Decision

Decision for JLD Scaffold Services Ltd

Published 11 April 2024

0.1 WESTERN TRAFFIC AREA

1. JLD SCAFFOLD SERVICES LTD t/a GENERAL SCAFFOLD OH2031311

2. AT A PUBLIC INQUIRY IN BRISTOL

3. 11 MAY 2023 And 12 DECEMBER 2023

4. BACKGROUND

JLD Scaffold Services Ltd (“JLD”) is the holder of a restricted goods vehicle operator’s licence authorised for the use of four vehicles from an operating centre at Oak Park Industrial Estate, Portsmouth. One vehicle is shown as in possession. The director from incorporation in 2020 was John Davies. Kellie Blatch was added as a director on 20 February 2023.

On 7 December 2022, a fatal collision occurred at Oak Park Industrial Estate between a Mercedes Atego heavy goods vehicle, LS60OJA, operated by JLD and a pedestrian. Initial enquiries indicated mechanical defects with the vehicle including non-functioning reversing lights and a defective nearside mirror. This generated a DVSA maintenance investigation by Vehicle Examiner Tim Collins on 13 January 2023. The report was marked overall as unsatisfactory with shortcomings in:

• Inspection records

• Driver defect reporting

• Inspection facilities & maintenance arrangements

• Vehicle emissions

• Wheel and tyre management

• Responsible person control

DVSA Traffic Examiner Maggie Rowlands conducted an investigation in to driver management matters and also found significant shortcomings. Two 18-tonne vehicles, for which there is no tachograph exemption, had not been downloaded for 1731 and 2863 calendar days, well in excess of the 90-day backstop in the drivers hours legislation and it follows that there was no tachograph analysis in place. Driving licences were not checked. Ms Rowlands appears to have been persuaded by the assurances given and the engagement of a transport consultant. Her final assessment of the operation was that it could be compliant if the assurances were delivered upon.

A major concern at the time these reports were referred to me was the absence from the business of the sole director due to ill-health. Responses came from Shane Davies, the operations manager. A propose-to-revoke letter was sent by email on the morning of 24 February 2023. That same day, documentation was filed at Companies House adding Kellie Blatch as a second director. The appointment was backdated to 20 February. On 28 February, a response was received to say that Kellie Blatch had been appointed as a director and it was accompanied by a certificate showing attendance at a one-day operator licence awareness course that had been attended a week earlier (and before my proposal to revoke the licence). The operator requested a public inquiry and it was duly listed.  

I noted that Shane Davies had been a director of General Scaffolding (Southern) Ltd which had held licence OH2000465 until that was surrendered on 1 June 2020. The company entered insolvent liquidation on 10 June 2021 and Shane Davies had been disqualified from acting as a company director from 13 April 2022 to 12 April 2031. I was concerned that Shane’s role as Operations Manager, in the absence of the statutory director, amounted to him acting as a shadow director. I was also concerned that Kellie Blatch might be acting as a front for him. Those matters were included in the call-up letter.

5. THE PUBLIC INQUIRY DAY 1 – 11 MAY 2023

Shane Davies, Kellie Blatch, Karen Davies and Steve Morris attended for the operator represented by Jared Dunbar, solicitor. I opened by identifying my concern with who was running the business. Submissions and evidence had been provided in advance. Finance was satisfied as a preliminary matter.

Proceedings were recorded and a transcript can be made available. In writing this decision, I have referred to my written notes and the audio recordings.

6. The evidence of Kellie Blatch

Ms Blatch confirmed the accuracy of the written submissions. She told me that John Davies was undergoing cancer treatment and provided details. He had been struggling for a good year, diagnosed in April 2022. John Davies was her father, Shane Davies her brother, Karen Davies her sister-in-law. Steve Morris was an employee. Ms Blatch started to work for this company in March 2020. She had been a director of a scaffolding company before, 2013 to 2017. Prior to becoming a director, she had done accounts and administration, general oversight of everything. Before John Davies’ illness, he would sort the men out in the morning, price jobs, check job cards, monitor wages, generally be there all day and everyday. He was a bubbly character, very strict, very amiable, had a lot of customers, a keen golfer and a fit man before his illness. He instructed her to make sure invoices were issued on time, she was instructed to make sure all bills were paid on time. He was on site every day prior to the illness.

