to me that the answer to the “Priority Freight” question of how likely is it that this operator will, in future, operate in compliance with the operator’s licensing regime, is “very unlikely”.

If the evidence demonstrates that future compliance is unlikely then that will, of course, tend to support an affirmative answer to the “Bryan Haulage” question: is the conduct such that the operator ought to be put out of business? The complete disregard for compliance across drivers hours, maintenance and operating centres means that yes, this is a basis that needs to be brought to an end. The good repute of J.R Bailey’s Ltd and of Mary McDonnell is forfeit. Section 27(1)(a) is made out in relation to repute.

Disqualification in a revocation case is not automatic but neither does it need a further adverse finding. It is really the deep-seated cultural failings which lead me to find that a moderate period of disqualification of both the sole statutory director and the company is appropriate so that it can reflect properly on what went wrong and how it might never go so wrong again. I am aware that the disqualification of Mrs McDonnell has an impact on another business, Mason Plant & Transport Ltd. It brings forward her anticipated retirement. In the case of the limited company, I understand that it also supplies labour (from the invoices provided to confirm financial standing), but I make my decision on the basis that haulage is central and that the company may well indeed fail without it.

I also need to take action to bring to the fore the apparent lack of professional competence of McDonnell Haulage Ltd for some considerable time.

14. DECISION

Pursuant to adverse findings under Section 27(1), loss of good repute, the licence is revoked. The licence is further revoked pursuant to my findings under Section 26(1)(a), and 26(1)(e), use of unauthorised operating centres, Section 26(1)(f), persistently failing to keep vehicles and trailers fit and serviceable and Section 26(1)(f) again, failure to make proper arrangements to comply with the rules on drivers hours and tachographs. Revocation will take effect from 23:59 hours, 7 January 2022.

Pursuant to Section 28(1), Mary McDonnell and JR Bailey’s Ltd are each disqualified from holding or applying for an operator’s licence in any traffic area or Member State of the European Union from 8 January 2022 until 7 January 2025.

Mr Christian Nuta’s good repute is tarnished but not lost.

I refer licence OC1121407 to my North West colleague to consider action under, as a minimum, Section 27(1)(a) and Section 27(1)(b) due to the lack of professional competence since, at least, summer 2020. I further refer it for consideration of Section 26(1)(h), material change, in that the transport manager does not live in Rochdale as was detailed on her form TM1 at time of application, and she has not done so for some considerable time, if ever. There may of course be other matters.

I refer licence OF2034607, pursuant to Section 26(1)(i), to my colleague in the Eastern Traffic Area following the disqualification order made against the ultimate shareholder of that business.

Kevin Rooney
Traffic Commissioner

8 December 2021