Decision

Decision for Graham John Powell

Published 21 July 2021

0.1 SOUTH EASTERN AND METROPOLITAN TRAFFIC AREA

1. DECISION OF THE DEPUTY TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER

2. PUBLIC INQUIRY HEARD AT IVY HOUSE, IVY TERRACE, EASTBOURNE ON 29 JUNE 2021

3. OK 2041042 GRAHAM JOHN POWELL T/A G.P. SERVICES

4. Background

This is an application for a standard international goods licence authorising three vehicles. The applicant is Graham Powell, and the proposed transport manager is Kayleigh Susan Powell. The application was received on the 20 January 2021.

On the application form Mr Powell declared a previously revoked licence OK0225730 Powells Transport Limited. This licence was revoked on the 13 June 2013 and Mr Powell disclosed that this company had been put in the hands of a liquidator in 2009 and he had continued to operate through a different company, Powells Transport (West Malling) Limited. He also said in his explanation that following the liquidation of the second company he had been disqualified from being a director for a period of 7 years from 22.10.15 to 22.10.22. His explanation for this decision was “the main reason for this was lack of co-operation in working and attending meetings with the insolvency practice”.

As a result of the history it was decided that the application should be decided at a public inquiry.

5. Evidence

Mr Powell attended the public inquiry with Kayleigh Powell and they were represented by Mr Bell. Prior to the inquiry Mr Bell had submitted copies of documents relevant to compliance together with a copy of the director disqualification order made in October 2015.

Mr Powell told me that his current business did involve transport, but he was using 3.5 tonne vans. The client that he worked for was likely to move to work that required larger vehicles, and this was why he had applied for a licence. He had sought assistance from transport consultants in relation to the application and would enter an ongoing agreement with them if the licence is granted. He had booked a training course in the hope that a licence may be obtained. He accepted that his director disqualification had until October 2022 before it expired.

I pointed out to Mr Powell that the list in the disqualification order under the title Matters of Unfitness went much further than the explanation he had given in this application. I highlighted point 1c which said that he had acquired all the assets of Powells Transport Services limited without and consideration being paid. I also highlighted point 2 which states that Mr Powell disposed of the company records in July 2013 following a DfT inspection in May 2013 thereby preventing the Official Receiver from analysing a variety of issues listed at 2 a to j in the schedule.

Mr Powell said that he had not agreed with all that was in the schedule, but he had not had the money to instruct representatives to oppose. He had been depressed at the time because of personal and financial pressures and had “buried his head in the sand”. It was true he had not attended meetings with the liquidator, and it had taken from 2014 to 2016 for the process to be completed. Mr Bell that Mr Powell had requested a copy of the disqualification order which had been submitted and he should be given credit for being forthcoming in this regard.

6. Findings and decision.

As this is an application the onus is on Mr Powell to satisfy me that it is more likely than not that he meets the test of repute that is necessary for a licence to be granted. In other words, can he be trusted to comply with the various rules if he has a licence? How this is decided includes consideration of past behaviour which can be a useful predictor of the future.

Mr Powell is subject to the director disqualification order until the 22 October 2022 and this is a significant factor in my consideration, although not a bar to a licence being granted. If the existence of the order was the only factor my decision may have been more finely balanced, However, the content of the schedule under the heading “Matters of Unfitness” are relevant to my decision and they reflect badly on Mr Powell. Item 1c has all the indicators of a Phoenix company being created and the deliberate destruction of the company records led to the liquidator being unable to determine what level of bad practice had been taking place. He ran the new company by illegally using the old company’s operator’s licence for several years. It is not for me to go behind the schedule which Mr Powell signed and accepted. His personal and financial situation may have been poor when he confirmed the document, but this is not a reason for limiting its weight and impact.

I also find that it is relevant that in his explanation made in the application for this licence he tried to minimise the extent of his failings which led to the disqualification order being made. The schedule does not mention his failure to co-operate or attend meetings, but this is what he cited as the main reason. I give him some credit for obtaining a copy of the order but believe this was on the advice of his representatives.

As a result of my findings detailed above, I am not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that repute is established and refuse this application accordingly.

John Baker

Deputy Traffic Commissioner

1 July 2021