Decision

Decision for Adnan Manzoor, trading as CMH Haulage

Published 11 December 2023

0.1 IN THE SOUTH EASTERN & METROPOLITAN TRAFFIC AREA

1. ADNAN MANZOOR TRADING AS CMH HAULAGE

1.1 OF2012950

1.2 GOODS VEHICLES (LICENSING OF OPERATORS) ACT 1995

2. TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER’S WRITTEN DECISION

[All page references are to the Public Inquiry bundle unless stated otherwise.]

3. Background

Mr Adnan Manzoor, trading as CMH Haulage, is a sole trader holding a Standard National Operator Licence granted on 31 May 2018 authorising the use of nine vehicles from an operating centre in Purfleet RM19 1SR. Mr Manzoor has been the nominated Transport Manager since the Licence was granted.

Public inquiry – 3 August 2020 - Mr Manzoor was called to a public inquiry as operator and transport manager due an unsatisfactory maintenance investigation which found the following shortcomings: -

• No evidence of CPD

• The issue of prohibitions, including an ‘S’ marked. (defects mainly driver detectable).

• Change of maintenance provider not notified

• VE had concerns regarding possible fabrication of PMI records.

• DDR inadequate – missing driver signatures.

At the public inquiry the presiding Traffic Commissioner curtailed the licence by two vehicles for a period of 14 days from 3 August 2020. Mr Manzoor’s repute remained tarnished.  Undertakings were accepted at the Public Inquiry to organise the site to free space for parking; vehicle S17 WHG to have a roller brake test; all vehicles of have laden roller brakes at every PMI; to provide DDR training and to have an audit within 6 months.  A copy of an audit carried out on 29 January 2021 appears to have been sent to the Office of the Traffic Commissioner on 11 February 2022, but no action appears to have been taken.

New Operator Seminar OF2012950 - Adnan Manzoor attended an DVSA New Operator Seminar in Gillingham on 5 September 2018.

OK1118818 – Adnan Manzoor T/A CHM Haulage - A sole trader licence granted on 29 April 2013. Mr Manzoor was the Transport Manager. The application was considered at a joint Public Inquiry held with the licence of Farrakh Manzoor, OK1045346 on 30 May 2013. The application was granted as applied for. A warning letter was issued on 13 April 2017 due to an unsatisfactory maintenance inspection.  An undertaking for an audit was accepted and complied with.  The licence was surrendered on 24 August 2018.

OF1135092 - Premier Haulage (UK) Ltd -The Operator was called to Public Inquiry on 18 June 2019 to due to concerns regarding professional competence as the presiding Traffic Commissioner had concerns that the Operator and the proposed Transport Manager, Adnan Manzoor, had misled him as to who was carrying out the Transport Manager role.  Also considered was an application to nominate Adnan Manzoor as Transport Manager and the failure to notify Mr Manzoor had been a director of the company from January to February 2018 and 25/02/2018 to 14/05/19. The licence was revoked, and its current director disqualified.  Mr Manzoor’s repute was severely tarnished, and he was issued with a stern formal warning.

OK1079602 – Nageth Shaheen Manzoor -The Operator was called to a Public Inquiry scheduled for 24 January 2014 due to a Vehicle Examiner report which found Nageth Manzoor (who was a joint Transport Manager on the licence with Adnan Manzoor) had been out of the country for six months.  Adnan Manzoor’s repute was due to be considered at the Inquiry. Following a request to surrender the licence, the Traffic Commissioner revoked the licence and issued Adnan Manzoor with a warning.

A report was received from the Metropolitan Police who carried out an investigation following a number of roadside encounters alleging as follows: -

• 2 September 2021 – SG16 OFL - The vehicle was stopped by Sergeant Beckers after he saw it on the A13 Wennington as the rear number plate was completely covered in dirt and the driver was not wearing a seat belt. The vehicle was livered as CMH Haulage but was not displaying an Operator Licence disc. The driver was Nicolae Ordean. Analysis of the vehicle unit found no infringements but considerable periods of driving without a card inserted. Mr Ordean could not explain why there was no operator disc displayed and could only produce a single but incomplete DDR (“Driver Defect Report”) sheet. Checks found the vehicle had been specified on the licence from 31/05/18 until 12/08/21. More details are set out at pages 59 to 61.