When his illness started, he could not drive and could not make it in to the office. She visited him four times a week and spoke to him on the phone. She would generally stay an hour. That was still the case. Since she had become a director, she had taken on a lot more responsibility. She now instructed everyone else. She went over the financials with John. No-one told her what to buy or how to buy it. They could advise but she made decisions. There had been several occasions when she had disagreed with Shane. He had wanted to buy some new boards for a job but she had said no. She had refused requests to hire vehicles and equipment. John owned the company. John had been the decision-maker until she was appointed director. Now it was both of them. John would not be told what to do. He would if he was working for someone but if it was people working for himself, he was in charge. She had not been able to make payments without his permission.

Only John dealt with the accountant. John would decide who would work for the company. If it was office staff, he would ask her for advice. No-one else had the power to hire anyone or dismiss them. John would make the decision on pricing with advice from Steve and Shane. Estimating was done by John visiting the site, meet the client, taking his book, price it up. John would describe which men to put on it so that it made money. Since he had been ill, John had instructed Shane and Steve to allocate men, but they had to check with John. Shane and Steve would attend site and produce an estimate after they had run it past John. He was not at work but he still had a brain and was in control.

Mr Dunbar started to ask Ms Blatch about the circumstances of the fatality. Ms Blatch started to tell me about the driver and the defective mirror. I asked whether there were any criminal proceedings. Mr Dunbar said that he didn’t know but the company had not been investigated nor been interviewed. I moved discussion away from the incident in case there were proceedings afoot.

Ms Blatch, Shane Davies, Steve Morris and Karen Morris had been present for the DVSA Examiners. Some inspections had been slipped due to complacency with John being ill. They had let things go. There was a Covid backlog, and the maintenance provider was finding it difficult to book vehicles in. They had now moved maintenance to Sparks. The vehicles were now booked in every eight weeks. Sparks would not release the vehicles unless they were signed-off as roadworthy. There was now a wall-planner. Sparks were generally told to just go ahead and get the work done unless it was something major when they would give a price. She and Karen reviewed the inspection reports. If there was a driver defect, he would get called in by her and asked why it wasn’t picked up. A roller brake test was done at every PMI.

Drivers would come in every morning and spend 10 – 15 minutes doing their walk-round check. Any defects would get reported straightaway to Karen or her. Simple defects they would do themselves. More major defects would go to Sparks. Shane and Steve do fortnightly gate checks.

They now had only 2, 7.5 tonne vehicles and a map on the wall with a 100km radius. If a job came in outside that distance it wouldn’t be worth doing. Drivers have used tachographs but she was under the assumption that they only drive one or two hours a day so a tacho wasn’t needed. Overloading was prevented by knowing how much material was going on. They would use two lorries if needed. They had a sheet with all the sizes of materials and their weight.

Revocation would make business extremely hard. They wouldn’t be able to do all the work that they do. They would use 3.5 tonnes which would be extremely hard. Removing the margin would have no impact. Going to one vehicle would mean scaling down the jobs. A short suspension would have an impact as work was booked.

I asked Ms Blatch about her role as a director of General Scaffolding Ltd. She told me that she did pretty much what she did in the company she was in now. She didn’t have authority to do VAT and CIS. She was disqualified as a director for three years when it entered insolvency. Mr Green, her co-director, hadn’t been paying VAT. John Davies had been around but she couldn’t remember whether he was a director. I referred her to a reference from a company called “Safeguard” which referred to having worked with “John” for “many years”. I suggested that the 3 years of this business was not “many years”. Ms Blatch disagreed. I put it to Ms Blatch that there was no difference between JLD trading as General Scaffolding and the former company, General Scaffolding Ltd, that everyone’s role was the same. Ms Blatch told me that John worked for that company but was not a director. I challenged the assertion that John Davies, who had been presented to me as a proud man, would work for a third party and take instructions issued by his daughter.

Ms Blatch told me that JLD had bought its scaffolding from the liquidator of General Scaffolding for £15,000. I noted that had not been declared on the application form and that the liquidator’s report suggested they had actually paid £6,500. I noted that, on the maintenance records up to April 2023, the company was referred to as General Scaffolding. I was told that the vehicles had been bought from there and the maintenance provider knew them as being General Scaffolding.

