Decision

Decision for Karl Kevin George Hall

Published 29 September 2023

0.1 EAST OF ENGLAND TRAFFIC AREA

1. DECISION OF THE DEPUTY TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER

2. PUBLIC INQUIRY HELD IN CAMBRIDGE ON 12 MAY AND 11 SEPTEMBER 2023

2.1 OPERATOR: KARL KEVIN GEORGE HALL LICENCE OF2007221

3. Background

Karl Kevin George Hall holds a standard international goods vehicle operator’s licence (OF2007221) for five vehicles and two trailers. The licence, originally of the restricted type, was granted in April 2018: it was upgraded to a standard international one in July 2020. The nominated transport manager on the licence is Karl Kevin George Hall (henceforward “Karl Hall”).

4. DVSA Report

Following a stop of one of Karl Hall’s vehicles on 11 September 2021, DVSA carried out an investigation into the operator which reported the following concerns:

• the tachograph head of vehicle V88 HFS had been wrongly calibrated as VB16 HFS;

• VB16 HFS had previously been registered in Denmark. It was alleged to have been illegally imported to the UK;

• registration plates were being illegally swapped between Karl Hall’s vehicles;

• Mr Hall had failed to provide the full drivers’ hours data requested by DVSA for analysis;

• a driver had driven a vehicle without holding the correct driving licence;

• drivers’ hours offences were apparent from the limited data produced by Mr Hall, including numerous offences of drivers driving without a tachograph card.

5. Propose to revoke letters

Concerned by this report, the traffic commissioner caused a “propose to revoke” letter to be sent to Mr Hall on 7 August 2022. Mr Hall’s response referred to difficulties downloading data from the tachograph unit of one vehicle. A further “propose to revoke” letter was sent on 25 September 2022.

The matter then seems to have been lost sight of in the backlog of cases affecting the Cambridge office. A public inquiry was eventually arranged for 12 May 2023. The call-up letter was sent on 14 April 2023, citing Sections 26(1)(b), (c)(i), (ii) and (iii), (e), (f) and (h), 27(1) and 28 of the 1995 Act. By separate letter, Mr Hall was also called to the inquiry in his capacity as transport manager, to consider his good repute.

In addition to the issues identified in the DVSA report, the call-up letter referred to two convictions incurred by Mr Hall which had been reported in the press (and subsequently verified by the Cambridge office) but not notified by him to the traffic commissioner. These were:

• a conviction in April 2017 at Ipswich Magistrates Court for possession of a stolen cultivator. Mr Hall was sentenced to 24 weeks in prison (suspended for 12 months), 180 hours of unpaid work and a total of £615 in fines and costs. This offence had not been declared on the application form for the licence submitted by Mr Hall in March 2018, although the offence did not become spent until October 2019;

• a conviction on 12 December 2022 at Ipswich Crown Court for handling stolen goods. Mr Hall received a 13 month prison sentence suspended for 2 years, as well as a further 180 hours of unpaid work.

Another issue identified in the call-up letter was that Karl Hall, although holding the operator licence as a sole trader, appeared to be trading through a limited company, as he was recorded as a director of Hall Farm Services Ltd at Companies House.

6. Public inquiry

The public inquiry took place in Cambridge on 12 May 2023. Present were Karl Hall and DVSA traffic examiner Arlane Mansell-Baker.

6.1 Failure to notify convictions

Asked why he had failed to notify his conviction for possession of stolen goods when applying for the licence in 2018, Mr Hall said that he had not considered it relevant. By contrast, he claimed that he had notified his December 2022 conviction for handling stolen goods to the traffic commissioner in January 2023. He had sent a letter by post. I noted that there was no record of the receipt of any such letter at the central licensing office in Leeds.

6.2 Swapping of registration plates

TE Mansell-Baker said that a red Scania HGV with a Danish registration plate (AY32160) had been driven by Mr Hall from Northern Ireland to the UK mainland in March 2021. It appeared to have been driven without tax and insurance in the ensuing months. Its tachograph unit had been recalibrated to VB16 HFS on 3 August 2021, but ANPR showed that it had been seen on the road on 87 different occasions between 4 and 22 August 2021 still displaying the Danish registration plate. ANPR also showed that registration plates were being exchanged between vehicles. For example, the Danish plate AY32160 was on the red Scania on 21 August; the same vehicle on 29 August displayed VB16 HFS and on 1 September showed registration number V88 HFS. The V88 HFS mark was photographed on a grey tractor unit the previous day, 31 August 2021. On 9 September 2021, the mark V88 HFS was seen on both the red vehicle (on the M25 at 0742 hours) and the grey vehicle (on the A14 at 0808 hours). The same registration number (V88 HFS) was displayed by the two different vehicles both on 9 and 10 September 2021.