• 4 October 2021 – SG16 OFL- The police operation on this date was specifically targeting CMH Haulage vehicles as Mr Manzoor told police that his vehicles were on hire to Stansted Recycling Limited, who in turn said it was a sub-contract and CMH is the Operator.  The vehicle was stopped on Coldharbour Lane in Rainham, and the driver was again Nicolae Ordean. Mr Ordean stated that his boss (Adnan Manzoor) had told him that an Operator Licence was not required because the vehicle was being used on a private road. The vehicle was carrying chalk from a river jetty via Coldharbour Lane to a site north of Coldharbour Lane. Checks found that Mr Ordean had not inserted his driver card and did not have any manual printouts with him. Mr Ordean stated that he had been told he did not need to use the tachograph.  A download of the vehicle unit showed the vehicle in use from early morning to very late at night (for nearly 18 hours) and on most occasions no driver card was inserted.  Mr Ordean admitted that he was the driver during the day and a different driver would take over for the night shift. Mr Ordean had used the driver card depending on whether the vehicle was kept at the operating centre or at the river jetty site in Rainham. Mr Ordean was unable to produce a DDR book or sheet for that day. The encounter established CMH Haulage as the Operator. More details are found at pages 61 – 64.

• 5 October 2021 – WU14 EUJ - At the time of the stop the vehicle was displaying an operator disc in the name of CMH Haulage but was not specified on the licence (specified 31/05/2018 to 19/07/2021). Checks found the vehicle was owned by CMH Haulage, it was out of MOT and no insurance was held.  The driver, Jephias Chimedza, stated he was working for S Walsh and Sons. The driver was unable to produce a DDR sheet.  The officers found a work ticket in the cab showing the vehicle was being operated by CMH Haulage.  Checks found that Mr Chimedza was an agency driver employed by S Walsh & Sons who had sub-contracted him to CMH Haulage. The police issued an immediate prohibition for a tyre defect which would have been driver detectable. The police seized the vehicle as no insurance was in place.

• 11 January 2022 – SG16 OFL - The vehicle was stopped as the rear number plate was obscured by dirt. The driver was Danny Bodle who was found to hold only a provisional category B driving licence.  Mr Bodle does not hold a driver CPC card or a drivers digital tachograph card. Mr Bodle confirmed he worked for CMH Haulage. Mr Bodle phoned his employer and spoke to ‘Nick’ (who is believed to be Adnan Manzoor) who told him that he could drive as it was private land.  It was noted that the vehicle was not specified on the operator licence.

A follow up investigation was commenced on 6 September 2021 when a Section 99 request letter was sent by post and email to the Operator.  In response, Mr Manzoor stated that since May 2021 the vehicles were on hire to Stansted Recycling Ltd. The Police Report states that the director of Stansted Recycling Ltd OK2030648, John Huke, confirmed he was hiring vehicles with drivers from Mr Manzoor. Checks show neither of the vehicles (SG16 OFL and WU14 BLU) have ever been specified on OK2030648. 

As Mr Manzoor failed to supply the requested documents, a call was made by the Police Officer and an extension of 7 days was granted.  On 27 September 2021 Mr Manzoor provided maintenance records, insurance documents, repair invoices and a letter clarifying the date of the hire agreement with Stansted Recycling Ltd was 12 April 2021. An extension was granted to 29 September 2021 for the Operator to provide readable copies of these documents plus the missing DDR records, missing mileage reports and driver details. A link was sent by the Operator’s assistant, Jade Grant, to a one drive file. As the Officer is not permit access the link a further extension was granted to 3 October 2021. Documents were received, but there was no tachograph analysis after November 2020, there were missing PMI records and no raw data.

Mr Manzoor attended a voluntary interview on 2 November 2021 with his Solicitor.  During the interview Mr Manzoor stated that the missing mileage of 11,278km for WU14 EUJ between 08/07/21 to 24/10/21 relate to driving on private land.  Mr Manzoor provided no explanation of how the vehicle moves between his operating centre and the ‘private land’. He failed to say whether the vehicles returned to the operating centre.  He did confirm that he was the Operator of WU14 EUJ on 5 October 2021 and was aware that the vehicle was not insured.  During the interview the Officer asked why SH66 FEO, SG16 OFL and SF17 WHG were picked up on ANPR on public highways when they were not specified on the Licence. No dates or locations were mentioned, and Mr Manzoor could not provide an explanation. A copy of the interview is included in the officer’s Public Inquiry Report.