I asked when the check for driver-reportable items on PMIs had been introduced, there being numerous such defects on reports in February and April. There was no response to that question but I was told that Sparks would have repaired them. Ms Blatch had attended the OLAT course and was still learning. I noted that there was brake testing taking place.

The eighteen tonne trucks were very expensive to run and they only had one driver with a licence. I asked how viable 7.5 tonne vehicle were given that I had been told they had up to 400 boards on some jobs. Ms Blatch said that it would take two or three loads to move that many boards.

7. The evidence of Shane Davies

Shane Davies told me that he started working for this company in March/April 2020. He described his father as a workaholic, demanding, popular, charismatic. Until his recent diagnosis, he had been healthy. Prior to his illness, Shane’s role had been supervisory tasks, scaffold fixer, dealing with customers. Supervisory meant checking on the men on site. About 30 – 40% of his time was actual scaffolding. Before his father’s illness, Shane would go out and look at jobs and go back to him with a suggestion of price. Since his illness, the role hadn’t changed. Reporting back had been hampered. He consciously tried to avoid talking about work during his illness. He had seen a strain on his mum too and he wouldn’t want to discuss work unless asked about it.

Shane then told me that he would talk to his father about work during work time. I pointed out that he seemed to be contradicting himself. Shane told me that he wouldn’t talk about work at seven in the evening, but he would during work hours. The chemotherapy left his father tired. He hadn’t been on site much at all, maybe a couple of times a month. They would speak on the phone daily. He would visit to discuss work if asked to.

Now that Kellie was a director, she was much more hands on. She had been in charge of various office duties. If something needed purchasing, it had been John who decided what to buy. Now it was Kellie. Shane did not have access to the bank account and had not had any meetings with the accountant. He had never hired or fired anyone.

I asked about General Scaffolding (Southern) Ltd. Shane told me that he and Karen had been directors from 2018. In hindsight, he was not really cut out for the directorship. He had been far too lenient to the sub-contractors. He tried to get a deal with the Revenue. They were the only creditors. They got their local MP involved as they believed they could trade out of it. Shane accepted full responsibility.

I took a break to see why Ms Blatch’s history had not been picked up previously. I returned and explained that it appeared the licensing staff had searched for history for Kellie Blatch but the adverse history was recorded against Kelly Blatch. I said that it appeared to me that there had actually been the same business operating for fifteen years with various changes of entity and director but always with John Davies at the helm.

I put it to Ms Blatch that she had lied on the director questionnaire when she denied having been involved in any company that had gone into liquidation. Ms Blatch told me that wasn’t a lie. I indicated that I would adjourn the hearing and issue a fresh call-up dealing with all the insolvency history.

8. Between the hearings

The public inquiry was originally relisted for 18 July. On 14 July, I received the following update from Hampshire Police:

JLD Scaffolding have been summonsed for three summary offences:

Use a motor vehicle with equipment likely to cause danger or injury

Failed without reasonable excuse to ensure all downloads required by 97E(2) of The Transport Act 1968 were taken from a driver card

Failed without reasonable excuse to ensure all downloads required by 97D(2) of The Transport Act 1968 were taken from recording equipment fitted to a vehicle

I adjourned my inquiry to allow the company prosecution to be considered. I was notified at the end of September that the company had pleaded guilty on 25 September. The total penalty came to £4590 made up of £1500 for each tachograph offence, £1,750 for the vehicle defects and the remainder costs and victim surcharge.

The case was relisted for 12 December 2023.

9. THE PUBLIC INQUIRY DAY 2 – 12 DECEMBER 2023

Kellie Blatch and John Davies attended for the operator unrepresented. The company had been disappointed in the performance of their previous solicitor and felt they could do as well on their own.

I asked about the apparent discontinuity of evidence between the company’s submissions in July in relation to the fatality that “the resulting investigation did however exonerate the business from any criminal charges” with the conviction then incurred. Mr Davies told me that he thought I would be informed by someone of the conviction so they had not felt the need to tell me. I took care in expressing that my concern was more with previous statements that the company had not been interviewed and that there were no criminal proceedings. Ms Blatch interrupted to state that she had never been interviewed. I reminded her that she was not a director at the time of the incident.

