Decision

Decision for HG Roofing Supplies and Mark Haley, former TM

Published 1 August 2023

IN THE NORTHEAST TRAFFIC AREA

1. HG ROOFING SUPPLIES LTD - OB2041678

1.1 AND

2. MARK HALEY – FORMER TRANSPORT MANAGER

---

3. DECISION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER

---

3.1 PUBLIC INQUIRY HELD IN LEEDS ON 7 JUNE 2023

4. Background

This Standard National licence was granted on 6 April 2021 with authority for one vehicle; there is one vehicle in possession. The sole director is Scott Houston, who is also the sole director for HG Scaff Ltd, which holds a Restricted Goods Operator’s licence (OB2054001) with a 3-vehicle authority (not before me today). The Transport Manager (TM) on the licence at the point of grant was Mark Haley. He was removed on 2 September 2022, following the addition of Mr Brian Clark on 5 August 2022. On 11 May 2023, Mr Clark resigned as Transport Manager for personal reasons and loss of TM correspondence was sent to the operator on 19 May 2023. An application to add Marc Riley as Transport Manager to the licence was submitted on 25 May 2023. This is still under consideration.

The Operator appeared on the DVSA radar following the failure of the operator to attend New Operator Seminars with the Agency on 4 separate occasions. The operator was referred for a follow up maintenance investigation completed by Vehicle Examiner (VE) Michael Mann on 24 June 2022, which was assessed as unsatisfactory and referred to the Office of the Traffic Commissioner (OTC). On 31 August 2022 a Desk Based Assessment (DBA) Traffic Examiner (TE) investigation was initiated with both the operator and nominated TM, Mark Haley, sent a request for supporting documentation. The report was initially assessed as unsatisfactory, but following acceptable assurances from the new TM, Mr Clark, the report was assessed to be satisfactory. In responding to the DVSA request for information, former TM, Mr Haley, stated that he had never undertaken the role. This issue has subsequently been the subject of requests for explanation letters to Mr Haley and the Operator.

Given the shortcomings highlighted in the DVSA investigations and the apparent material change of having a TM in ‘name only’ for the first 18 months of the licence, the operator and former TM, Mr Haley, were called to a Public Inquiry for consideration of regulatory action. Mr Clark, TM at the time, was invited to the hearing.

The hearing was initially scheduled for 21 February 2023, however, the case was adjourned due to the fact that the former TM, Mr Haley, was away on a pre-booked holiday.

5. Hearing and Evidence

Sole director Mr Houston attended the hearing. He was accompanied by Mr Marc Riley a Transport Consultant, who was attending in a supporting capacity, and as recently nominated replacement TM; as such there was no formal legal representation. Mr Mark Haley attended alone, again without legal representation. Former TM, Mr Clark was not in attendance.

I outlined my approach to the hearing. In the first instance I wished to understand the circumstances surrounding the addition of Mr Haley as Transport Manager and his subsequent involvement, if any, in ensuring the continuous and effective management of the transport operation. I would then consider the findings of the DVSA investigations and review the compliance documentation provided in advance of the hearing requested in the call-in letter.

5.1 Professional Competence

Both the operator and Mr Haley were asked to provide accounts of Mr Haley’s involvement as TM prior to the initial hearing. These were shared with respective parties in advance of today’s Public Inquiry (PI).

Mr Houston in his statement prior to the initial hearing blamed the non-compliance on being heavily let down by his Transport Manager Mr Haley. His subsequent response to a further request for explanation states that he had recruited Mr Haley in the role, although, it was conceded that there was no contract demonstrating a genuine link, as is the mandatory requirement for an external TM (acknowledged in the TM1 form). Additionally, Mr Haley wasn’t paid as it was stated there was purportedly an arrangement to pass on work to Mr Haley’s scaffolding company in lieu of payment. Mr Houston stated at the hearing that he had passed evidence to the Vehicle Examiner (VE) as to Mr Haley’s attendance at the Operating Centre (OC) and photographs from Mr Haley inspecting vehicles. This did not feature in the VE report. Furthermore, in advance of the PI evidence of Mr Haley’s involvement was requested from the Operator. The only evidence provided of the involvement of Mr Haley was a screenshot of a purported text between Mr Houston and Mr Haley, where Mr Haley cites the importance of compliance and looks to set up a meeting to discuss his role in detail. There was no date or further corroborating evidence regarding the legitimacy of the text. Mr Houston stated that he had assumed Mr Haley was undertaking compliance activity in the background as there was a verbal agreement for this.

