Decision

Decision for Anthony Morris (PG1002917)

Published 6 April 2023

0.1 In the Welsh Traffic Area

1. Written Decision of the Traffic Commissioner

1.1 Anthony Morris (PG1002917)

2. Background

The operator, Anthony Morris, holds a restricted public service vehicle operator’s licence (PG1002917) authorising one vehicle. The licence was granted on 6 April 2002.

The Driver and Vehicles Standards Agency (“DVSA”) Vehicle Examiner (“VE”) Geraint Dean conducted an investigation visit to examine the operator’s systems for complying with operator licence requirements. VE Dean’s report dated 29 November 2022 is included in the Public Inquiry Brief and highlighted shortcomings in a number of areas including the following:

• The licence is held by Anthony Morris, as a sole trader who is also the Responsible Person on the licence. However, the legal entity operating the vehicle appeared to be a partnership between Paul Herbert and Anthony Morris. The VE was unable to engage with Mr Morris and dealt directly with Mr Herbert who described himself as Mr Morris’ “business partner”. The vehicle operated under the licence was registered to Mr Herbert, maintenance was carried out on the vehicle by Mr Herbert’s son, the vehicle was parked at Mr Herbert’s address and Mr Herbert’s telephone number was displayed on its side with livery for “P & J Travel”. That livery was removed prior to the vehicle being presented for DVSA inspection, however the PI Brief included photographs clearly showing that livery prior to its removal in July 2022;

• The operating centre specified on the licence was WG Thomas Coaches, Porth Bus Depot, Porth. However, when the DVSA visited the operating centre, it was established that the operator was unknown to staff at WG Thomas Coaches, they stated he had never parked vehicles there and had no permission to park there;

• No evidence of any brake performance testing being carried out, no mileages recorded on maintenance inspection reports, no tyre tread depths recorded and evidence of late safety inspection (8 weekly rather than 6 weekly, as specified on the licence);

• Driver defect walkaround checks not being carried out effectively, with pre use inspection only carried out by Mr Herbert once every two weeks and no mileage recorded on driver defect reports;

• The specified maintenance contractor is no longer conducting maintenance. The specified provider had no knowledge of the operator and their systems revealed that they had never seen any of the operator’s vehicles. Maintenance is apparently provided by Mr Herbert’s son, but there was no evidence of a contract, and the operator was unsure of the maintenance workshop address or arrangements for same. VE Dean was therefore unable to establish whether maintenance facilities were adequate;

• The vehicle being used by the operator, displaying the operator’s licence disc, did not have a commercial public service vehicle MOT, but a class 5 private vehicle MOT test (not valid for hire and reward); and

• Mr Morris, the licence holder, and responsible person on the licence, demonstrated no continuous and effective control of the operation. No evidence of any relevant continuous professional development undertaken by him since the licence was granted in 2002 and he failed to engage with the DVSA investigation or respond, as requested, to VE Dean’s report. VE Dean did receive an email from the operator dated 29 November 2022, also included in the PI Brief, in which he indicated that he no longer felt it was worthwhile to retain his licence and asked the VE to “confirm how I return my licence.”

3. Public Inquiry

In light of the information received from the DVSA, the operator was called to a public inquiry for me to consider whether there were grounds for me to intervene in respect of the licence held by Anthony Morris, specifically by reference to the following sections of the Act: 16(3), 17(2), 17(3)(a), 17(3)(aa), 17(3)(d) and 14ZB(a) and (b) and section 28 of the Transport Act 1985.

The public inquiry was held in Pontypridd on 21 March 2023. The operator attended, unrepresented. He had not sent the required evidence of financial resources nor the maintenance documentation which had been requested in the call up letter. He explained that he believed that he had surrendered the licence in December 2022 and had destroyed the licence disc and other licence documentation. During a short adjournment, my clerk established that, although Mr Morris had started the online process attempting to surrender his licence, he had not completed that process and the licence was still live. Mr Morris accepted that he had not completed the surrender process and that, even if he had gone through to the final stage in that online process, he understood that I would not have accepted his surrender request given these ongoing regulatory proceedings. VE Dean of the DVSA also attended the hearing.

4. Evidence

I heard oral evidence from VE Dean, who adopted his evidence included in the Public Inquiry Brief, and his additional statement of 8 March 2023, which confirmed that he did not receive any recent maintenance documents for analysis prior to the inquiry which the operator was asked to send him. In response to questions from me he clarified and confirmed some aspects of his report regarding the lack of engagement with Mr Morris, what he was told by Mr Herbert (who appeared to him to be operating the licence) and the differences between a private MOT test as opposed to the test for commercial vehicles and why this was a matter of concern for DVSA. Mr Morris questioned VE Dean about why he had not made more strenuous efforts to speak to him directly, for example, why he had not rung the doorbell at his home address and spoken to him, when VE Dean had posted a letter through his letterbox.