Mr Davies insisted that the company had not been prosecuted because they had pleaded guilty. Ms Blatch told me that there must have been some sort of error there. The prosecution was for the nearside mirror and they got a hefty fine. I put it to Mr Davies that the statement stating the company had been exonerated was a lie. Mr Davies told me that he had never lied in his life. He asked me what he had done wrong – he had pleaded guilty? I explained that the company had, on multiple occasions, provided evidence to the public inquiry that there was no ongoing prosecution which was a lie. Had I accepted the company’s evidence in that regard in May or July, I would likely have made a different decision.

Mr Davies told me that he didn’t mean to mislead anyone. He had made a mistake. He accepted that he had signed-off the submissions produced by his solicitor. The company had kept the two incidents separate, the accident and the misdemeanours with the broken mirror. Ms Blatch told me that she was speechless. They had pleaded guilty and took the fine so there was no way either one of them would intentionally deceive.

I asked again about the application to add Ms Blatch as director which was made in Mr Davies’ name. He had stated that Ms Blatch had never had any licensing or insolvency history. Mr Davies started to answer but Ms Blatch interrupted to tell me that she had been disqualified and had thought that meant she did not need to disclose it. It wasn’t a deception as I could find out about the disqualification anyway. Ms Blatch had not mis-spelled her name as Kelly or Kellie. That had been done by someone else. By Mr Green who they no longer used.

Mr Davies told me it was a family-run company which he ran to the best of his ability. Revocation would put quite a few employees out of work including his grandsons. He was not a liar. He apologised for any genuine mistakes. There had been one mistake and they were being hung out to dry.

Since the last hearing, the drivers had been on a course. They had moved to Sparks Commercials. PMIs were done every eight weeks on time. Tachographs were now downloaded within 28 days using Convey. Gate checks were done every three or four weeks by Shane. They were down to two lorries, one of which is brand new and hired. There were three pick-up trucks.

I asked about General Scaffold Ltd. Ms Blatch told me she was director along with Mr Green who was, at the time, a good family friend. Mr Green took on the responsibility of the VAT returns. When they had an inspection, she got all the paperwork out. The tax inspector found out what Mr Green had been doing. Mr Green came in one day out of the blue and said we should fold the company. He had an ongoing investigation in to himself. They tried to strike a deal with the Revenue but they were not interested. They were very busy at the time and they felt they could work their way through it. Mr Green resigned leaving her to carry the can. She was disqualified because of the VAT matter. I said that disqualification was unusual. Ms Blatch insisted there was nothing else.

I moved on to General Scaffold (Southern) Limited and noted that it had been incorporated a year before General Scaffold Ltd entered liquidation. Ms Blatch told me that she could not speak for that company. I put it to her that Southern was created as an insurance policy should General Scaffold Ltd run in to problems. Both denied it. It was all a family business. But she and John had the final say. Always had done.

It would be awful if the licence was revoked. They had made mistakes and become complacent. Since then, they had got rid of one driver. They had a lot of work on and coming up. They worked for hospitals and schools and had a very good name. One job alone would take three or four weeks to take down.

I closed the hearing and gave the company until Friday 12 January 2024 to provide any further submissions or evidence.

10. POST-HEARING SUBMISSIONS

A further bundle of documents was received from the operator. These included a number of personal references for John Davies and illustrations of work that was underway or contracted. There is no explanation of the insolvencies.

11. FINDINGS OF FACT

11.1 Maintenance Matters

The operator declared on application that vehicles would be inspected every eight weeks, fifty-six days. In January 2023, Vehicle Examiner Collins found gaps of 151 days, 165 and 168 days. A further three gaps were found of over 100 days. It is clear that vehicles were not inspected at anything like the stated intervals. On 21 November 2021, a tyre is noted as being at 2mm. The next inspection occurs 132 days later and the tyre is reported as being at 1mm. It is not recorded on any driver defect report. Of twelve inspection records reviewed, only one has any form of brake performance assessment.

