Decision

Decision for B S L Transport Ltd (OB2056904) & Shannon Long, Proposed Transport Manager

Published 30 January 2023

0.1 In the North Eastern Traffic Area

1. Written Decision of the Deputy Traffic Commissioner

1.1 B S L Transport Ltd (OB2056904) & Shannon Long, Proposed Transport Manager

1.2 The application:

B S L Transport Ltd is an applicant for a Standard International Goods Vehicle Operator’s licence for 4 vehicles (one of which is a light goods vehicle) and 4 trailers. The application was made on 24 May 2022. The company’s sole director is Sarah Mounsey. Shannon Long was nominated as Transport Manager (TM).

1.3 History:

B S L Transport Ltd had held a Standard International Goods Vehicle Operator’s licence for 3 vehicles and 4 trailers since 6 April 2018 (OB2008091). That operator’s licence was however revoked, following a Public Inquiry held on 2 November 2020, on findings made in accordance with Section 26 (1) (h) and Section 27 (1) (a) of the Act.

Deputy Traffic Commissioner (DTC) Harrington had recorded that despite “extended opportunities afforded to the operator to meet the mandatory [REDACTED], the operator had failed to do so. Revocation of the licence had though been deferred by her until the 23.59 hours on 28 February 2021.

No order was made disqualifying the operator. Helpfully, the DTC declared the following in her written reasons:

The short continuation of this licence before revocation shall take effect to enable the operator to arrange an orderly transfer or wind down of its business or, if it intends to continue to operate goods vehicles in circumstances requiring an operator’s licence to make that use lawful, to submit a timely application with all required supporting documentation so that this can be considered and determined before the date and time revocation shall automatically take effect. No extension of that date and time will be granted so an early application with all necessary documentation will be required.

She continued:

The company will need to satisfy the Traffic Commissioner by reliable evidence on application that the requirements of the Act shall and will continue to be met for the application, including financial standing. Given the history of this licence, the company is advised to take professional advice in making its application and to refer to the STC statutory documents found online, including STC Statutory Document No.2 on Finance.

1.4 This and earlier applications:

The application now before me is, in fact, the sixth such new application made by this operator since December 2020. Each of the preceding five applications has not resulted in the grant of a licence. The central issue with each failed application was the inability to satisfy the financial standing requirement.

The table below summarises the details of those applications and the outcome:

Application	Date Application made	Outcome	Date of Withdrawal/Refusal
OB2039825	8 December 2020	Withdrawn	28 January 2021
OB2041195	28 February 2021	Withdrawn	13 May 2021
OB2046767	3 July 2021	Refused	16 September 2021
OB2049343	16 November 2021	Refused	7 February 2022
OB2055558	14 April 2022	Refused	23 May 2022

Notwithstanding that the former licence had terminated on 28 February 2021, and that no interim licence had since been granted, vehicles continued to be operated. I was told that financial pressures underlay these unlawful acts which were said to be regretted.

One of those vehicles was however encountered by DVSA on the A14 on 15 April 2021. Subsequently, at Ipswich Magistrates’ Court on 15 September 2021, B S L pleaded guilty to the allegation using a vehicle whilst an operator’s licence was not in force. A financial penalty of £800 was imposed.

I noted the applicant’s contention had been that B S L, having made a new application for a licence in succession to that which had been revoked, understood that the continued operation of vehicle was lawful. It should be noted that during the application process for any new licence that correspondence issued by the Central Licensing Office carries a caption in heavy type (such as at page 70 of the brief in this case) advising that applicants may not operate vehicles for which goods vehicle operator’s licence is required, until formally granted that authority by a Traffic Commissioner. Further that if they did do so that matters would be brought to the attention of the Commissioner with the risk that the full application would be refused.

Further, in relation the current application, as part of the preparation for this hearing, a statement was requested and obtained from those that hold ANPR data (Automated Number Plate Recognition) for the period 10 June 2022 to 6 September 2022 concerning the movements of B S L vehicles. The statement reports that company vehicles YE66 XUX and YX66 NKA were extensively captured by ANPR on the road network across virtually that whole period: 96 sightings for the for YE66 XUX and as many as 324 sightings for YX66 NKA. Whilst the report was served on the applicant director and an explanation requested, none was forthcoming before this hearing.

1.5 The Hearing:

When the inquiry was called-on Sarah Mounsey, director was found to be absent for personal reasons, but she had authorised her partner, David Lister, who worked in the business as a manager, to act on her behalf for the company. I decided to proceed on that basis. It was not clear why the proposed TM Shannon Long, who had been invited to appear, was absent but Mr Lister described oversight. The company was not represented.

