Decision

Decision for Arrow Mixed Concrete Ltd

Published 8 June 2022

1. DECISION OF THE DEPUTY TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER IN THE NORTH EAST OF ENGLAND

In the matter of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (the Act)

2. Arrow Mixed Concrete Ltd OB2034163

3. Public Inquiry held at Leeds on 18 November 2021

4. Background and history:

This company has been the holder of a restricted goods vehicle operator’s licence for 15 vehicles and 3 trailers since 19 August 2020. The sole director is Ms Stacey Jackson. Since the grant of the licence only one vehicle has ever been specified, that is MX08 HGE from 11 October 2021.

There have been no roadworthiness or traffic encounters, nor any vehicle presentation for MOT since the grant of the licence.

An application by another business to use its nominated operating centre in Batley led the Office of the Traffic Commissioner to request compliance information on 11 May 2021. A response on 27 May 2021 from Stacey Jackson was to the effect that:

• Only vehicles 3.5 tonnes had been used up to then and that there was no maintenance contractor.

• The lease for the operating centre was provided but it was an unexecuted document.

• Whilst bank statements produced evidenced continuing balances meeting the financial standing requirement, there were large payments to and from Hemmingway Aggregates Ltd and a substantial payment made to Jakes Truck Shop, who had been the operator’s originally nominated PMI contractor.

A subsequent investigation begun in July 2021 by DVSA also raised concerns about the links of the operator to Hetton Transport Ltd (a licence that has since been revoked) and AST Logistics Ltd (called to a Public Inquiry alongside this operator and which has now been revoked).

When visiting the nominated operating centre on 13 July 2021, Traffic Enforcement Manager (TEM) Berriman was told by staff on site, who wore clothing emblazoned with the logo “AST” that Arrow owned the premises but that Stacey Jackson, its director did not use the site.

LGVs were however photographed there; one bore the lettering of Arrow Mix (sic) Concrete and another, Hetton Transport, on which it was listed. Three other vehicles were present, but no link could be made to any operator’s licence.

5. The call-up to Public Inquiry:

Papers served for this hearing referred to breach of a condition attached to the licence, breaches of the statement of intent (particularly concerned with notifying material changes including maintenance inspection arrangements) and material change since the grant of the licence, in terms of the operator’s fitness and the sufficiency of financial resources. Further, the company was made aware of the power of the Traffic Commissioner to disqualify it and/or its director, in the event of revocation of the licence at the hearing.

Since the issue of the calling-in letter, despite efforts made, there has been no direct contact made by my office with the operator in relation to the Public Inquiry. No confirmation of attendance has been provided. None of the requested documentation around financial resources, maintenance records or driver management has been provided. My clerk had called the number held on the licensing system for Arrow Mixed Concrete Ltd. It had diverted to a voicemail for a ‘Nick Hudson’, a voicemail was left but when he returned the call, he appeared to know nothing about operator licensing, or Arrow Mixed Concrete Ltd.

No one was present on behalf of the company when the Public Inquiry began. No financial evidence was provided, no representations had been made, nor any evidence that might have demonstrated compliance with licence terms.

I determined to deal with the operator in its absence, concluding that it had voluntarily chosen not to attend. I was satisfied that service of the calling-in letter had been achieved at the correspondence address held for it.

This is a licence which has been running for little more than 12 months. Albeit there are no prohibitions or MOT failures under consideration, neither the operator nor its director have done anything that gives me any confidence all that I can have the necessary trust and confidence in the company, as a licence holder. There has been an unnotified change to the maintenance arrangements, no evidence that the vehicle is in fit and serviceable condition, or that the company has the finance to keep the vehicle in that condition, nor that a suitable operating centre is available when it is not in use. The director appears to have limited understanding of the responsibilities of a licence holder to its regulator, it does not recognise the priority the licence undertakings, or that when requested, it should evidence that the compliant operation of the single vehicle recently added and be prepared to address concerns about its links with the Hetton Transport Ltd and AST Logistics Ltd

I conclude in the circumstances that it is right and wholly proportionate that the company be excluded from the licensed regime at this time. It is entirely unacceptable that an operator should choose to ignore a call to Public Inquiry.

Revocation is to take place immediately.

It is appropriate that I exercise the power to disqualify both the company and its director, Stacey Jackson from holding or obtaining an operator’s licence in the future. In the absence of any explanation and the opportunity to ask questions, it is of course more difficult to judge the length of any period of disqualification. In that event, I shall impose an indeterminate period. Either the company, or Stacey Jackson may give notice that they wish to make application to appear before me at a future date to give evidence that might enable me to set down a specific length for the disqualification.

For the avoidance of any doubt, however -

• The revocation of the licence referred to above is effective immediately.

• No large goods vehicles may be operated and if one was, it would be at risk of being detained and impounded.

Simon Evans

Deputy Traffic Commissioner for the North East of England

23 November 2021.