Decision

Decision for John Stuart Strachan (OM0029162) and Philip John Bett t/a Streamlink (OM2016859) and Liam Scott Mclaughlin, Transport Manager

Published 15 August 2023

0.1 In the Scottish Traffic Area

1. Written Decision of the Deputy Traffic Commissioner

1.1 John Stuart Strachan (OM0029162) and Philip John Bett t/a Streamlink (OM2016859) and Liam Scott Mclaughlin,Transport Manager

2. Background

John Stuart Strachan, also known as Stuart Strachan (“Mr Strachan”) was granted a Standard National Operator’s Licence on 21 February 1996. At the date of the Public Inquiry the licence authorised the use of 3 vehicles and 4 trailers. Mr Strachan’s business is also known as Strachan Haulage. Mr Strachan is the nominated Transport Manager on the licence.

Mr Strachan has been at a Public Inquiry (“PI”) on 2 occasions. On 14 February 2008 he was issued with a formal warning on maintenance after a PI. A further formal warning was issued after a Senior Team Leader (“STL”) interview on 10 June 2010 after a ‘S’ marked prohibition. On the 9 May 2013 Mr Strachan was issued with a final warning on maintenance following another STL interview. On 21 August 2018 Mr Strachan was called to a PI following allegations that had been made to the DVSA including an allegation that Mr Strachan had been operating in excess of his authorisation. The decision of the Traffic Commissioner dated 18 February 2019 is at Document 9 of the PI Brief for Mr Strachan. At paragraph 79 the TC found that Mr Strachan had been operating in excess of his then authorisation of 8 vehicles from 2015 to 2018 even while the subject of a DVSA inquiry. The TC curtailed the licence from 8 vehicles and 8 trailers to 3 vehicles and 4 trailers and stated that no variation application for an increase would be considered for a minimum of 2 years. Mr Strachan, as operator and TM, was issued with “the severest warning it is possible to give an operator or transport manager”. Mr Strachan appealed against the decision to curtail his licence and the decision was stayed pending the outcome of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed by the Upper Tribunal by decision dated 12 September 2019. The Upper Tribunal directed that the curtailment and the commencement of the 2 year restriction should begin on 24 October 2019.

Mr Strachan’s Public Inquiry was conjoined with a PI for Forth and Clyde Logistics Ltd OM2051303. At the conclusion of the PI I issued Forth and Clyde Logistics Ltd with a severe warning to Mr and Mrs Reid (the directors of Forth and Clyde Logistics Ltd) about the need to cooperate with DVSA officials.

Mr Strachan’s PI was also conjoined with a PI for Philip John Bett (OM2016859) and his transport manager Liam Scott McLaughlin. Mr Bett had been granted a Standard National Operator’s Licence on 12 September 2018. It authorised the use of 4 vehicles and 4 trailers. Mr McLaughlin was the Transport Manager at the date of the granting of the licence.

3. The Call to Public Inquiry

Mr Strachan as Operator and Transport Manager was called to Public Inquiry by letters dated 26 January 2023. The first Public Inquiry was set down for 2 and 3 March 2023. The PI was adjourned due to a large volume of productions being lodged just before the PI. At the adjourned PI Mr Strachan was represented by Mr Jared Dunbar, solicitor. The DVSA were represented by Barry Wardrop, Traffic Examiner, and Senior Traffic Examiner Sandy Davidson. Mr Bett and Mr McLaughlin did not attend.

Mr Strachan’s Call Up letters stated that the Traffic Commissioner was concerned that Mr Strachan was operating more vehicles than authorised and that he had breached the condition that an operator’s licence is not transferable. There were also concerns about maintenance.

Mr Bett was called to PI by letter dated 26 January 2023 (enclosing the Public Inquiry Brief). The letter stated, amongst other matters, that there was an allegation of a borrowing/lending arrangement involving Mr Bett and Mr Strachan. I am satisfied that Mr Bett received a copy of the call up letter and Public Inquiry Brief as the Royal Mail tracking report confirmed that it had been signed for by “Bett” on 3 February 2023. Copies were sent to Mr Bett by email on 27 February 2023. I am satisfied that Mr Bett received notification of the adjourned Public Inquiry as the letter notifying him of this was signed for by “Bett” on 1 April 2023.