Mr Hall explained that he had purchased AY32160 in Northern Ireland and had brought it back to his yard. It was supposed to be a replacement for V88 HFS. He had sent in the necessary documents to DVLA to acquire the personalised number V88 HFS. It was supposed to be off the road (VOR) during the registration process but a driver had taken it out by mistake.

TE Mansell-Baker pointed out that the tachograph recalibration invoice from the recalibration centre recorded that the vehicle had been calibrated to VB16 HFS, not V88 HFS. I noted that that the red Scania vehicle had been seen on the road on ten different days displaying three different plates: that did not seem to be a one-off mistake by a driver.

Mr Hall accepted that he did not know why the red Scania was displaying VB16 HFS after being calibrated and then AY32160 again two weeks later. He agreed that AY32160 had been used in August by mistake. But he had paid the duty and sent off the paperwork in July.

6.3 Driver without entitlement

Ms Mansell-Baker’s report noted that articulated vehicle VB16 HFS had been driven on 11 and 12 September by a driver Christian Huck (Karl Hall’s father). Mr Huck did not have the necessary C+E driving entitlement. Neither did he have the necessary certificate of professional competence (CPC). Karl Hall said that he had assumed that his father’s licence was up to date.

6.4 Failure to provide data

TE Mansell-Baker stated that it had proved impossible to get any data concerning vehicle WU15 UBM. The tachograph head was dead and she suspected that Mr Hall had deliberately sparked it in order to avoid having to provide data. Mr Hall denied this, saying that he had purchased a new tachograph head from Volvo and got Taylors Commercials to fit it. There had been some sort of corrosion in the wire to the battery box.

6.5 Roller brake test data

Karl Hall had attended a meeting with the Senior Team Leader in Cambridge on 24 May 2019 at the conclusion of which he agreed an undertaking that his vehicles be given laden roller brake tests at each preventative maintenance inspection (PMI). The call-up letter asked him to provide maintenance records and brake test reports.

In examining the bake test reports provided for the inquiry, I noticed some anomalies. The brake test for vehicle WU15 UBM dated 29 April 2022 had exactly the same test number (1810), time of presentation (1245 hours), measured vehicle weight at presentation (24069kg) and brake test values for each axle as the test dated 27 June 2022. In addition, the date for the latter test had been handwritten over the space where the printed date normally appears. The brake test reports for 26 January and 8 March 2023 also contained exactly the same numbers and information as the test on 29 April 2022. The only difference was that, on the print-outs of the 26 January and 8 March 2023 tests, the words “A and R Commercials” [the name of the brake test provider] appeared in a different form (over two lines rather than one) to the print-out dated 29 April 2022. This had caused information regarding the date of the test and gross vehicle weight to be out of alignment with the date and weight headings. The test print-outs for 27 June 2022, 26 January 2023 and 8 March 2023 seemed to be false documents, being altered copies of the test which had taken place on 29 April 2022.

Further, the brake test for the same vehicle WU15 UBM dated 26 September 2022 had exactly the same test number, time of presentation, measured vehicle weight and brake test values for each axle as the test dated 17 December 2022. Again, on the print-out of the latter test, the words “A and R Commercials” were printed over two lines rather than one, causing subsequent date and vehicle weight information to be out of alignment.

There was a roller brake test print-out for vehicle PX68 KHN, dated 21 October 2022. The test number was 2280. There were two further brake test documents for the same vehicle with the same test number (and all other values exactly the same), dated 8 December 2022 and 13 January 2023. The dates for the latter had clearly been falsified, as instead of the figure “0” appearing in the dates, the capital letter “O” had been employed. Again, the alignment in the two latter test reports was wrong.

I tackled Mr Hall about these discrepancies and took him through them in detail. He denied all knowledge and sought to put the blame on the maintenance provider. He said that he could not be expected to sit on the shoulder of A and R Commercials.

