Decision

Decision for CSAG Merchants Limited (OH2065276)

Published 11 January 2024

0.1 In the Western Traffic Area

1. Written Decision of the Traffic Commissioner

1.1 CSAG Merchants Limited (OH2065276)

2. BACKGROUND

This is an application lodged on 27 April 2023 and seeking a restricted licence for two vehicles by CSAG MERCHANTS LIMITED. The director is Shakilbai Tai. The applicant did not declare any licence history on the application however a caseworker search identified that Mr Tai had been a director of Cheltenham Sand and Gravel Ltd which previously held licence OH1122893 which was revoked on 12 July 2018. His date of birth on that licence was slightly different, being the 20th of the month, not the 12th as now.

The applicant requested an interim in the following terms: “Due to our upcoming workload we are in need of an O licence and an interim please as this can assist us in managing the workload efficiently and start operating as soon as.” On 3 May a letter was issued to the applicant querying the undeclared licence, a written explanation on how the business had been meeting its transport needs since previously, and confirmation of the director’s correct date of birth.

The applicant uploaded their response on 9 May. Mr Tai said:

“I previously was a director with CHELTENHAM SAND & GRAVEL LTD with Mr A Capaldi. I didn’t play a hands on role with this company. I assumed Mr Capaldi had all bits regards to company in his name. Once we parted ways and the company was dissolved I started CSAG MERCHANTS solely in my control. We parted not under amicable ways hence when I emailed with regards to details for old company I had no response.

Since new company opened we have been using 3 small trucks with a max gross weight 3500kg. I am running more of a merchants where our company relys (sic) on collection of goods. All big loads are delivered directly from suppliers.

The reason for application is the rising costs of materials delivered. We are looking at purchasing 8 wheelers to collect materials directly which after costings is going to benefit our pricing.”

The applicant provided his passport and it showed his correct date of birth as the 20th of the month.

It was noted that the bank statement showed tax paid for GN58EXE, a 7.5 tonne Mitsubishi truck whose last V5 had been issued in 2019. The MOT history showed that it had been in general use throughout that period. ANPR data was requested from the Driver & Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA). It identified that the vehicle had been sighted on fifty occasions during the month of March. An explanation was requested.   

The applicant responded on 21 June saying:

“Vehicle registration GN58EXE is a 7,500kg grab lorry we have used within yard as a backup to load sand/gravel into bags. This vehicle was not used on public highway for the carriage of goods in connection with our trade or business. Currently is parked at Staverton Commercial Services and has been there for past 5/6 weeks undergoing major work in order to make it ready when/if our operator licence will be granted.

Additionally, we contacted Transport Consultant to help us with implementation and management of all necessary compliance system.

DVSA conducted another search in on 5 September which recorded six sightings. I called the application to a hearing.

3. THE PUBLIC INQUIRY

No-one has attended for the applicant today. The applicant wrote yesterday morning seeking to withdraw the application:

  “Hi

Csag merchants ltd

We sent in writing that we no longer require an operators license and do not need a public enquiry

We have decided not to go forward with a licence we have changes the way we are going to go forward

We have not received any confirmation regards to this as we were meant to have a an enquiry on the  14th

Sent from my iPhone”

I declined in the following terms:

  “The application has raised the issue of illegal operation and I find it is the public interest for the application to be determined at public inquiry. The applicant may make further representations why I should accept withdrawal. Whether the applicant wishes to attend is a matter for the applicant. My decision for now is that the hearing will go ahead.”

I proceed to make a decision.

4. FINDINGS OF FACT

The ANPR evidence supports a finding that the vehicle has been in use illegally. I add to that the MOT history which I compiled for the public record in preparation for the inquiry and dates from the issue of the last V5 in 2019:

17 February 2020	205657 km
13 May 2021	225316 km
18 May 2022	240010 km
15 June 2023	253039 km
20 June 2023	253086 km

Having not attended, the applicant cannot assist with an explanation of the 50,000 kms covered since its apparent acquisition of the vehicle, supposedly moving material around its yard.

It is clear to me, well beyond the balance of probabilities, that the applicant has been using a vehicle unlawfully for years.

I find as a fact that the applicant made a false statement on the application form in relation to his date of birth and to his previous licensing history. He either did that personally, or he failed to check the form as completed by the transport consultant prior to its submission.

5. DETERMINATION

In Aspey Trucks Ltd 2010 – 49, the Upper Tribunal comments on the difference between finding a loss of repute in an existing haulier and whether or not a new applicant to the industry met the standard to be of good repute:

“In a case such as this, the Deputy Traffic Commissioner was not looking at putting someone out of business. Rather, he was deciding whether or not to give his official seal of approval to a person seeking to join an industry where those licensed to operate on a Standard National or Standard International basis must, by virtue of S.13(3), prove upon entry to it that they are of good repute. In this respect, Traffic Commissioners are the gatekeepers to the industry - and the public, other operators, and customers and competitors alike, all expect that those permitted to join the industry will not blemish or undermine its good name, or abuse the privileges that it bestows. What does “Repute” mean if it does not refer to the reasonable opinions of other properly interested right-thinking people, be they members of the public or law-abiding participants in the industry?”

The same principle clearly applies to fitness in relation to an application. The combination of false statement and illegal operation cause me to find that the applicant is unfit to be the holder of a restricted goods vehicle operator’s licence.

Section 13B, fitness, fails to be satisfied. The application is refused.

Kevin Rooney

Traffic Commissioner

14 December 2023