The Metropolitan Police summarised the following concerns to my office: -

• The driving between the operating centre and the ‘private land’ (around 4 miles) is not recorded.

• No satisfactory explanation of the considerable missing mileage.

• The operator’s failure to fully comply with the Section 99 request.

• The driver’s failure to record their drivers hours, The driver’s suggestion that the operator advice was not to record their hours.

• The failure to provide all requested PMI records – no records provided after April 2021.

• Two occasions when no evidence of Roller Brake tests.

• Three occasions when Roller Brake test not carried out in same ISO week.

• No DDR records produced.

• Driver detectable prohibition issued on 5 October 2021.

• The use of a vehicle with no MOT or insurance.

• The operator allowed an in-scope vehicle to be driven by a driver who did not hold the correct entitlement.

• The use of vehicles whilst not specified on the operator licence.

Further Witness Statements were received from Metropolitan Police regarding additional encounters: –

22 February 2022 – KB59 ELM - Stopped at Coldharbour Lane. The vehicle was not displaying an Operator Licence disc. The vehicle has never been specified on the Licence, but checks show the vehicle has been registered to CMH Haulage since 29 November 2021 and is insured by Adnan Manzoor T/A CMH Haulage. The rear number plate was obscured by dirt. The driver was Alin Ciobanu who confirmed he was working for CMH Haulage. Mr Ciobanu stated that he commutes to Walsh’s yard in Rainham and is then transported to Walsh’s jetty in Coldharbour Lane. Analysis of the vehicle unit found Mr Ciobanu removed his driver card on 18 February 2022 after 4hrs & 23mins and continued to drive for 24 minutes. The officer also found 16 incidents of driving without a card (between 25/01/22 to 10/02/22).  Mr Ciobanu was issued with a £200 fixed penalty notice. 

22 February 2022 – SH66 FEO - Stopped at Coldharbour Lane. The driver was Jephias Chimedza who confirmed he works for CMH Haulage. Mr Chimedza was unable to produce CPC card.  Mr Chimedza handed a manual printout as he had left his tachograph card at home. The vehicle was not displaying an Operator Licence disc. The vehicle was not specified on the Licence at the time of the stop (specified from 31/05/18 to 03/09/21 and from 27 April 2022 to date). Analysis of the vehicle unit found 11 incidents of driving without a card between 26/01/22 to 09/02/22.

25 February 2022 – SG16 OFL- Stopped at Coldharbour Lane. No Operator Licence disc displayed The driver was Teresa Lyth who confirmed she works for CMH Haulage. The officer rang Mr Manzoor who told him that he was using the vehicle on private land so did not need to specify it on his Licence. When the officer disagreed with him, Mr Manzoor said the vehicle was exempt as it was used less than 6 miles per week. Again, the Officer pointed out this was not correct and advised Mr Manzoor to carefully consider his position regarding not specifying vehicles.

9 March 2022 – KB09 ELM - Stopped at Coldharbour Lane. No Operator Licence disc was displayed. The driver was Ioan Besiou who confirmed he was working for CMH Haulage. Checks found the vehicle was not specified on the Licence at the time of the stop, but the registered keeper was CMH Haulage. The vehicle was insured by Adnan Manzoor.  The Police Officer decided to check the fuel and as he went to do so, Mr Besiou said ‘its Red’. The vehicle was found to be using Red Diesel and was impounded by HMRC. The Police Officer notified Mr Manzoor of the impounding.

A Witness Statement from Police Sergeant Robert Beckers dated 23 January 2023 confirms that two case against Adnan Manzoor were heard at Romford Magistrates Court on 7 June 2022. The charges in respect of allowing Danny Bodle to drive a vehicle without insurance and without the correct driving licence were dismissed.  The offence of permitting Jephias Chimedza to drive a vehicle without insurance on 5 October 2021 was proven.  Mr Manzoor was fined £1,211 with £310 costs and a victim surcharge of £121.  It is noted that the Operator does not appear to have notified the conviction to the Office of the Traffic Commissioner within 28 days.

Due to the matters above, I decided to call the Operator to a public inquiry. The repute of Mr Manzoor, Transport Manager, was also being considered.  The driving entitlements of drivers, Jephias Chimedza, Nicolae Ordean, Alin Ciobanu and Ioan Besiou were considered at parallel driver conduct hearings.