Mr McLaughlin was called to PI by letter dated 1 February 2023 (enclosing the Public Inquiry Brief). The letter stated, amongst other matters, that there was an allegation of a borrowing/lending arrangement involving Mr Bett and Mr Strachan. I am satisfied that Mr McLaughlin was validly served with call up letter and Brief as they were sent to the address on his TM1 form, although the Royal Mail tracking report stated that the recipient was unwilling to accept service and the parcel was returned with a label stating “addressee unknown”. The letter notifying Mr McLaughlin of the adjourned diet was also validly served as it was sent to that address, although the Royal Mail tracking report stated that Mr McLaughlin was “no longer at that address”. Mr McLaughlin had not provided a contact telephone number or an email address on his TM1.

4. The Public Inquiry

The DVSA produced two reports relating to Mr Strachan: (1) a report (Document 14) from Vehicle Examiner Paul Robertson and (2) a report (Document 15) from Traffic Examiner Barry Wardrop. In summary the allegations made by the DVSA included that Mr Bett had obtained an Operator’s Licence in order to allow Mr Strachan to operate more vehicles than authorised and that once Mr Bett had obtained his licence he allowed Mr Strachan to operate vehicles that were specified on Mr Bett’s licence. The DVSA were concerned that Forth & Clyde Logistics Ltd had also been used as a front by Mr Strachan.

Mr Wardrop prepared a Public Inquiry Statement for Mr Bett and a Public Inquiry Statement for Mr McLaughlin. These statements mirrored the allegations made against Mr Strachan.

After hearing evidence I was satisfied that Forth & Clyde Logistics Ltd had not been used as a front by Mr Strachan. The issues at the PI were narrowed to the nature of the business relationship between Mr Bett and Mr Strachan.

The DVSA investigation into Mr Bett and Mr Strachan began after Mr Strachan applied on 22 September 2021 to increase the authorisation on Mr Strachan’s licence from 3 vehicles and 4 vehicles to 10 vehicles and 15 trailers. As a result of the application a maintenance investigation was carried out which was endorsed as unsatisfactory. The application was then withdrawn on 18 November 2021.

Mr Wardrop had established a link between Mr Strachan and Mr Bett as the vehicles on Mr Bett’s licence were owned by Mr Strachan. On 12 September 2021 there had been a routine roadside encounter at M74 Beattock DVSA checksite. A vehicle, GN18 OUF, was stopped displaying a disc in the name of Philip John Bett t/a Streamlink. The driver stated that his boss was Mr Bett, who was subcontracted by Strachan Haulage. The driver stated that all the work was allocated by Stuart Strachan and the driver had litte involvement with Mr Bett. The vehicle was being parked at Mr Strachan’s operating centre.

On 2nd December 2021 Mr Wardrop went to Mr Bett’s operating centres. Mr Wardrop attended the premises of Streamline Shipping, 7 Hornock Road, Coatbridge and spoke to the Health and Safety Coordinator of that business. Mr Wardrop asked inf Mr Bett had parked any vehicles or trailers as the address. Mr Wardrop was told that the Health and Safety Co-ordinator was not aware of Mr Bett or anyone trading as Streamlink. Mr Wardrop was told that Mr McLaughlin was employed by Streamline Shipping. Mr Wardrop then went to 2 Dunnswood Road, Wardpark South, Cumbernauld (shared as an operating centre with another operator). Mr Wardrop was told by that operator’s transport manager that he was not aware of Mr Bett or anyone trading as Streamlink.

In between the two visits Mr Wardrop phoned Mr McLaughlin. Mr McLaughlin said that he had never fulfilled his role as Transport Manager as Mr Bett had never operated any vehicles. He stated the licence should be dormant. He had met with someone called Stuart in 2018.

Mr McLaughlin was interviewed by Mr Wardrop on 10 January 2022 and he confirmed that the business had not been set up. He had spoken to someone called Stuart back in 2018.

On 8 December 2021 Mr Wardrop wrote to Mr Bett asking him to attend a formal interview on 17 December 2021. Mr Bett replied saying that he could not attend on that date. On 23 December 2021 Mr Bett phone Mr Wardrop and told him that he had sold his business about 1 year ago to Mr Strachan.

An interview was eventually arranged for the 17 January 2022. Mr Bett arrived at the DVSA office accompanied by Mr Strachan. Mr Bett had wanted Mr Strachan to be present at the interview but he was told that there was a conflict by Mr Wardrop. Mr Bett declined to be interviewed and stated that he wanted to seek legal advice.

