Decision

Decision for Battery Reclamation Ltd

Published 21 July 2021

0.1 IN THE EASTERN TRAFFIC AREA

1. BATTERY RECLAMATION LTD – OF2040097

2. CONFIRMATION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER’S DECISION

3. Background

Battery Reclamation Ltd seeks a Restricted Goods Vehicle Operator’s Licence authorising 1 vehicle only. The Director is Justin Barker.

There is one proposed Operating Centre at Iron Sidings, Travellers Lane, Welham Green, Hatfield AL9 7HF. The applicant proposes using S & B Commercials PLC to undertake Preventative Maintenance Inspections at 8-weekly intervals.

Mr Barker was previously linked with OF1093919, held by Sovchem Waste Solutions Ltd, until it was revoked on 17 December 2013. An attempt to vary the licence alerted the Office of the Traffic Commissioner to the fact that the company had entered liquidation in July 2013. There was no notification.

Mr Barker was also linked with an application, OF1125545, made by Metal Reclamation Investments LLP on 13 November 2013. The applicant later withdrew the application following a failure to respond to correspondence regarding the above. It made a further application, OF1127808, on 23 January 2014. The application was refused at Public Inquiry in 2015, the applicant having failed to satisfy the Deputy Traffic Commissioner that it was fit to hold an operator’s licence (pages 43 to 45). The decision records a finding of unlawful operation over a notable period. The company subsequently entered liquidation in May 2015 and was dissolved in October 2017.

4. Hearing

The Public Inquiry was listed for 24 June 2021, in Tribunal Room 1 of the Office of the Traffic Commissioner in Cambridge. The applicant failed to appear.

5. Issues

The applicant was notified of the issues with its application in a letter dated 27 January 2021 (page 36). It then requested a public inquiry. The hearing was listed to allow the applicant opportunity to satisfy me that the statutory requirements are met and specifically by reference to the following sections of the Goods Vehicle (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995:

• 13B – fitness

• 13C(2) – arrangements for complying with the requirements on drivers’ hours

• 13C(3) – arrangements to prevent overloading

• 13C(4) – arrangements and facilities for maintaining the vehicle

• 13D – the finance to support maintenance

The applicant was directed to lodge evidence in support including the proposed maintenance systems and access to the required £3,100, by 10 June 2021. A previous deposit was described as an insurance pay out against damage to a shredder. The finance documentation was sufficient to satisfy me as against section 13D, at that date, but an explanation was required as to its availability.

6. Determination

The application was lodged on 18 December 2020, but failed to notify the involvement of another Director, Georgie Byles (page 23). Mr Barker indicated that no other application has been refused, despite the Public Inquiry in 2015.

Mr Barker declared the insolvency of Tyre Reclamation Ltd, which went into liquidation in January 2020, with the statement of affairs, suggesting that of the £181,000 owing, £146,000 of that debt was due to HMRC.

The application failed to refer to the circumstances of Metal Reclamation Investment LLP and the £218,000 owed including £200,000 owed to HMRC.

An email of 11 January 2021 suggests that the applicant’s current transport needs are provided through a 3.5 tonne vehicle or other recycling companies collecting goods from the yard. Mr Barker referred to Sovchem Waste Solutions Ltd (OF1093919) as a much larger entity from whom he employed the transport manager. He was apparently put in charge of hiring drivers for Sovchem. Mr Barker suggests that he retained a driver with a ‘fake’ driver’s licence, who was not qualified to drive a 7.5 tonne vehicle. He refers to these ‘staffing errors’ as the cause for the revocation. He describes a much smaller operation by this applicant and the involvement of his daughter.

Mr Barker telephoned the Office of the Traffic Commissioner on 14 June 2021 to indicate that he was unable meet the directions to lodge specimen maintenance documentation, as he had been “unwell”. Bank statements were subsequently provided. He was reminded on 21 June 2021 that the maintenance documentation was required. He has been unable to provide an acceptable reason or medical evidence to explain the failure to supply. It was also noticed that Mr Barker continues to send correspondence referring to “The Reclamation Group”.

As the Office of the Traffic Commissioner had received no further communication, the Clerk telephoned the applicant immediately prior to the hearing. It was only then suggested that the licence was no longer required, and that the speaker had meant to email the tribunal last night. The applicant was asked to formally communicate that decision in writing but failed to do so.

This is an application, and the onus remains with the applicant to the point of determination. The applicant has failed to pursue its request promptly or at all, resulting in a waste of limited tribunal time and resource. It remains the case that the applicant has failed to satisfy me to the civil standard that it meets the requirements under sections 13B, 13C(2), 13C(3), 13C(4) and 13D, so I refuse the application on that basis.

Richard Turfitt

Traffic Commissioner

24 June 2021