4. Hearings

The Public Inquiry was listed for the 30 March 2023 at 10am. Representations received from the Operator’s Solicitor, received shortly before that hearing, were served on the Police, save for the medical evidence. On the 30 March 2023 I adjourned the Public Inquiry to give the Operator a further opportunity to attend, having completed the 4 co-joined driver conduct hearings that day. A transcript of my reasons for the adjournment were served on Mr Manzoor and subsequently further Solicitor representations were received. The reality is that Mr Manzoor has not attended a hearing and seeks for the decision to be dealt with on the papers before me, to include a request to surrender the Licence.

5. Documents and Evidence

Before making this decision I have reviewed the following: -

• Public Inquiry bundle.

• All representations and documents received from the Operator’s Solicitor.

• Hearing transcripts and other correspondence in the lead up and after 30 March 2023.

• Police additional statements served on the Operator and my office at the same time dated 21 March 2023.

• E mail confirming Mr Manzoor would not attend any reconvened hearing.

• Sgt Becker response to the Operator’s representations dated 12 April 2023.

• My handwritten contemporaneous notes.

• South Bucks District Council and another V Porter(FC) (2004) UKHL33, English v Emery Reimbold & Strick Ltd [2002 EWCA Civ 605 and Bradley Fold Travel Limited & Peter Wright v Secretary of State for Transport [2010] EWCA Civ 695 in relation to written decisions generally; 

• Upper Tribunal Decisions and other guidance I consider relevant to this determination as listed elsewhere in this Decision; and

• The Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Guidance and Statutory Directions (‘SGSD) current versions. 

6. Issues

The Police operation centres around the Operator’s use of vehicles on and around Coldharbour Lane in Rainham. Part of this road is public and part of it is private with public access. The Operator’s Solicitor made representations in relation to the approach I should take to the Police evidence and seeks for me to take a narrow approach in the representations dated 23 March 2023. A transcript is available of the approach I deemed appropriate and that is attached by way of relevant extracts marked at Annex A. It is for me to determine factual findings in relation to the various encounters but also to address any systemic failings.

My role is very different to that of the Magistrates Court. Whilst I do not go behind convictions or acquittals, as a specialist tribunal I look at the systems in place to ensure safety and fair competition – not just a snapshot incident or event. The levels of knowledge and approach by any Operator are clearly set out in the Upper Tribunal case law and Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Guidance and Statutory Directions (and the other relevant documents referred to therein) which are in the public domain by way of example the DVSA Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness (the version relevant to this decision is November 2018) as per the Upper Tribunal in 2012/030 MGM Haulage and Recycling Ltd.

7. Consideration and Findings

The compliance history is set out in the Background section above, and I do not repeat it here, save that this is Mr Manzoor’s second Public Inquiry in 3 years as Operator and Transport Manager. The issues are set out in the call-in letter dated 20 February 2023 (pages 13 – 22) as supplemented by the case summary (page 3-11). I found the police evidence credible. Mr Manzoor has not attended for me to probe his written statement and representations. Where there are discrepancies I prefer the evidence of the police. The following findings of fact, in no particular order of priority, are relevant to this decision: -

• Mr Manzoor misled police and wasted police resource by stating at one time that the vehicles were being operated by Stansted Recycling.

• Mr Manzoor failed to produce all records and data to the police, preventing an effective assessment of systems and compliance. By way of example, PMI documentation for vehicles ceased in March/April 2021 but the regime was meant to be 6 weekly, (page 78). No driver defect sheets, or defect rectification sheets were received. It is not feasible, bearing in mind the age of the vehicles and their working conditions, that no defects were present in between PMIs. Noting the police evidence about Mr Ordean’s lack of records, I find that it is more likely than not that there was no system in place for the relevant period.

• Mr Manzoor failed to comply with the roller brake testing undertaking offered by him and accepted at the 2020 Public Inquiry. Not all PMIs were produced. Of those made available, two had no measured brake performance test and 3 other PMIs did not have the roller brake test in the same ISO week (as per the Guite to Maintaining Roadworthiness version current at the time of the investigation - 2020).

• Mr Manzoor operated vehicles in an unsafe condition and without the appropriate systems in place on the public highway and in areas where the public (including other site workers) had access.

• No vehicles were specified between 3/9/21 and 27/4/22. During this period Mr Ordean confirms the vehicles were on the public highway in use for part of his work for Mr Manzoor on occasion. Vehicle must be specified within 28 days of when they first come into possession.