6.6 Entity

Mr Hall accepted that the operating entity was a limited company but insisted that he had applied for a licence in the name of his company, Hall Farm Services Ltd and had confirmed this to the central licensing office during the application process. I noted however that he had emailed as follows that office on 23 April 2018:

• “Following on from our conversation this morning, this email is to confirm that I wish for the above application to be carried out in my name personally as a sole treader [sic] for the use of my own goods.”

6.7 Conclusion

In conclusion, Karl Hall apologised for any shortcomings and undertook to run a better operation in future.

7. Adjournment

The apparent falsification of numerous brake test results was such a serious matter that I adjourned the inquiry at this point in order for the DVSA traffic examiner to gather evidence from A and R Commercials about the brake test print-outs.

TE Mansell-Baker subsequently interviewed under caution Roland Hollings, Managing Director of A and R Commercials on 15 May 2023. Mr Hollings stated that one of his staff might have amended by hand the date on the report dated 27 June 2022 for vehicle WU15 UBM. He could not verify the reason for the alteration and believed that the member of staff concerned had left the company.

Mr Hollings stated that he considered the brake test reports dated 29 April 2022 and 26 September 2022 for vehicle WU15 UBM were genuine. A brake test had also taken place on 27 June 2022 (although he could not explain why his staff had written in the date by hand). A test had not taken place on 17 December 2022 because the test rollers were frozen that day. The print-outs regarding vehicle WU15 UBM dated 17 December 2022, 26 January 2023 and 8 March 2023 were in his view falsified. Asked who had falsified the documents he stated that it was the operator.

Mr Hollings confirmed that vehicle PX68 KHD had been given a roller brake test on 19 October 2022. However, the test results for 8 December 2022 and 13 January 2023 had both been falsified. They had the same job or test number (and all other values) as the genuine test on 19 October 2022. He had confirmed with R2C (the computerised record system) that it was not possible for the job number to be duplicated on their system.

8. Reconvened public inquiry

In the light of Mr Hollings’s evidence, I reconvened the inquiry. This could not be done until 11 September 2023, owing to the summer break. Present at the resumed inquiry were again Karl Hall and TE Mansell-Baker, plus Roland Hollings, now the former managing director of A and R Commercials.

Mr Hollings repeated what he had told TE Mansell-Baker in interview. He added that A and R Commercials had its own operator’s licence: it would never have done anything to bring that into jeopardy.

Mr Hall continued to maintain that he had simply received the brake test reports he had been given and had not looked at them closely enough to spot any anomaly.

At this point I adjourned the inquiry in order to take a written decision.

9. Findings

After considering the written and oral evidence, I make the following findings:

• when applying for the licence, Karl Hall made a statement of fact that was false, namely that he had not been convicted of any offence. The reality was that he had recently (at the time of application) been convicted of an offence of possessing stolen goods (agricultural machinery in the form of a cultivator)(Section 26(1)(e) of the 1995 Act refers);

• Mr Hall has failed to fulfil his undertaking to ensure the lawful driving and operation of vehicles (Section 26(1)(f) of the 1995 Act refers). One of Karl Hall’s vehicles was driven on at least two days by Christian Huck, who lacked both the correct driver entitlement and the necessary driver CPC;

• there has been other unlawful operation of vehicles in that at least two vehicles have at various times swapped number plates. The two were driving with the same number plate on at least two days. One vehicle (the red Scania) was seen to be using three different number plates at various times in August and September 2021;

• further, the red Scania originally registered in Denmark as AY32160 was operated in the UK before it had been re-registered and taxed.

• Mr Hall has failed to fulfil his undertaking that vehicles would be given roller brake tests at each PMI. Worse, he has sought to cover up this failing by presenting false documentation. I do not accept his contention that responsibility for the false records – and they are clearly false – lies with A and R Commercials. A and R would have no motive to create false documents and put their reputation both with the traffic commissioner (as an o-licence holder) and with other operators (as a maintenance provider) at risk. By contrast, Mr Hall would have an obvious motive: if the brake tests had not taken place (which Mr Hollings averred was the case) he would be in breach of his undertakings to the traffic commissioner. I find that Mr Hall took several genuine test results and used those to create false documents to make it look as if his vehicles had had the required regular roller brake tests. A finding of dishonesty on this scale is a very serious matter, but the evidence for it is overwhelming;