Mr Haley asserts that he had agreed to be a Transport Manager for the Operator at the time of the licence application; he confirmed he had digitally signed the TM1 form and supplied his CPC qualification, however, due to a failure to reach agreement regarding remuneration and conditions he had retracted his intended involvement, sending an email to the OTC dated 25 May 2021. It would appear that this was not actioned by the OTC (see below). He did not follow up on this with the OTC when the email wasn’t acknowledged, and he accepts that he should have done so to be sure at the application stage he was removed as nominated TM. He asserts that he has never acted in any way as the Transport Manager and not received any remuneration or benefit in kind (work for his own scaffolding business).

There is no evidence in the DVSA investigations of any involvement on the part of Mr Haley which aligns with his account of never having undertaken TM responsibilities. Mr Mann was invited to the hearing, however, [ REDACTED] precluded this. During the maintenance investigation VE Mann was informed by the operator that Mr Haley attended for a half day each month; at the hearing today Mr Houston denies saying this. Mr Houston also indicated that he was looking to change TM’s as Mr Haley had been ‘unresponsive’. This led the DVSA investigations to conclude that Mr Haley’s CPC qualification has been relied upon by the operator since licence grant to meet mandatory professional competence.

I noted that at the time of the initial application there had been some confusion regarding the submission of the associated advert. Erroneously, an OTC Licensing case worker informed the applicant that the advert was not submitted within the required legislative window and therefore a fresh application was required (licence number OB2043012). Subsequently, the case worker realised that this was in fact an error and the application OB2043012 submitted on 12 March 2021 was withdrawn on 15 March 2021, with the initial application reinstated. A consequence of this confusion was that Mr Haley’s resignation email was added to the wrong licence number online account; therefore, the resignation was not actioned with the appropriate loss of TM correspondence issued to the operator by the OTC. Further, to compound matters further the undertaking on the licence for Mr Haley to complete a 2-day CPC Refresher Course within 3 months of licence grant was not followed up on by the OTC, when no evidence of adherence to the undertaking was provided. Therefore, there were 2 trigger points whereby the OTC potentially should have identified the lack of professional competence on the licence with appropriate action taken. This, however, does not detract from the fact that no CPC Refresher evidence was provided, there was no contract of services or evidence of remuneration for the nominated Transport Manager, nor indeed, was there any evidence of any involvement of Mr Haley with the running of the licence. It follows that the operator has not informed of any material change. This runs counter to Mr Houston’s account that the TM attended for a half day per month and that Mr Haley had been unresponsive, so he was looking to replace him on the licence.

5.2 Maintenance Investigation Visit Report (MIVR) 24 June 2022 – VE Mann – Report to OTC

An unannounced maintenance visit was conducted by VE Michael Mann on 24 June 2022 at the Operating Centre located in Leeds, LS9 8JB. Director Scott Houston was present during the visit. The following shortcomings were identified:

• The Operator could not produce any Preventative Maintenance Inspection (PMI) records as they were said to be retained by the maintenance provider. VE Mann requested these to be obtained and forwarded to him.

• There was no forward planning system in place, reliance was upon the maintenance provider to contact the Operator when the vehicle was due.

• It transpired that TM Mark Haley worked for a half day a month, though VE Mann found there was a lack of formal systems in place for vehicle maintenance therefore indicating that the TM had ineffective control. Mr Houston also stated to VE Mann that he was considering a change of Transport Manager.

• The Operator was unable to provide evidence that they had adhered to the undertaking relating to Mr Haley completing an CPC Refresher Course before 30 June 2021. [This was not followed up at the time by the OTC].

• The MOT failure for a spray suppression defect raised concerns over the maintenance standards.

• The system to monitor AdBlue usage was not effective, records were not retained.

• The wheel security system in place required improvement.

VE Mann issued an email to the Operator on 28 June 2022 requesting for the PMI records to be submitted no later than 1 July 2022. The Operator failed to comply with this request. The report was sent to the Operator for comments on 2 July 2022 for comments and no response was received within the allocated period, therefore the outcome of the assessment was marked ‘Report to OTC’.

Due to no PMI records being reviewed during the investigation, VE Mann was unable to complete a Safety Inspection Period Calculator and Analysis Tool (SIPCAT) record. He did however, carry out a visit to the maintenance provider on 19 July 2022 who provided evidence to confirm the vehicle had adhered to the specified 8 weekly inspection intervals.