Mr Wardrop was contacted by Mr Dunbar, solicitor who stated he was acting on behalf of Mr Bett and that Mr Bett would provide a statement. Mr Bett emailed a statement dated 17 February 2022. Mr Bett’s statement said:-

“…5.I sourced the work for my business through my contacts at Wincanton and then delegated the work out.

6.Having sought advice on my arrangements, I now appreciate that they were far from satisfactory. However, I didn’t appreciate that at the time and I though What I was doing was acceptable…

9.Approximately a year ago, I agreed to sell my business. In return I would be granted shares in a limited company.

10.Nothing has taken place yet.

I recently appointed John Strachan as my transport manager…”

The statement went on to state that Mr Bett was now employing his drivers directly and had given them written contracts of employment etc. There were hire agreements in place for the vehicles with Mr Strachan. Mr Bett was going to pay for fuel and maintenance. Mr Bett was making arrangements for laden brake tests and for forward planning, driver defect reporting and tachograph analysis. Mr Bett stated that he had “now given written tests to all drivers on EU drivers hours rules and working time and provided internal training for all drivers”.

Mr Bett applied to surrender his licence on 31 May 2022. The surrender was not accepted because of the outstanding investigation.

Mr Wardrop summarised his findings at page 72 of the Brief. Mr Wardrop pointed out that the application for Mr Bett’s licence was made only 22 days after Mr Strachan’s Public Inquiry on 21 August 2018. Mr Bett’s vehicles were parked at Mr Strachan’s operating centre. Mr Bett and Mr McLaughlin were unknown at Mr Bett’s authorised operating centres. Mr Bett’s vehicles were being downloaded by Mr Strachan’s employee. Safety inspections were paid for by Mr Strachan in addition to Mr Strachan carrying out in house safety inspections. Mr Wardrop concluded that Mr Strachan had persuaded Mr Bett to make an application as Mr Strachan thought that he might lose his licence or that his licence might be curtailed.

Mr Dunbar produced written submissions in advance of the hearing. At paragraph 54 it was accepted that brake testing arrangements and defect reporting systems needed improvement. So far as the allegation of acting as a front by Philip Bett was concerned the intention had been that Mr Strachan would subcontract work to Philip Bett. Mr Strachan had hired out vehicles to other operators. Mr Strachan had entered into subcontracting arrangements with other operators.

Mr Strachan explained in his evidence that Mr Bett had been unable to open a bank account. As a result Mr Strachan had ended up paying Mr Bett’s bills for drivers and maintenance etc and had, in effect acted as Mr Bett’s bank account. The arrangement was that Mr Bett would hire Mr Strachan’s vehicles and Mr Strachan would subcontract work to Mr Bett. Because Mr Bett had not been able to open a bank account the arrangement had never worked properly. Mr Strachan did not invoice Mr Bett and Mr Bett did not invoice Mr Strachan. Mr Strachan had paid the drivers. Any profit that was made was retained by Mr Strachan.

At the conclusion of the PI Mr Dunbar expanded upon his written submissions. His position was that Mr Strachan had not operated more vehicles than the maximum authorised on his licence (s.6 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995. Mr Strachan had not breached the condition on his licence that an operator’s licence is not transferable (s.26(1)(b)). So far as the maintenance issues were concerned although the Maintenance Investigation on 18 October 2021 had been unsatisfactory the DVSA had confirmed that Mr Strachan’s response had been acceptable and Mr Strachan had taken steps to deal with the shortcomings. Mr Strachan had better than average passes at annual test and his prohibition rate was better than average.

5. Decision and reasoning

5.1 John Stuart Strachan

I agree with Mr Dunbar that maintenance is not significant in this case. The real issues in this case is who the “user” of the vehicles that were specified on Mr Bett’s licence and, if Mr Strachan was the operator, what are the consequences for Mr Strachan, Mr Bett and Mr McLaughlin?

The first issue is straightforward. Mr Strachan’s position was that he had attempted to set up an arrangement with Mr Bett’s so that Mr Bett would subcontract work for Mr Strachan but that had not happened. The intention had been that Mr Bett would hire vehicles from Mr Strachan, that Mr Bett would employ and pay the drivers, he would maintain the vehicles, he would pay for fuel etc. and that Mr Bett would invoice Mr Strachan for the work that was sub-contracted to him.

