Decision

Decision for Emma Melton t/a JRC Greounworks

Published 21 July 2021

0.1 IN THE EASTERN TRAFFIC AREA

1. EMMA MELTON t/a JRC GROUNDWORKS – OF2038916

2. WRITTEN CONFIRMATION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER’S DECISION

3. Background

Emma Melton seeks a Restricted Goods Vehicle Operator’s Licence authorising 1 vehicle only.

The applicant has proposed use of one Operating Centre at St Leonards Farm, Waltham Abbey EN9 2HG. She has proposed that Paul Murdoch (in fact GB Fleet Maintenance) undertakes Preventative Maintenance Inspections of the vehicle at 8 weekly intervals. The application refers to vehicle AS61 CFS.

The applicant had already indicated her willingness to provide financial evidence in her name covering February, March, and April 2021, by 31 May 2021 to meet the prescribed level of finance through an average balance. ## Hearing

The hearing was originally listed for 18 May 2021, in Tribunal Room 1 of the Office of the Traffic Commissioner in Cambridge, but eventually took place on 14 June 2021. The applicant was present and represented by Carolyn Evans of CE Transport Law.

4. Issues

The Preliminary Hearing was called to allow the applicant opportunity to satisfy me that the statutory criteria are met and specifically by reference to the following sections of the Goods Vehicle (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995:

• 13B – fit to meet the requirements of the operator’s licence.

• 13C(2) – satisfactory arrangements to meet the requirements on drivers’ hours and tachographs.

• 13C(4) – satisfactory arrangements and facilities to meet the requirements for maintenance and not prejudiced by a lack of finance – 13D.

The applicant was originally directed to lodge evidence in support by 4 May 2021 to include admissible financial evidence. A statement dated 26 May 2021 was lodged, together with accompanying documents.

5. Determination

The financial evidence previously submitted in support of the application relied on a closing balance. I was provided with screenshots from two accounts, both said to be in the name of the applicant; neither was clearly defined as being for business. I was told that the business had not traded to a noticeable degree. There was an obvious need to separate finances to demonstrate a commercial approach to operations.

In processing the application it was noticed that the nominated site had been named on an application made by an Alex Roberts in November 2020. The applicant confirmed that Mr Roberts is her civil partner, and it is proposed that he will drive the vehicle. In evidence I was told that there is now an existing business agreement with this applicant for her use the site as an Operating Centre. Her written statement described aspirations to construct an office at the proposed site in due course.

Mr Roberts apparently made an application (OF1125431), which was refused on 7 July 2014 as he was then an undischarged bankrupt. The Insolvency Register suggests that this might remain the case. In evidence I was told that Mr Roberts had failed to pursue the discharge of his bankruptcy order. He is apparently more interested in pursuing the operational side of this groundworks business, with Ms Melton left to meet the financial and compliance elements of the business. However, he remains self-employed and retains ownership of the vehicle. The written statement refers to a position where Ms Melton will be invoiced for spot hire, whilst also meeting the costs of maintenance and running. In those circumstances I was concerned that the operator’s licence would provide more benefit to Mr Roberts than the applicant.

I noted that Ms Melton had attended Operator Licence Awareness Training on 9 May 2021. Her statement referred to the involvement of a John Seabrook, who was recently the subject of adverse comments from Deputy Traffic Commissioner, Mr Dorrington. As the application is for a Restricted licence, I explained that I was interested in the applicant’s fitness to manage the requirements of an operator’s licence. Ms Melton was able to describe the facilities available to her maintenance contractor. She was unable to read a roller brake test printout but assured me that the vehicle would be presented for a laden RBT at every Preventative Maintenance Inspection. That said, the form produced did not accord with the specimen to be found in the Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness and was in fact entitled a ‘Job Card’. I noted an invoice to show that the applicant had purchased her own PMI and driver defect report forms. The applicant was advised to inquire about beam testing and the contractor’s HGV first-time pass rate at annual test.

I agreed to hold my decision in abeyance for a period of 14 days, to allow the applicant opportunity to make further representations:

• To show a formal hire agreement giving the applicant sole control of the proposed vehicle.

• To show the PMI forms to be utilised by the contractor going forwards (may form a statement of intent).

• To show proof of a separate business account, which might be checked before substantive grant.

• To consider an application for a time-limited interim pursuant to section 24(6) so as to show compliance.

I refer to the letter dated 22 June 2021, from Ms Evans, which confirms that the applicant has now purchased a vehicle from Mr Roberts. There is an indication that he will now try to resolve his bankruptcy issues.

It is acknowledged that the inspection pro-forma proposed by the maintenance contractor was not acceptable, and I accept the statement of intent that the Novadata sheet provided will be used, going forward (subject to update). I am pleased to note that the contractor apparently has 100% pass rate for the last 12 months, even acknowledging the issues experienced during the lock downs. I am told that the applicant is due to attend the contractor’s premises on the 26 June 2021, to receive training on how to interpret brake performance tests.

I am referred to a separate bank account for the business, following a transfer of funds from the applicant’s existing savings account. This will be redesignated as a business bank account once more regular opening hours are restored.

On that basis I can now accede to the operator’s request for interim authority limited to a period of 6-months from the date of this decision, pursuant to section 24(6). In order to obtain substantive grant, the operator has offered to supply an independent audit to be carried out by the RHA, Logistics UK or other suitable independent body, assessing compliance with the operator licence requirements. A copy of the audit report, together with the operator’s detailed proposals for implementing the report’s recommendations, must be sent to the Office of the Traffic Commissioner in Cambridge to allow a final decision before expiry of the time-limited interim licence.

Richard Turfitt

Traffic Commissioner

29 June 2021