A letter was issued to the Operator on 22 July 2022 notifying of the unsatisfactory result and informing the case was to be referred to the OTC. Following this, an undated response was received from the Operator which was in the format of handwritten comments on the maintenance investigation visit report. It was commented that PMI records had been sent with their response, though VE Mann was unable to access these due to the format they had been submitted in. It was also stated that Mr Haley had been unresponsive and that they were actively seeking another TM. It was assured that in the interim, Mr Houston was overseeing the compliance systems.

In advance of the PI, VE Lodge, reviewed the Operator’s maintenance records, producing a SIPCAT readout (served to the operator in advance of the hearing). I noted the following shortcomings:

• There was no evidence of an effective VOR system. The vehicle, FJ07CYO, was most recently inspected on 4 April 2023, but the vehicle was not signed off as roadworthy until 15 April 2023, with no VOR documentation in place. Furthermore, the vehicle was used during this period with driver defect reports for 11, 12 and 14 April 2023 provided. Therefore, the vehicle was used without the requisite roadworthiness sign off, when as a matter of course it should be VOR.

• Brake testing is not being completed in accordance with the Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness. There is no evidence of a metred dynamic brake test at every PMI. The latest brake test completed on the 5 April 2023 indicated a fail and there was no follow up to this. Equally there was evidence of significant balance issues that was not followed up on by the Operator/Transport Manager. The brake test completed on 15 March 2022 showed an imbalance on axle 3 of 39%.

• The driver defect reports provided for the month of May 2023 contained no defects. I note that the PMI for 4 April 2023 had multiple light defects, which were not picked up by the driver. It was clear that there was not a fully effective system in place.

• The Pre-MOT dated 17 October 2022, contains a significant number of wide ranging defects including driver reportable defects. This is indicative of an ineffective maintenance system as it calls in question the standard of earlier maintenance investigations with considerably fewer defects.

• There was no evidence of a wheel retorque system in place. The Register provided was blank. This is indicative of the lack of an effective wheel security system.

5.3 Traffic Examiner Visit Report (TEVR) – DBA – 31 August 2022 – Traffic Examiner (TE) Doogue

TE Doogue reviewed the evidence provided in the DBA questionnaire and initially concluded the assessment as unsatisfactory due to the following shortcomings:

• Scott Houston was the only specified director on the licence and Companies House, however it was stated on the DBA questionnaire (DBAQ) that there was a second director, Stuart Houston. TE Doogue requested further clarification on this matter.

• The DBAQ indicated that the drivers were responsible for ensuring they had printer rolls, not the Company.

• The Vehicle Unit has missed its download deadline by 504 days, it was also highlighted that the Company card had not been locked in until 7 July 2022 indicating download frequencies were not being adhered to prior to this. It was stated downloads are now completed on a weekly basis.

• There was no evidence that tachograph records are checked for drivers hours/working time infringements.

• TE Doogue’s analysis of the tachograph data indicated an infringement of daily resting time too short.

• Prior to Mr Clark’s appointment it was said that there was no load security system in place, a system was in the process of being implemented.

• Some security procedures were in place, though it was indicated that a company security plan was required.

• A training matrix was evidenced, though it was stated the Transport Manager was in the process of drafting procedures and policies such as mobile phone usage, drugs and alcohol and bridge strike policy.

• The DBAQ stated that Mr Haley had now resigned. TE Doogue pointed out in the DBA that Mr Haley had issued an email to advise has never been associated with the Operator. Further clarification as to whether Mr Haley was a TM on the licence, and the date of his resignation was requested.

TE Doogue requested further evidence and explanations throughout the report, such as who carried out gate checks, whether vehicles were being downloaded at the correct intervals, clarification as to how other duties are recorded and evidence of newly implemented policies.

A response was received from the Operator on 26 September 2022. It was stated that there had been some initial confusion as Stuart Houston was made a director on the Houston Group of Companies which is separate from this Company. It was confirmed Scott Houston is the sole director. It was also stated that a security risk assessment for load security would be carried out in due course. Mr Clark advised that he himself carried out gate checks to ensure drivers are carrying licences, printer rolls and PPE as well as checking walk round checks have been completed. Mr Clark stated he had instructed the driver to record his other duties as other work.

It was also claimed that Mark Haley had been associated with the licence at the time of application. However, he had now resigned and Mr Clark had begun employment on 3 August 2022.