Mr Strachan accepted that none of this had in fact happened. Mr Strachan stated that this was because Mr Bett had been unable to open a bank account and as a result the drivers’ wages, fuel, maintenance etc were paid for by Mr Strachan.

s.2(1) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 states:-

“…no person shall use a goods vehicle on a road for the carriage of goods…

except under a licence issued under this Act: and in this Act such a licence is referred to as an ‘operator’s licence’”

Mr Bett cannot, on any view, be said to have been “using” the vehicles that were specified on his licence. From the evidence it is difficult to identify what involvement, if any, Mr Bett had in the operation of the vehicles. In Mr Bett’s statement at paragraph 3 he claimed that he sourced work for his business through his contacts with Wincanton and then delegated the work out. This is contradicted by Mr Strachan’s position which was that the intention was that Mr Strachan would subcontract the work to Mr Bett but that this had not happened because Mr Bett had difficulties with his bank.

In fairness to Mr Strachan, his evidence was straightforward – although the intention was that this would be a subcontracting arrangement the intention had never become a reality. Mr Strachan was paying the drivers etc. No money at any stage went into Mr Bett’s hands.

Mr Strachan’s position was that he had tried to enter into a genuine sub-contracting arrangement but that it had not worked. The fact remains that Mr Strachan was the “user” of the vehicles on Mr Bett’s licence, not Mr Bett.

The difficulty for Mr Strachan is that he was not authorised to use these vehicles under s.2(1) – Mr Bett was. The difficulty for Mr Bett was that he was not using these vehicles- Mr Strachan was. I am satisfied that Mr Bett lent his operator discs to Mr Strachan so that Mr Strachan could use more vehicles than he was authorised to. On any view of the evidence Mr Strachan was I using vehicles in excess of the maximum number on his operator’s licence in contravention of s.6 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995.

What then is the effect of Mr Strachan’s unlawful use of the vehicles have on Mr Strachan’s repute as an operator and as a transport manager?

Mr Dunbar submitted that Mr Strachan remained of good repute both as an operator and a transport manager. Mr Dunbar invited me to find that this was because Mr Strachan had attempted to lawfully subcontract work to Mr Bett but the arrangement had failed because of Mr Bett’s problems with his bank. Mr Strachan had entered into a genuine sub-contracting arrangement with Forth & Clyde Logistics Ltd. There was nothing to prevent Mr Strachan from sub-contracting work that he could not do because he did not have enough authorised vehicles. The arrangement with Mr Bett was a genuine attempt to sub-contract that had gone wrong not through any fault on the part of Mr Strachan.

I accept that there was nothing to prevent Mr Strachan from entering into subcontracting arrangements to carry out work that he could not do because he did not have enough authorised vehicles providing it was a genuine sub-contracting arrangement. Mr Strachan could have leased vehicles to Mr Bett and then sub-contracted work to Mr Bett. I accept that the arrangement with Forth & Clyde Logistics Ltd was a genuine sub-contracting arrangement.

However, what happened in this case is that vehicles that were owned by Mr Strachan were specified on Mr Bett’s licence from 14 October 2021 and were used from then onwards by Mr Strachan (see p.9 of the Public Inquiry Brief for Mr Strachan). Mr Wardrop analysed data that showed that vehicles specified on Mr Bett’s licence were being used from 25 May 2021 to 20 January 2022 (p.23 and 24) and indeed were being driven by Mr Strachan. It seems reasonable to infer that if these vehicles were being used during that time, they were used before and after that time period. Furthermore, it seems reasonable to infer that the vehicle that had been removed on 16 August 2021 S20LNK (for which Mr Wardrop did not get any data) was also used from 14 October 2019. The point that I wish to make is that even if the intention was to enter into a genuine subcontracting arrangement, Mr Strachan knew that this had not been achieved. Mr Strachan was paying the drivers, fuel, maintenance etc. No money ever went to Mr Bett. Mr Strachan operated the vehicles on Mr Bett’s licence for a considerable period of time (over 3 years if my inferences are valid) without any explanation as to why he thought it was lawful for him to do so.

If there had been a genuine intention to sub-contract work to Mr Bett, the vehicles continued to be used after it must have been clear that the sub-contracting arrangement was not going to work.

I do not accept that Mr Strachan had a genuine intention to subcontract work to Mr Bett. Mr Bett’s licence was granted on 5 December 2018 shortly after Mr Strachan was at his first PI on 21 August 2018. No vehicles were specified on Mr Bett’s licence until 14 October 2019. I do not accept that it is a coincidence that shortly after Mr Strachan learned that his appeal against the curtailment of his licence on or about 12 September 2019 and that his licence would be severely curtailed to 3 vehicles and 4 trailers from 24 October 2019, vehicles owned by Mr Strachan were specified on Mr Bett’s licence.