[REDACTED]

During questioning about the continued operation of vehicles without a licence, Mr Lister produced a letter from the Office of the Traffic Commissioner dated 19 July 2022 (which has since been retained by me). The letter purports to show that an interim application had been granted to B S L on that date. I noted however that the second paragraph of it was littered with grammatical and spelling errors and provides an inconsistent message. Mr Lister told me that in July 2022 Shannon Long had downloaded and printed the letter and informed him of the position. He offered assurance that there was no attempt to deceive by producing it.

Having paused the hearing to check the position, since it was my understanding that no interim licence had been granted, my staff provided me with a copy of a refusal (of interim authority) letter which had been sent to the applicant on the same date. Comparing the two, it is quite clear that a very clumsy attempt has been made to transform the “refusal letter” into a “grant letter”. Mr Lister could not explain to me why, if the applicant truly believed that the letter confirmed the grant of an interim licence that the request for explanation of ANPR statement had not been answered in that fashion. It was offered nevertheless that vehicles had since 6 September 2022 been parked up.

At the end of the hearing, I had permitted Mr Lister to report back to the director, Ms Mounsey, my provisional conclusion that I had been presented with a forged letter by Mr Lister and to enable her to address the circumstances in which it came to be created and presented in evidence.

On 5 October 2022, a letter from Mr Lister (rather than Ms Mounsey) was provided to my office. It claimed that “no B S L staff have altered any documents from VOSA to help advance” the application. He speculated that a former, dismissed member of B S L staff, with access to office IT, might have done so but that attempts to locate the named individual had been unsuccessful.

1.6 Findings

In the positive: Having considered what written evidence there is, and evaluating what I have been told, I am unable to find anything materially positive to weigh in the balance.

As to the negatives, I find that blatant attempts have been made to deceive me into granting an operator’s licence. The production of what must have been clear to the applicant to be a forged letter only serves to compound what I must regard as a hopeless application. I conclude that the speculation that a former “warehouse operative” might have forged the letter “as a favour” to his bosses to be spurious, the more so that the director or/and TM would be taken in by what is patently a false document and have a manager present it at a Public Inquiry a contemptible and unworthy act. I further note that no attempt at all has been made apologise for producing false evidence at a Public Inquiry.

I conclude on the balance of probabilities, that financial standing is not met. No current financial evidence has been produced, it is admitted that if statements were to be produced funds would be inadequate, much as they have been for the other five unsuccessful applications and the licence revoked in 2021. The grant of a period of grace against this background would be entirely inappropriate.

There has been widespread unlawful operation of vehicles when it will have been plain to the operator that such use was not permitted. A court hearing and criminal conviction is recorded in the case of this company. The same message repeated in many pieces of correspondence that no assumptions can be made about the grant of interim authority would have been obvious to the applicant. I find the contention that the applicant has been confused or simply in error, to be disingenuous. The attempts to persuade me that the applicant wants to do things ‘by the book’, is an entirely hollow one.

1.7 Consideration and decision:

This is of course the company’s application, and that the onus is on it to satisfy me that it has the necessary good repute to hold the licence, that arrangements for the running of vehicles are sound, and that there is a sufficiency of financial resources to ensure that vehicles will be operated in fit and serviceable condition.

I have described in my findings above the balancing factors relevant to my decision in this case.

The Upper Tribunal decision in the case of Aspey Trucks Ltd (2010/49) makes clear the role of the Traffic Commissioner as “the gatekeeper” to the haulage industry, when considering new applications. Those who are allowed entry must satisfy the Traffic Commissioner of their good repute. In answering that question whether I am so satisfied in respect of this application, I need to be awake to what the public, other operators, and customers and competitors alike would expect of those permitted to join the industry that they will not blemish or undermine its good name or abuse the privileges it bestows.

I find on the balance of probabilities that the requirement of good repute is not met. Repute is not defined in the legislation, but I am satisfied that I cannot presently look beyond the circumstances in which vehicles have been operated when they have been for so long unlawfully and that attempts have been made to deceive at a Public Inquiry. It would not be fair or proportionate to allow this application to succeed.

I therefore refuse the application in accordance with sections 13A (2) (b) and Schedule 3 of the Act.

I direct that any future application by this company, Sarah Mounsey, David Lister or Shannon Long in respect of any operator’s licence application be referred to a Traffic Commissioner for scrutiny, and likely consideration at a Public Inquiry.

Simon Evans

Deputy Traffic Commissioner for the North East of England

10 October 2022