TE Doogue initially scored the assessment as unsatisfactory, however he concluded his report by stating “In the response to the Request For Explanation the operator has provided satisfactory explanations and evidence to the noted shortcomings identified in the assessment.” TE Doogue proposed to conclude the assessment with a satisfactory grade.

TE Doogue reviewed the tachograph data for the operator in advance of the hearing. Discrepancies surrounding missing mileage were resolved to the TE’s satisfaction. However, it was still the case that the driver was failing to record all other work as is required, including positioning journeys and work on the shopfloor. This shortcoming had been identified in the initial TE investigation. The Operator accepted this.

5.4 Impact of regulatory Action

I reviewed the impact of regulatory action with the Operator. Mr Houston stated that the licence was used to move goods for the other companies for which he is director as well as the roofing supplies business. He could not provide any cogent evidence to back up assertions of commercial impact on the business from revocation or suspension of the licence. Equally, discussion of the impact of disqualification of the operator and Mr Houston as sole director followed a similar line. He asserted that there would be impact on the other companies for whom he was a director that enjoyed transport support from the operator and the driver would have to be laid off. Therefore, it was not clear whether revocation and/or disqualification decisions of the would lead to the business becoming unviable other than Mr Houston’s assertions. It was noted that there would be broader consequences for his Restricted Goods licence held by HG Scaff Ltd, although this was not before me today.

Having retired to consider my decision I returned to inform the Operator and Mr Haley that I would reserve my decision as I required further time to reflect on the evidence before me.

6. Consideration and Conclusions

6.1 Compliance

The standard of the Operator’s Compliance was found to be unsatisfactory during the DVSA investigations. It was noted that there were no formalised maintenance systems in place, largely due to the lack of any demonstrable control by a Transport Manager. Indeed, there was an overreliance on the maintenance provider for scheduling safety inspections and retention of documentation. The TE report only graded as satisfactory on the promises of the replacement TM Mr Clark who assumed the responsibility from August 2022. Regardless, there are still aspects of the operator’s maintenance regime that fall short of the guidance in the Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness including brake testing, driver defect reporting, VOR system, wheel security procedures and concerns regarding the standards of the maintenance provider.

It is noted that there is currently no TM in place although nominated TM, Mr Riley, has been working with the operator for a number of weeks, and this reflects in some improvements on the compliance situation as at the day of the PI, notwithstanding the findings above; this is very much a case of work in progress.

6.2 Professional Competence

On balance, I find that the licence has not had the requisite mandatory professional competence for the first 18 months of operation. I find Mr Haley’s account, that he had never undertook TM duties to be credible. Whilst I am clear Mr Haley was initially nominated on the licence at the application stage and he electronically signed the TM1 form, he never went on to undertake the role, with no evidence of his involvement. Furthermore, there was no contract for Mr Haley’s service, noting the sole director signed the TM1 form stating that such a contract would be in place. Additionally, there was no evidence of remuneration. In this regard, the suggested arrangement whereby work would be passed on to Mr Haley’s business is not permissible and, regardless, there was no evidence that this ever was the case. The VE and TE reports found no evidence of Mr Haley’s involvement. This is borne out by the lack of any formal maintenance systems in place and reliance on the maintenance provider identified in the MIVR. The TE report was only concluded as mostly satisfactory with the assurances provided by Mr Clark who was added to the licence as TM on 2 September 2022. The TE assessment for the period prior to Mr Clark’s involvement was highly unsatisfactory.

I note there is currently no professional competence on the licence, with the nomination of Mr Riley still under consideration. I was informed that Mr Clark had stepped away from the post for personal reasons, leading to the engagement of Mr Riley. I observe that findings of poor maintenance standards for the period covered by the evidence provided in advance of the hearing relate to Mr Clark’s tenure. It is apparent that Mr Clark has not exercised continuous and effective management. He was not called to the PI, however, I would wish to carefully scrutinise any future applications to be added as a TM, in light of the shortcomings identified.