VE Collins found many instances of driver reportable defects being found on preventative maintenance inspections. I reviewed the compliance documents covering the period since the DVSA investigation. On 24 February 2023, SN57VYT is submitted for inspection. The inspection identifies a bulb failure warning on the dash, the engine management lamp is on, reverse lamp inoperative, nearside rear wing insecure, side lamp inoperative, and three tail lamps inoperative. It is next inspected on 25 April. The headlamp switch is faulty and side and headlamps do not come on but the engine management lamp still is. There are multiple other defects including a brake calliper sticking.

HX15ALU is inspected on 14 February 2023. Two front bulbs are not working. The coolant level is low and the windscreen is insecure. On 16 April, the inspection records that the nearside window is stuck open. Of real concern, the front brake pads have only 2mm of lining left with the action being to monitor; the MOT failure standard is 1.5mm. To the operator’s credit, inspections since the Examiner’s visit have happened on time and have included a roller brake test but it is abundantly clear that vehicles have not been kept fit and serviceable. Sections 26(1)(e) and (f) are made out and I attach significant weight to these finding.

12. Traffic Enforcement Matters

Traffic Examiner Rowlands found no evidence of any training on load security. There was no tachograph downloading at all despite the operator using vehicles clearly, by weight, in scope of the EU drivers hours rules. It follows that there was no procedure in place for analysis or disciplinary action. The two 18-tonne (and so, in-scope) vehicles had not been downloaded for 1,731 and 2,683 days. The legal maximum backstop in the EU legislation is 90 days. Downloading was introduced following the DVSA investigation but that cannot simply wipe away seven years of failing to act (this licence had been in force only since 2020 but the vehicle was specified on the licence of General Scaffolding (Southern) Ltd in February 2017. Driving licences were not being checked. On checking three, TE Rowlands found that two drivers had endorsements. It is clear that the operator failed to comply with the most basic of licence undertakings and Section 26(1)(f) is further made out. In the positive, these matters appear to have been corrected as of the date of the inquiry in July 2023.

13. Insolvency History

The operator’s written submissions helpfully, if, at times, incorrectly, set out the trading history. It appears to start in 1982 with John Davies in a partnership with a Peter Moore. There then follows a further partnership between John Davies and Steve Morris, presumably the same Steve Morris who attended the July hearing. The submissions refer to “Castle Scaffolding” being incorporated and operating from 2006 to 2012 with directors Kellie Hallett, John Davies and Kevin Dunstan. Companies House shows Castle Scaffolding (Southern) Ltd is incorporated in 2000 and voluntarily struck-off in 2012. Scaffold Services Holdings Ltd according to the written submissions trades from 2006 to 2007 with John Davies as sole director. Companies House shows it actually trading from 2006 until HMRC petition for its closure in December 2010 and the company was closed by the Official Receiver. This is the first record of the family owing money to the Crown.

Seemingly in parallel, in 2007 John Davies became a director of MD Scaffolding Ltd in January 2007. The company is voluntarily struck-off the register in February 2011 with no apparent insolvency.

General Scaffolding Ltd is incorporated in November 2009. The director at incorporation is Stephen Morris. Both John Davies and Kelly Blatch are appointed and removed as directors on 1 January 2013. Kelly Blatch is re-appointed as a director on 1 September 2013 and joined by Stephen Morris in June 2014. A liquidator is appointed on 5 January 2017. The statement of affairs is signed by Kellie Blatch. Assets with a book value of £132,000 are estimated to realise £17,830. Crown debt, notably VAT, makes up £270,000 of the total shortfall of £344,000. Of further note is the lack of any day-to-day suppliers in the list of creditors.

The final liquidators report talks of the shareholders having engaged in a tax avoidance scheme. The liquidators are clearly frustrated that HMRC declined to fund work in recovering that tax. The shareholders were John Davies, Kellie Blatch, Shane Davies, Stephen Morris and Steven Dow. It is for conduct in this business that Kellie Blatch was disqualified for three years. The report also speaks of the company paying bills from October 2016 that actually fell to the successor company, General Scaffolding (Southern) Limited, to whom all assets were sold.