It seems to me that the irresistible inference from (1) the proximity of Mr Strachan’s PI and Mr Bett applying for and being granted an operator’s licence and (2) the proximity of Mr Strachan’s unsuccessful appeal and the first vehicles going onto Mr Bett’s licence, that Mr Bett obtained his operator’s licence and Mr Strachan’s vehicles were specified on Mr Bett’s operator’s licence because of Mr Strachan’s difficulties, and not because of a genuine desire for Mr Bett to start up his own business sub-contracting to Mr Strachan. If the intention had been for Mr Bett to set up a genuine business on his own account why were no vehicles specified on Mr Bett’s licence for nearly 10 months after his operator’s licence was granted? If the difficulty was that Mr Bett could not sort out the difficulties with his bank why, when it was obvious that Mr Bett did not have banking facilities, did Mr Strachan, in his own words, act as Mr Bett’s bank from October 2019 onwards and not some earlier date? I do not believe Mr Strachan when he says this was a genuine attempt to set Mr Bett up in business.

Even if there had been a genuine attempt to set Mr Bett up in business this does not provide any excuse for Mr Strachan to use vehicles specified on Mr Bett’s operator licence. However, because I did not believe Mr Strachan I am led to the conclusion that Mr Strachan was using the vehicles specified on Mr Bett’s licence in order to avoid the problems caused by the curtailment of Mr Strachan’s licence.

I find, therefore that Mr Strachan deliberately attempted to circumvent the operator licensing system by entering into an arrangement with Mr Bett in which Mr Bett would obtain an operator’s licence and he would lend discs to Mr Strachan so that Mr Strachan could operate more vehicles than the maximum authorised on Mr Strachan’s

I have considered the question of how likely it is that this operator will, in the future, operate in compliance with the operator’s licensing regime (the Priority Freight question). Because this the second Public Inquiry at which Mr Strachan has been found to have operated more than the authorised number of vehicles on his operator’s licence I have reached the view that it is unlikely that Mr Strachan will be compliant in the future.

Is this an operator whose conduct is such that he ought to be put out of business? I have considered all the relevant positives and negatives.

So far as the positives are concerned Mr Dunbar submitted that these included a good MOT history, a good prohibition rate, a comprehensive driver handbook, a low driver infringement rate, driver training and that a transport consultant has been engaged to assist.

While accept these are positives, I consider that these are outweighed by the seriousness of the negatives. This is Mr Strachan’s second PI at which he has been found to have operated vehicles in excess of the maximum allowed in terms of his operator’s licence. I have found that Mr Strachan has deliberately attempted to circumvent the licensing regime. Lending and borrowing of discs is an extremely serious matter. The maximum number of vehicles specified on a operator’s licence is a fundamental part of the licensing regime. Mr Strachan has derived a commercial advantage from operating more vehicles than he should have. Mr Strachan has broken the relationship of trust that is at the heart of the licensing system.

I have to consider what other lawful operators would think if they learned of Mr Strachan’s behaviour and discovered that his operator’s licence had not been revoked. I believe that they would think if he can get away with it why should I bother to comply with the licensing regime.

I have considered the effect of revocation on Mr Strachan. In his evidence Mr Strachan said that if his operator’s licence was revoked he could retire. It would, however, damage the pride that he had felt from having worked hard over many years to build up his business. In the circumstances it does not appear that revocation would have a disproportionate effect on Mr Strachan financially.

For these reasons I find that it is a proportionate response to Mr Strachan’s conduct to direct that Mr Strachan’s operator’s licence be revoked in terms of s.26(1)(b) [breach of conditions on licence], s.27(1)(a) [the operator is no longer of good repute] and s.27(1)(b) [the transport manager is no longer of good repute].

I have considered whether or not I should order that Mr Strachan should be disqualified from holding an operator’s licence in terms of s.28(1). I reached the view that because of the serious nature of Mr Strachan’s conduct he should be disqualified from holding an operator’s licence for a period of 10 years.

I also direct that in terms of s.28(4) that should Mr Strachan become the director of, or hold a controlling interest in a company which holds an operator’s licence, or a company of which such a company is a subsidiary, or operates any goods vehicles in partnership with a person who holds such a licence, that licence of that company, or as the case may be, of that person, shall be liable to revocation, suspension or curtailment under s.26.