• Mr Manzoor was convicted of permitting someone to drive without insurance.

• The police found extensive missing mileage. There is no evidence Mr Manzoor has a system for recording and ensuring the validity or otherwise of that missing mileage on any given date.

• Mr Bodle only has a provisional car licence, but Mr Manzoor permitted him to drive a 32t tipper on land where public (including other site workers) have access. This is insupportable. The fact Mr Bodle went on a frolic of his own onto the public highway does not cover the full mischief.

• During the interview under caution on 2 November 2021, Mr Manzoor attends with his solicitor and says that he has no injury or illness issues. Mr Manzoor went to the Magistrates’ Court unrepresented in January and February 2022. Mr Manzoor attended court in June 2022 represented by Counsel. Mr Manzoor has been represented by experienced transport solicitors regarding this Inquiry. Mr Manzoor has failed to produce medical evidence which indicates a worsening medical condition since 2022, or which states he is unfit to attend a hearing. On balance, I find that he has chosen to absent himself.

The solicitor’s written representations acknowledge that a formal finding was made at the Magistrates Court that part of Coldharbour Lane is a private road but to which the public has access. As a result, Mr Manzoor was found guilty of the no insurance offence. Mr Manzoor avoided endorsement on his Licence by pleading special reasons, namely that he had a genuinely held belief that no cover was required. Mr Manzoor knew from September 2021 that the Metropolitan Police Commercial Vehicle Unit were taking an interest in his operations. The relevant vehicles had previously been specified on his Operator Licence and only recently removed therefrom. This may be taken as an indicator that Mr Manzoor had a “genuinely held belief” that several regulatory and Road Traffic Act requirements did not apply. That holds limited weight in this specialist regulatory field. As per the Upper Tribunal in 2012/030 MGM Haulage and Recycling Ltd Operators and Transport Manager have deemed knowledge of the advice and guidance in the public domain. Further, where an Operator or Transport Manager are unclear, then specialist advice should be taken.

I note that Mr Manzoor attended an interview under caution with the Police in November 2021 but that relates to criminal proceedings. The interview would not, nor should it, go behind legal advice. A Public Inquiry is just that, an inquisitorial process. The basis of any decision making by Mr Manzoor relevant to my jurisdiction at any given point between September 2021 and March 2023 is unavailable because (i) Mr Manzoor has not attended a Hearing; (ii) the witness statement produced was for the purposes of the criminal proceedings; and (iii) cannot be tested by me. The only area of the Solicitors representations for the Hearing on the 30 March 2023 with which I agree is to discount any reference to ANPR evidence. However, I would have asked him at the Inquiry about what was happening with the vehicles, how they were being fuelled and how they were being maintained and if they went on to the public road and if so for what purpose. I am perfectly entitled to do so, bearing in mind the encounter on the A13 at Wennington and Mr Ordean’s evidence on when he uses a driver card.

Mr Manzoor asks me to discount the condition found of vehicles where the matters were not prosecuted. That misunderstands my role as a safety regulator. By the same analogy how a driver drivers their private car tells me about their approach to road safety and impacts on their ability to hold a vocational driving licence. Vehicles operated by Mr Manzoor were found to be in an unsafe condition. Mr Manzoor does not seem to challenge the defects themselves and in any event the Police evidence is compelling. By way of example the tyre defect on 5 October 2021 - a vehicle in that condition poses a risk to the driver and to others working within the whole site, whether private or not. Section 2 and Section 3 of the Health & Safety at Work etc Act 1974 applies to CMH Haulage and outcomes such as tyre blow out are a matter of chance with serious consequences for anybody in the vicinity.

Mr Manzoor acknowledges he failed to produce to the Police everything required under the Section 99 letter. The fact that this was not prosecuted is irrelevant for my purposes. If Mr Manzoor attended the Inquiry I would have asked him why he failed to do so, as Licence undertakings require records to be maintained for a reason. There is also the overarching duty to co-operate with TCs and enforcement agencies advocated by the Upper Tribunal in several cases. If an Operator fails to comply then I am entitled to think why not; what might the Operator be trying to hide – especially where extensions of time are given as here (pages 69-71). Mr Manzoor is entitled to ‘no comment’ in an interview under caution but an absence of comment in terms of the inquisitorial process does not assist him. Operator Licensing is about having safe systems of work and a robust and diligent approach to safety. The vehicle encountered on the A13 had no driver defect book and only one incomplete driver defect sheet. At the additional encounters there was nothing to suggest that the drivers were undergoing any driver walkaround checks or recording any similar safety check. Not only is such a system unacceptable in terms of Operator Licensing, but it also fails under duties for the Health & Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