General Scaffolding (Southern) Ltd is incorporated on 4 February 2016. The director at incorporation was Karen Davies and she was sole shareholder. She was joined on the Board in December 2016 by Shane Davies. On 3 February 2018, four additional shareholders are added, John Davies, Shane Davies, Kelly Blatch and Stephen Morris.  On 10 June 2021, the company enters insolvency. The statement of affairs shows book assets of just £1,756 which are estimated to realise nil. The shortfall is £335,000 of which VAT is £127,000, VAT £122,000 and £50,000 in a bounce-back loan. Lloyds Bank is owed a further £25,000 with a final £10,000 in trade and expense creditors. The liquidators’ report shows that these amounts were understated. Shane and Karen Davies are each disqualified for a period of nine years. The assets are sold to JLD Scaffold Services Ltd which had been incorporated in February 2020 with the licence granted in May. All vehicles were transferred from Southern to JLD on 19 May 2020 which puts in to question whether Southern was actually trading when it received its £50,000 bounce-back loan. The scheme opened on 4 May 2020.

The scaffolding operations of the Davies family have cost the UK taxpayer at least £570,000 without counting the debt to HMRC which led to the compulsory strike-off of Scaffold Services Holdings Ltd nor whatever may have been achieved through the tax avoidance scheme referred to in the reports for General Scaffolding Ltd. There appears to be something of a habit in another family member incorporating a new company around a year to eighteen months before the current business enters insolvency.

14. The Roles Played by the Parties

I had initially been concerned that Kellie Blatch was fronting for Shane Davies, or that John Davies was that front. The situation is both simpler and more complicated than that. The simple truth came out in the December hearing from John Davies. He told me that this was a longstanding family business that he wished to leave for the next generation, his grand-children, who are also now in the business. Father, son, daughter and daughter-in-law have all at some point been directors of the operation, whichever incarnation that might be. It was telling that Kellie Blatch told me that nothing had really ever changed about her role – apart from since February 2023 from which point she made all the financial decisions with input from her father. I find it, comfortably more likely than not, that no-one’s role has changed significantly over the past fifteen to twenty years. It is a family business and everyone has some input and some say in how things are done. That is why Shane Davies was so able to assist Vehicle Examiner Collins in January 2023 when his father was absent from the business. He was working in a supervisory role with management responsibilities. I find that he was a shadow director. His evidence in relation to his role was entirely stage-managed. I find it quite simply impossible to believe that he could not quote a price for even the simplest of job without asking his poorly father. His evidence was at times honest. I believed him when he told me that he did not wish to trouble his father who was at the time very ill. But then he seemed to realise he was off-script and started a quite ridiculous tale,  telling me that he would discuss business with his father during office hours but not in the evening. At that point, his evidence lost credibility. And the notion that such an experienced scaffolder, previously a director of his own company, would seek counsel from a poorly, elderly father over pricing a job for a few hundred pounds, a job he will have done many times before, is entirely without credibility. I find that the statutory director was accustomed to act on his advice and so I find that he was a shadow director.

It follows that I find that this business was a front for the continuing operations of the Davies family. In support of that statement, I note that the four vehicles specified on this licence when it was granted on 19 May 2020, DK06HOJ, YJ07XSG, FP63FDF and LS60OJA, were all removed from the licence of General Scaffold (Southern) Ltd the same day. Also of note is the trading name of “General Scaffolding” which is how the vehicles are liveried and, until February 2023, how the operator was referred to by the maintenance provider. I find that the listing of a person as a statutory director at Companies House is done as a matter of convenience, being whichever family member has the least bad history at that point in time. It has nothing to do with roles or authority within the business.

15. False Statements

On 2 March 2020, when this licence was applied for, John Davies answered in the negative to the following questions:

• Has anyone you’ve named in this application (including partners, directors and Transport Managers) ever been involved with a company or business that has gone (or is going into) liquidation, owing money?

• Has anyone you’ve named in this application (including partners, directors and Transport Managers) ever been involved with a company or business that has gone (or is going into) receivership?

John Davies was director of Scaffold Services Holdings Ltd which was forcibly closed down by the Official Receiver. He was a significant shareholder of General Scaffolding Ltd which entered insolvent liquidation in January 2017. There is an allegation from the liquidator that he benefitted at that time from a tax avoidance scheme.

When the application was made to add Kellie Blatch as a director to this licence, the company answered in the negative to the following questions:

• Has anyone you’ve named in this application (including partners, directors and Transport Managers) ever been involved with a company or business that has gone (or is going into) liquidation, owing money?