So far as Mr Strachan’s status as a transport manager is concerned, because I have found that he has lost his repute as an operator it follows that he has lost his repute as a transport manager and, in terms of paragraph 15 of Schedule 3 of the 1995 I declare that Mr Strachan is unfit to manage the transport activities of any transport operation. The consequence is that Mr Strachan’s Certificate of Professional Competence is not longer valid. I have considered what if any rehabilitation measure might be completed to allow Mr Strachan to regain his fitness. I have concluded that because of Mr Strachan’s deliberate attempt to circumvent the licensing regime, there is no appropriate rehabilitation measure. Mr Strachan’s disqualification is, therefore, indefinite, subject to Mr Strachan’s right to seek the cancellation or variation of this order in terms of paragraph 17 of Schedule 3.

The above orders in relation to Mr John Stuart Strachan will come into force with effect from 23:59 on 16 September 2023

5.2 Philip John Bett

I have found that Mr Bett was part of an arrangement in which he loaned his discs to Mr Strachan. I have not had the opportunity of hearing from Mr Bett. I have considered the statement that he provided to Mr Wardrop.

I find that Mr Bett’s conduct is as equally reprehensible as Mr Strachan’s. I note that Mr Bett has applied to surrender his licence. The interests of the licensing regime require that Mr Bett’s application to surrender his licence is refused.

I have considered the question of how likely it is that Mr Bett will, in the future, operate in compliance with the operator’s licensing regime (the Priority Freight question). I note that Mr Bett has not attended this Public Inquiry. Mr Bett did not co-operate with the DVSA investigation. He has not given a candid account of his role. I consider that it is unlikely that Mr Bett will, in the future, operate in compliance with the operator’s licensing regime.

Is Mr Bett an operator who deserves to be put out of business? I cannot find any positives other than this is his first Public Inquiry and he has no regulatory history.

I consider that these are outweighed by the seriousness of the negatives. I have found that Mr Bett has deliberately attempted to circumvent the licensing regime. Lending and borrowing of discs is an extremely serious matter. The maximum number of vehicles specified on a operator’s licence is a fundamental part of the licensing regime. Mr Bett has broken the relationship of trust that is at the heart of the licensing system.

I have to consider what other lawful operators would think if they learned of Mr Bett’s behaviour and discovered that his operator’s licence had not been revoked. I believe that they would think if he can get away with it why should I bother to comply with the licensing regime.

For these reasons I find that it is a proportionate response to Mr Bett’s conduct to direct that Mr Bett’s operator’s licence be revoked in terms of s.26(1)(b) [breach of conditions on licence], and s.27(1)(a) [the operator is no longer of good repute].

I have considered whether or not I should order that Mr Bett should be disqualified from holding an operator’s licence in terms of s.28(1). I reached the view that because of the serious nature of Mr Bett’s conduct he should be disqualified from holding an operator’s licence for a period of 5 years. The shorter period takes account of the fact that this is Mr Bett’s first public inquiry.

I also direct that in terms of s.28(4) that should Mr Bett become the director of, or hold a controlling interest in a company which holds an operator’s licence, or a company of which such a company is a subsidiary, or operates any goods vehicles in partnership with a person who holds such a licence, that licence of that company, or as the case may be, of that person, shall be liable to revocation, suspension or curtailment under s.26.

The above orders in relation to Mr Philip John Bett will come into force with effect from 23:59 on 28 July 2023.

5.3 Liam Scott McLaughlin

Mr McLaughlin chose not to attend the Public Inquiry. According to his interview with Mr Wardrop he believed that Mr Bett had never operated any vehicles. If that was the case and he was not playing an active role as transport manager of Mr Bett’s licence he should have resigned and notified the OTC of his resignation. Mr McLaughlin did not do so. If Mr McLaughlin had resigned in 2018 then this could have resulted in Mr Bett being investigated. It might have meant that Mr Strachan would have been prevented from borrowing Mr Bett’s discs.

I consider that if a Transport Manager chooses not to attend a Public Inquiry he or she risks a finding that they have lost their good repute as a transport manager. I have decided not to find that Mr McLaughlin has lost his good repute as a transport manager. I find that his repute is tarnished and I direct that a note will be placed on his record that if he wishes to be the transport manager for any other operator any application should be called to a public inquiry to enable him to explain what happened when he was the transport manager for Mr Bett.

Hugh J. Olson

Deputy Traffic Commissioner for Scotland

14 July 2023