Ensuring that there is an appropriately trained and current Transport Manager in place, with a genuine link to the licence holding entity via a contract with appropriate contract stipulating working expectations and remuneration is the responsibility of the operator, and the sole director, Mr Houston, is expected to know this. (Upper Tribunal (UT) Case T/2015/40 Tacsi Gwynedd Ltd refers). Furthermore, it is an operator’s responsibility to ensure that the Transport Manager is performing his duties effectively. The UT case, T/2014/24 KA & Z Leonida t/a ETS refers:

“It does not matter whether an operator’s licence is held by an owner operator, a partnership or a limited company because in each case the person or persons responsible for managing the business bear the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that the road transport aspect of the business operates in compliance with the regulatory regime. That means that they cannot plead ignorance or put the blame on the Transport Manager because they are required to have sufficient knowledge of the regulatory regime to ensure compliance in general and the proper performance of the Transport Manager’s duties in particular”

6.3 Good Repute

Sole director, Mr Houston, has failed to ensure that the licence had mandatory professional competence on the licence for a protracted period (18 months). Furthermore, he has failed notify the OTC of this material change and not adhered to an undertaking on the licence for Mr Haley to complete a CPC Refresher Course. The fact that there was no follow up by the OTC staff to the email sent by Mr Haley and the lack of evidence of a CPC refresher course attendance is unfortunate, as acting on either would have identified the lack of professional competence on the licence much earlier. In the course of the DVSA investigations Mr Houston had the opportunity to acknowledge the lack of professional competence, but instead his response to the regulatory body was less than honest and transparent. He initially blamed non-compliance on Mr Haley, before stating that Mr Haley attended for ‘half a day each month’, and that he was ‘considering a change of TM’ when Mr Haley was supposedly unresponsive. I am clear that this was a device to hide the fact that there has never been a TM employed. These actions were dishonest; furthermore, there are clear ramifications for road safety, given the DVSA findings, as well as undermining fair competition as Mr Houston has not had to incur the costs of a TM for 18 months. Arnold Transport is mentioned overleaf, but it is also useful authority for the premise that Director fitness is an essential element in determining company repute.

Prior to asking myself the Priority Freight question, can the operator be trusted to comply in the future, I conduced a balancing exercise and in the positive:

• This is a first Public Inquiry for the operator.

• There have been efforts made to rectify the shortcomings identified in the DVSA investigations, following the engagement of Mr Clark as TM and the involvement of Mr Riley in a consultancy capacity.

• The operator stated that he had belatedly attended a new operator seminar although there is no evidence of this.

• The Operator has engaged the services of a transport consultancy to bring compliance systems to the required standard.

• The completion of an audit to provide further assurances of compliance was offered.

I take the view that had this case been purely about the shortcomings identified in the DVSA investigations (with associated Section 26 findings), a start point for consideration of regulatory action in accordance with the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Guidance, number 10, in the ‘Serious to Moderate’ bracket would be appropriate and proportionate, there having been multiple negatives identified by the 2 DVSA investigations, with shortcomings identified at today’s hearing and some positives (highlighted above).

However, having established that the operator has misled the regulatory body with ramifications for road safety and fair competition, the circumstances of this case fit to the letter the definition of a ‘Severe’ case in accordance with the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Guidance Document number 10 (in bold below):

• Deliberate or reckless act(s) that compromised road safety and/or gave the operator a clear commercial advantage and/or operator caused or permitted driver offending and/or any attempt by the operator to conceal offences or failings

I reminded myself that trust is the foundation of the operator licensing system, in ensuring road safety and fair competition and this is prominent in established case law:

“Traffic Commissioners must be able to trust those to whom they grant operator’s licences to operate in compliance with the regulatory regime. The public and other operators must also be able to trust operators to comply with the regulatory regime”. T/2012/34 Martin Joseph Formby t/a G & G Transport

“The Tribunal has stated on many occasions that operator’s licensing is based on trust. Since it is impossible to police every operator and every vehicle at all times the Department in Northern Ireland, (and Traffic Commissioners in GB), must feel able to trust operators to comply with Chapter 7 Repute & Fitness 29 Includes decisions up to and including 17 May 2021 all relevant parts of the operator’s licensing regime. In addition other operators must be able to trust their competitors to comply, otherwise they will no longer compete on a level playing field. In our view this reflects the general public interest in ensuring that Heavy Goods Vehicles are properly maintained and safely driven. Unfair competition is against the public interest because it encourages operators to cut corners in order to remain in business. Cutting corners all too easily leads to compromising safe operation. NT/2013/82 Arnold Transport & Sons Ltd v DOENI

Mr Houston has not been open and honest with the regulatory body in operating without the requisite professional competence, and then masking the true situation by attempting to blame the TM initially nominated on the application. I am not therefore currently assured that that I can trust this operator to comply in the future. In this regard, the actions of the sole director equate to the actions of the Company. There has been a deliberate attempt to circumvent mandatory regulatory requirements, with serious concerns regarding road safety and the undermining of fair competition. It follows that I answer the Priority Freight question in the negative; I could not trust this operation to comply moving forwards.

