Decision

Decision for Goss Mini Skips Ltd (OK1113708)

Published 18 January 2024

0.1 In the South Eastern & Metropolitan Traffic Area

1. Traffic Commissioner’s Written Confirmation of Oral Decision.

1.1 Goss Mini Skips Ltd (OK1113708)

1.2 Reasons

There are some cases where it is only necessary to set out the conduct in question to make it apparent that good repute is lost, and a Licence should be revoked and an Operator put out of business. The authority for that is 2012/034 Martin Joseph Formby t/a G&G Transport, 2012/020 A+ Logistics Ltd. Although this is a Restricted licence, the principle is apposite and though the inevitability of revocation is rightly conceded, on the facts of this case Formby is relevant to disqualification too.

In terms of potential disqualification, the relevant case law and principles are set out in Chapter 13 of the Upper Tribunals Digest of Traffic Commissioner Appeals (2023) and Statutory Document No. 10 paragraphs 64 – 69 and 107 – 109. Disqualification is a potentially significant infringement of rights, and the Upper Tribunal has indicated that whilst there is no ‘additional feature’ required to order disqualification the Operator/individual are entitled to know the reasons. Disqualification is not always ordered in addition to revocation. As per 2009/011 Katherine Oliver and J W Swan & Partners, Catch22Bus Limited, Philip Higgs v The Secretary of State for Transport [2019] EWCA Civ 1022:     

“The case law indicates a general principle that at the time the disqualification order is made that the operator cannot be trusted to comply with the regulatory regime and that the objectives of the system, the protection of the public and fairness to other operators, requires that the operator be disqualified. Each case must turn on its own merits”. 

 It follows that there are cases in which the seriousness of the conduct is such that revocation and disqualification are necessary for the purposes of enforcing the legal framework. I recall the reminder by the then Transport Tribunal in 2007/459 KDL European Ltd, which included:

“We are satisfied of the need “to make an example of the operator so as to send a warning to the industry as a whole”.

  This is consistent with the approach by the five-judge Court of Session in the Thomas Muir case (see paragraph 2(xiii) above) where deterrence is expressly mentioned (“in particular for the purpose of deterring the operator or other persons from failing to carry out their responsibilities under the legislation”).  This is not by way of punishment per se but, as Lord Cullen said, is “in order to assist in the achievement of the purpose of the legislation”.

I am satisfied again that this is such a case and I hope that when reading about it Operators, Transport Managers and drivers will be in no doubt as to the views which Traffic Commissioners take towards the behaviours demonstrated by Mr Dudman and I will come to those behaviours in a moment.   

In relation to the Senior Traffic Commissioners Statutory Document No 10 the starting point for disqualification after a first Public Inquiry is one to three years, but serious cases may merit disqualification of between five and ten years or indefinite disqualification. In relation to this case, the absence of any regard by Mr Dudman for anything other than his own self-interest and commercial needs undermines the bedrock principle for which Operator Licensing regime exists, namely road safety and fair competition – a level playing field for the benefit of all operators.

As to the appropriate length of disqualification, I have reminded myself of the helpful guidance in 2012/044 Highland Car Crushers Ltd, 2012/56 & 57 Deep Transport Ltd & Midland Transport Ltd. This is the Operators second Public Inquiry and there has been a “yo-yo” approach to compliance in the interim, even with the known vehicle. The additional aggravating features here are as follows: -

a. The operation of vehicle DS53OYC off the radar for many years noting that Mr Dudman has been the registered keeper since 2014 and that vehicle has never been specified.

b. Mr Dudman lied in the Traffic Examiner and Vehicle Examiner visit in February 2022 as DS53OYC was not disclosed.

c. Mr Dudman lied in relation to the Desk Based Assessment in June 2023 as DS53OYC and PE18LUW were not disclosed.

d. Mr Dudman lied to Traffic Examiner Bate to his face on 26 September 2023.

e. Mr Dudman lied to Traffic Examiner Haulkham on 29 November 2023 both in terms of his understanding of whether that vehicle was in scope but also as to the extent of its use.

f. Mr Dudman lied to my office and therefore to me in his correspondence in October 2023 in relation to the possession and use of in scope vehicles.

g. Mr Dudman has failed to disclose all relevant records, even for the vehicle that we knew about because I have not got all of the driver defect sheets for SV12LZX. More importantly he deliberately failed to disclose the vehicle unit data and driver defect sheets in relation to PE18LUW. I am told that there are no preventative maintenance inspection sheets. I do not accept anything that Mr Dudman tells me. It is equally as likely that he has simply withheld those as well.

Mr Dudman has operated more vehicles that authorised and it would appear that he has been operating two vehicles for quite some time. There was no margin for the period when PE18LUW was being operated. Even if there was room for PE18LUX that really carries very limited weight bearing in mind it was operated off radar but more importantly the way in which its possession and use has been brought to DVSA and my attention.

What I have is a catalogue of lies, unlawful behaviour and an “ability” to perpetuate his disingenuous behaviours right through and up to part way through this hearing today. I note that it was only part way through today that Mr Dudman conceded that he knew that DS53OYC should have been on the Licence throughout. In those circumstances there are few positives.

Mr Dudman has had the benefit of Mr Dawson’s representation here today and I make it very clear that but for Mr Dawson this would have been a longer and possibly an indefinite disqualification. There is evidence of a preventative maintenance inspection and brake test for SV12, albeit there is some misunderstanding on the part of the maintenance contractor. Just because a secondary brake test may not be relevant to the MOT it remains relevant for preventative maintenance inspections and it only passed on that calculation. In any event that is just not enough nor is the engagement of a Transport Consultant. It is the trustworthiness of the Operator that is key, and you cannot throw money to gain trust and honesty. It is not something you can buy off the shelf.

In terms of Logico and its approach to this Public Inquiry I have throughout expressed my disquiet. I have sought not to put Mr Dawson in any professional embarrassment. This Inquiry has benefitted greatly from his involvement but I do note that Logico knew the case management directions and what had to be sent in. Those directions were not couched in terms just for the vehicle specified and it wasn’t just some arbitrary period starting on or around the 7 November for driver defect sheets. Those directions did not include flexibility for Logico to continue Mr Dudman’s lack of transparency. If a Transport Consultant engaged to assist an Operator for Public Inquiry knows that there has been unlawful operation there is a duty to the Tribunal. If a Transport Consultant knows that records would be required for that operation, whether they exist or not, I should not receive a witness statement from the principal of that business (especially including a statement of truth), making no reference whatsoever to illegality. If an Operator says to a Consultant I do not consent to you disclosing this information, I expect that Consultant to resign. Whatever the circumstances. I do not expect a witness statement with a statement of truth.

Miss Sarah Bell
Traffic Commissioner

Written confirmation: 10 January 2024