In his oral evidence, Mr Morris explained that he worked full time as a carpet estimator/fitter and had done for the past 29 years. He had held this operator’s licence since 2002 and had initially had a contract with Freeman’s cigar factory in Cardiff to transport its workers but when that ended some years ago it had become more of a “hobby” and, with Mr Herbert, he thought it might be something that they could both do in retirement. He maintained that he was still the operator of this licence, but that because he was so busy in his day job, he left things to Mr Herbert to sort out, including taking the vehicle for inspection and liaising with the DVSA. His evidence was that he and Mr Herbert were not yet business partners, despite what Mr Herbert told the DVSA examiner and the fact that Mr Herbert’s number and livery was written on the vehicle. He accepted “with hindsight” that those shouldn’t have been written on there. He explained that Mr Herbert was thinking of applying for his own licence but he thought Mr Herbert was using the vehicle for private use. He accepted that he had not used the nominated operating centre for many years, nor informed my office of change to maintenance provider, putting this down to oversight. When asked why he had signed the declaration to continue the licence, as recently as March last year, which stated that the operating centre and maintenance provider were still those at WG Thomas site, Bus Depot at Porth, when he knew this to be false, he apologised and again put this down to “oversight”.

5. Findings of fact

I make the following findings based on the evidence before me and on the balance of probabilities:

The operator made statements when applying for the licence which were false or have not been fulfilled, specifically that vehicles would be inspected at the promised intervals, that the vehicle would normally be kept at the designated operating centre, that safety inspections and maintenance repair work would be carried out by the designated maintenance provider and the operator would abide by licence conditions (section 17(3)(a) of the Act refers);

The operator has failed to fulfil the undertakings he signed up to when he applied for the licence, namely to keep vehicles fit and serviceable; to report promptly any defects that could prevent the safe operation of vehicles and report defects promptly in writing; to keep records for 15 months of driver defect reports, safety inspections and routine maintenance and make them available on request, and to inform my office immediately of any changes which could affect the licence (section 17(3)(aa) of the Act refers);

By failing to provide the financial evidence and maintenance records in advance of the public inquiry, and by failing to engage personally with the DVSA during its investigation or to respond to VE Dean’s report, as requested, the operator has shown that he is not fit to hold an operator’s licence. I found that he no longer remains of good repute (as determined in accordance with paragraph 1 of Schedule 3 to the Act) and, furthermore, he is no longer operating this licence as a sole trader, with another legal entity apparently operating the vehicle. Anthony Morris has demonstrated no management control of the licence. In the absence of evidence of finances, I cannot be satisfied that the operator continues to have appropriate financial standing (as determined in accordance with paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 to the Act) (sections17(3)(d) and 14ZB(a) and (b) of the Act refers).

6. Considerations and decisions in respect of Anthony Morris

Aside from the lack of previous unsatisfactory maintenance investigations and adverse compliance history, I consider that there is little else to put on the positive side of the balance. The operator’s failure to respond to the DVSA findings and failure to provide the evidence requested for public inquiry meant that he has passed up the opportunity of demonstrating how he is acting in compliance with the licensing requirements. No evidence was provided to show that he has been doing so. I note that as recently as 5 March 2022, when the operator applied for a continuation of this licence and signed a declaration that all the information included was correct (page 22 of the Public Inquiry Brief), he stated that the operating centre was at the WG Thomas site, Bus Depot at Porth and that this was also the address where his safety inspections were carried out. That was patently false and again goes to the question of repute. The negative features of this case, as set out in my findings above, significantly outweigh those limited positives.

I find the answer to the Priority Freight (2009/225) question of how likely is it that the operator will comply in the future to be “unlikely”. That is in view of the findings I have made and outlined above. In considering the Bryan Haulage (no.2)(2002/217) question “is the conduct such that the operator ought to be put out of business?”, I have had regard to the positive and negative features of the case. However, the evidence demonstrates to me that the operator fails to run his vehicle in a compliant manner, he is no longer fit to hold an operator’s licence and nor does he have the appropriate financial standing to do so. I note and accept Mr Morris’ evidence that he believed he had surrendered his licence in December 2022, but chose to come to the inquiry to explain himself and apologise. He has no intention of ever operating a vehicle commercially again, and just wants to move on. He stated that revocation of his licence would have no impact on him whatsoever. I consider it proportionate and appropriate to answer the Bryan Haulage question in the affirmative and revoke the licence with effect from 23:45 hours on 31 March 2023.

I make no order for disqualification under section 28 of the Act.

Victoria Davies

Traffic Commissioner for Wales

29 March 2023