This leads me to consider the Bryan Haulage question; does the operator deserve to be put out of business. The operator’s actions also directly impact on fair competition, given that the requirement to employ a TM is mandatory for all Standard operators. Indeed, what would the industry and honest compliant operators think of me coming to any other conclusion. The deliberate attempt to deceive the regulatory system as to the lack of professional competence for a protracted period is of such weight that I am clear that good repute of the operator and sole director is forfeit and I answer the Bryan Haulage question in the affirmative, the operator does deserve to be put out of business if, indeed, this is the outcome. I judge this to be a proportionate outcome.

6.4 Disqualification

Given the seriousness of the offences, I have considered the disqualification of the operator and sole director under Section 28 of the 1995 Act. This is a decision not to be taken lightly, relying on cogent evidence and reasoning. The reasons outlined above set out such reasoning in detail. The Company has a single director, Mr Houston, who is the ‘controlling mind of the company’; his actions therefore align to those of the company, with a decision on disqualification similarly aligned.

In considering a period of disqualification I am again guided by the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document Number 10, which posits start points as follows:

• for a Transport Manager, a minimum period of one year;

• for an operator’s first public inquiry, consideration of a disqualification period of between 1 and 3 years;

• serious cases where, for example, there are persistent operator licence failures with inadequate response or previous public inquiry history, this may merit disqualification of between 5 to 10 years;

• severe cases where, for example, the operator deliberately puts life at risk and/or knowingly operates unsafe vehicles or allows drivers to falsify records, may merit disqualification for an indefinite period

The conduct I have described indicates the need for deterrent action, so that the operator is clear that this situation cannot continue and that other operators will understand that this is not acceptable as per the Upper Tribunal in 2019/025 John Stuart Strachan t/a Strachan Haulage and more recently in 2022/1227 Lineage UK Transport Ltd. As a first PI, I have decided on a start point for disqualification of between one and 3 years for Mr Houston and the Company. I judge that a disqualification period in the middle of the bracket at 2 years to be appropriate and proportionate. During this time out of the industry, as well as time to reflect on his actions, Mr Houston should engage in further operator licence training before reapplying for an operator’s licence.

6.5 TM Mr Haley

I am of the opinion that Mr Haley has been open and honest throughout proceedings. I am clear that he had intended to act as TM for the operator and signed the TM1 form at the time and provided his certificate. However, I am clear that he has never acted in the role and informed the OTC in May 2021 that he was no longer involved with the operator after this. There is no evidence to the contrary. That said, he should have followed up on the request for him to be removed from the licence, and he conceded that in failing to do so he has allowed his name to be attached to an operator’s licence for a protracted period. However, I do not believe Mr Haley has acted in anyway other than with good intentions and honesty. Therefore, I issue a formal warning, but his good repute remains untarnished.

6.6 HG Scaff Ltd

Mr Houston is also the sole director for a Restricted Goods licence holder, HG Scaff Ltd. By virtue of his actions as sole director and operator for HG Roofing Supplies Ltd, Mr Houston has forfeited good repute. Such loss of good repute directly impacts on the fitness of Mr Houston to hold a Restricted Goods Operator’s licence, good repute being closely aligned to fitness:

“underlined the word ‘fitness’ in both these provisions because it is critical to understanding the breadth of the requirement to be of good repute. It means, for example, that an operator who cannot be trusted to comply with the operator’s licensing regime is unlikely to be fit to hold an operator’s licence”. NT/2013/082 Arnold Transport & Sons Ltd v DOENI

This licence is not before me today. Mindful of this, I propose to revoke the Restricted Goods licence of HG Scaff Ltd under Section 26(1)(h) for material change in fitness (Section 13B) given the loss of good repute as sole director of HG Roofing Services Ltd, and also pursuant to Section 26(1)(i) of the 1995 Act whereby disqualification of Mr Houston under Section 28(1) of the 1995 Act, also leads to the potential revocation of the Restricted licence pursuant to Section 28(4). I allow 14 days for representations and/or request for a PI to be made.

Tim Blackmore

Traffic Commissioner

8 June 2023