Mr Manzoor’s approach on the back of the March 2020 Public Inquiry from September 2021 to April 2022 is disappointing bearing in mind he was the subject of regulatory action as an Operator and had his repute tarnished as a Transport Manager. On the face of this investigation Mr Manzoor learnt little from that experience until far more recently. The copy maintenance records produced for the hearing on 30 March 2023 show some systems in place. I have two PMIs for two vehicles between 30 December 2022 and 10 February 2023. Each has a compliant laden roller brake test. However, questions remain. By way of example, the forms are out of date as there is no check of tyre age (required since 2021) and all the PMIs show identical tyre pressures, strongly indicating only the adjusted pressures are recorded (if there is inflation both must be recorded – an important audit trail). However, the drivers are picking up defects (which supports my assessment of the earlier position set out above in paragraph 24) and there are invoices for repairs. However, they are inconsistent on occasion. By way of example there is an invoice for a windscreen change on 10 February 2023 from KA Commercials, but the driver defect sheet says it was repaired by South East Windscreens. There is a driver defect sheet for a puncture on 15 February 2023, but the invoice required more than that indicating perhaps an underlying issue. I have been unable to explore these matters in Mr Manzoor’s absence. There is evidence of a different tacho analysis company being used (February 2023 invoice). However, it is disappointing that Mr Manzoor failed to comply with the case management directions on page 17 of the brief to send data and records to Sgt Beckers. Sgt Beckers checked his e mail account more than once, including for e mails from Mr Manzoor, his solicitor, and her trainee on 28 March 2023 around 16.51 hrs and there was nothing.

I make a formal finding that the Operator no longer meets the mandatory requirement of financial standing. No evidence was submitted. A last hour surrender request does not negate a Public Inquiry case management direction. In my judgment it is appropriate and proportionate to find the Licence be revoked on the grounds of loss of good repute and lack of professional competence. The latter is because all of my disquiet in relation to Mr Manzoor as an Operator applies equally to him as the Transport Manager. Continuous and effective management of the transport operations requires just that, and safety is paramount whether the vehicles require a Licence or not.

Many Operators have had their Operator Licence revoked after a Health and Safety Executive prosecution, not directly linked to transport operations on the public highway but because of what it signified about their approach to safety. This is similarly the case with environment agency prosecutions. Mr Manzoor needs to revisit his approach in relation to any future business he runs even without this Licence. He cannot pick and choose when to have a safe system of work.

I have stepped back from an order of disqualification in relation to Mr Manzoor as an Operator in light of the voluntary cessation of transport operations just before the hearing. However, I must be crystal clear, Mr Manzoor faces a high hurdle in relation to any new application in demonstrating good repute regained as an Operator. The same applies if he seeks a variation or cancellation of his disqualification as a Transport Manager. Every application turns on its merits at the time. I direct that any future applications or similar linked to Mr Manzoor must be referred to a Traffic Commissioner and there is no delegated authority in that regard.

8. Decision

The application to surrender the Licence is refused.

Pursuant to adverse findings under Section 26(1)(b), (c)(iii), (ca), (e), (f) and (h) and Section 27(1)(a) and (b) of the Goods Vehicle (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995, the Operator no longer meets the requirements of section 13A(2) of the said Act – good repute, financial standing, and professional competence. Accordingly, Licence OF2012950 is revoked with immediate effect.

Upon a finding that the Transport Manager Adnan Manzoor no longer satisfies the requirements of Section 13A(3) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 to be of good repute, in accordance with Schedule 3 of the said Act, and a finding that he is unfit to manage the transport activities of an undertaking, Adnan Manzoor is disqualified from acting as a Transport Manager, on any Operator Licence for an indeterminate period with immediate effect. It is not appropriate to set rehabilitation measures at this time as he has not engaged in the regulatory process, but Adnan Manzoor has liberty to apply for further details in the future.

No direction under Section 28 of the 1995 Act.

8.1 Miss Sarah Bell

Traffic Commissioner

Written decision: 4 December 2023