• Mr Hall failed to fulfil his undertaking to notify convictions of serious offences within 28 days. There is no record of our having received any notice from him of his conviction for handling stolen goods on 12 December 2022;

• there has been a material change in the licence in that the operating entity is (and always has been) Hall Farm Services Ltd (incorporated in April 2016) rather than Karl Hall as a sole trader (Section 26(1)(h) refers). He made a false statement to the central licensing office in 2018 when he explicitly stated that he was applying as a sole trader (Section 26(1)(e) refers);

• I considered that there was insufficient evidence to make any finding concerning the allegation that Mr Hall deliberately destroyed the tachograph head of a vehicle in order to prevent DVSA interrogating its data;

• Mr Hall has, however, failed to fulfil his undertaking to ensure the observance of rules relating to drivers hours and tachographs. DVSA found 15 offences of driving without a tachograph card between 2 August and 10 September 2021, and numerous other serious drivers’ hours offences.

9.1 Good repute

I have considered Karl Hall’s good repute both as operator and as transport manager. He has been convicted of two offences resulting in prison sentences within a six year period (although the former offence is now spent). He failed to declare the first conviction when applying for the licence and there is no record that he notified the second. He has operated a vehicle without tax and has swapped registration plates between vehicles and on at least two days was operating two different vehicles showing the same registration mark. He has falsified roller brake test print-outs to make it look as though he was fulfilling the undertaking regarding regular brake tests. He has allowed a driver to drive without the required C+E entitlement and without a CPC. In all this, Mr Hall has shown a disregard for the law and dishonesty on a scale which makes it impossible for him to retain his good repute. I find that his good repute is lost (paragraph 1 of Schedule 3 to the 1995 Act refers) and he therefore no longer fulfils the requirements for holding an operator licence. Under Section 27(1)(a) and (b) of the 1995 Act I am required to revoke the licence.

9.2 Balancing act and Priority Freight and Bryan Haulage questions

Before finally coming to the above conclusion I carried out a balancing act. On the negative side were the above findings. On the positive side there was a relatively low roadworthiness prohibition rate (17%) and a good first-time MOT pass rate of 90%. But Mr Hall’s unlawful and dishonest conduct far outweighed these positives. I asked myself if I could trust this operator to be compliant in the future (the Priority Freight question) and the answer was an emphatic no. A negative answer to the Priority Freight question tends to suggest an affirmative answer to the Bryan Haulage question of whether the operator deserves to go out of business. The scale and range of the illegality and dishonesty practised by Mr Hall leads me to conclude me that he does.

10. Decisions

10.1 Operator licence

In the light of the conclusions set out above, I am revoking the licence under Sections 26(1)(e), (f) and )h) and 27(1)(a) and (b) of the 1995 Act. The revocation will take effect at 0001 hours on 20 October 2023, to give the operator time to wind down his business.

10.2 Disqualification of Karl Hall as operator

For the reasons outlined above, and having performed the same balancing act, I conclude that Karl Kevin George Hall should be disqualified under Section 28 from holding or obtaining an operator’s licence in the future and from being the director of any company holding or obtaining such a licence. In deciding upon the length of the disqualification, I have taken account of paragraph 108 of the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Guidance Document 10. This states that in serious cases where, for example, there are persistent operator licence failures, a disqualification of between 5 to 10 years may be merited. Where falsification has been involved, an indefinite disqualification may even be merited. Against the criteria laid down by the Senior Traffic Commissioner, a disqualification period of five years is the very lowest I feel able to impose. Such a period also has the merit of terminating a little after Mr Hall’s second conviction becomes spent (which it does in January 2028). The disqualification will run from 0001 hours on 20 October 2023 to the same time on 20 October 2028.

10.3 Disqualification of Karl Hall as transport manager

Having removed his good repute, I must also disqualify Karl Kevin George Hall from acting as transport manager on any operator’s licence (paragraph 16 of Schedule 3 refers). For similar reasons as set out in the above paragraph, I am disqualifying him for five years, with immediate effect and until 0001 hours on 21 September 2021.

10.4 Period of grace

Karl Hall as operator no longer has professional competence (he having been disqualified as a transport manager). I will allow a short period of grace to operate without a transport manager until the revocation of the licence takes effect at 0001 hours on 20 October 2023.

Nicholas Denton

Deputy Traffic Commissioner

20 September 2023