• Have you or any of your partners, directors, majority shareholders or Transport Managers ever been disqualified from acting as the director of a company, or from taking part in the management of a company?

Ms Blatch told me that she didn’t believe the questions applied because she had been disqualified and, as she put it, “served her time”. That simply does not align with the clarity of the questions asked – what does “ever” mean if not exactly what is says? So, there are two further false statements and I simply did not believe her explanation. She is an intelligent person and I believe knew full well what the question meant. I will add at this point that I now make nothing of the incorrect spelling of her forename previously other than carelessness.

In the company’s written submissions for the adjourned July hearing received in my office on 5 July 2023, the company refers to the police investigation in to the fatality and states “The resulting investigation did however exonerate the business from any criminal charges”. On 25 September 2023, the company was convicted of three charges relating to vehicle condition and the failure to download tachograph driver card and vehicle units. The statement that the company had been “exonerated” was clearly a lie.

16. DETERMINATION

The directors of this company have a very poor insolvency history which it has failed to declare through false statements made on two separate application forms. They made a further false statement in relation to the police prosecution and it seems more likely than not that, when they told me that there were no criminal proceedings underway in May 2023, they knew full well that there were. Having lied in writing on the application forms, the credibility of anything said from that point on0 is greatly reduced. Lying to get a licence and to keep a licence is a very serious matter justifying revocation on its own. I find that Section 26(1)(h) is made out as the operator is no longer not unfit to hold a licence.

In T/2010/83 PF Boomer t/a Carousel, the Transport Tribunal found that “The Traffic Commissioner’s trust in operators’ ethical business practices was essential to effective and compliant regulation”. The whole family has been party to insolvency proceedings where the principal loss has fallen to the taxpayer. For such a small business to have cost the taxpayer in excess of £570,000 in such a short period of time is quite simply appalling. Whether or not it was legal, and the disqualifications of family members suggests strongly that it was not, then it was distinctly immoral and from it the family has gained a significant commercial advantage.

I come back now to where this all started. I will not comment on the fatal incident as that is still subject to potential criminal proceedings. I start with the outcome of the DVSA investigations. Whilst I am surprised that the Traffic Examiner seemed so positive given the absence of drivers hours management for years, I would agree that the outcome would not in itself warrant significant regulatory action. However, the maintenance matters were very bad and only partly improved between the investigation and the inquiry. Vehicles that should have been inspected every 8 weeks went as long as twenty-two. There was no brake performance testing bar in one case. Driver defect reporting was totally missing and that matter seemed not to have improved at all. That such a culture might exist at all is wholly unsatisfactory. That it continue after a fatal incident where the vehicle involved was found to have two very obvious, driver-reportable defects beggars belief.

The combination of lying, insolvency and unsafe operation means that I must do more than just revoke this licence and disqualification is appropriate. There are positives. This is the company’s first public inquiry. A transport consultant was engaged and OLAT training attended. On traffic matters, there has been an improvement since the DVSA investigation and vehicle inspections are more or less on time. For that reason, I adopt the lowest starting point in the statutory guidance but I add a warning. That an individual has served their disqualification period does not automatically entitle to hold again a goods vehicle operator’s licence. It simply means it is not a criminal offence for them to do so. Fitness will have to be re-established and any new application will receive enhanced scrutiny.

I have not disqualified Stephen Morris. I did not hear evidence from him. I do not know his role within the business in enough detail to make an assessment. However, should he be party to an application for a licence, he too can expect to receive significant scrutiny.

17. DECISIONS

Pursuant to adverse findings in relation to Sections 26(1)(e) and 26(1)(f) in relation to maintenance and keeping vehicles fit and serviceable, the licence is revoked.

Pursuant to an adverse finding under Section 26(1)(h), material change in that the licence holder is no longer fit, the licence is revoked.

Pursuant to Section 28, JLD Scaffold Services Ltd, John Davies, Kellie Blatch and Shane Davies are each disqualified from holding a goods vehicle operator’s licence from 24 March 2024 for twelve months.

To allow the company to make arrangements to remove the scaffolding which is out, revocation will take effect from 23.59 hours on 23 March 2024.

Kevin Rooney

Traffic Commissioner

19 February 2024