Decision

Decision for Lako Logistic Ltd (OF2039374)

Published 8 February 2023

0.1 In the Eastern Traffic Area

1. Written Decision of the Deputy Traffic Commissioner

1.1 LAKO LOGISTIC LTD (OF2039374)

2. Background

Lako Logistic Ltd holds a standard international goods vehicle operator licence, granted in December 2020, for four vehicles and four trailers. Until July 2022 there were two vehicles in possession. The authorised operating centre is at South Leicester Industrial Estate, Coalville, Leics. The directors of the company are Lukasz Pasieka and Marek Pluta (the operator failed to notify the traffic commissioner when Mr Pluta was appointed director in January 2022). Mr Pasieka is also the nominated transport manager on the licence.

3. Public inquiry

A public inquiry was held in Cambridge on 9 January 2023 after a report had been received from DVSA to the effect that:

• i) A vehicle belonging to the company had been stopped by police on 13 May 2022 and found to be using false registration plates, to be untaxed and out of MOT. The vehicle’s driver was director Marek Pluta;

• ii) Preventative maintenance inspections were not being carried out at the stated six-week intervals;

• iii) The company was parking its vehicles at an unauthorised operating centre;

• iv) The company had failed to provide to DVSA requested data concerning drivers’ hours and tachographs.

Director and transport manager Lukasz Pasieka attended the inquiry. He stated that the reason Marek Pluta had attached false plates to a vehicle was that a vehicle due to be used on an Amazon contract had broken down, so another vehicle, AJ63 OGM, was fitted with the plates of a vehicle (LR17 RJR) specified on the licence. Asked why AJ63 OGM could not have been taxed online and sent out onto the road legally, Mr Pasieka said it could not be taxed because it had no MOT.

Mr Pasieka said that the company had hit financial difficulties in January 2022 after a client had failed to pay it the £140,000 it owed. That company had since gone into liquidation. That was the reason that PMIs had not been done every six weeks after that date. Asked why the operator had not produced evidence of PMIs before January 2022 either, Mr Pasieka said that the maintenance contractor had refused to provide them. He was able to produce, at the inquiry, two PMI records dated 26 February 2021 and 7 April 2021 for vehicle DF65 OHZ.

Mr Pasieka accepted that the company had used an unauthorised operating centre. It had not been in a position to pay the fee and newspaper advertisement necessary for an application to vary the licence.

Mr Pasieka said that he had sent DVSA tachograph data in July 2022, but it had not been in the form asked for. He was unable to produce any driver infringement reports or missing mileage reports for the inquiry: the software used was not sufficient to enable such reports to be produced.

Mr Pasieka accepted that he and the company had done wrong and said that there was no excuse for it. He was prepared to take full responsibility. Lako Logistic Ltd had ceased trading in July 2022 and was about to enter liquidation. He was now employed as a driver for a delivery company and did not intend to have an operator’s licence again: he had been scarred by the experience.

4. Findings

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

The company has operated from an unauthorised operating centre in Hinkley (Section 26(1)(a) of the 1995 Act refers);

The company has lacked the required financial standing since at least January 2022 and failed to inform the traffic commissioner of this material change in circumstances (Sections 26(1)(h) and 27(1)(a) refer);

The company has failed to fulfil its undertaking to ensure the lawful driving and operation of vehicles (Section 26(1)(f) refers). A vehicle was knowingly operated out of tax and MOT. Driver and director Marek Pluta claimed in interview with DVSA that this was a one-off event, but the police report suggests otherwise. Indeed, the reason the police had a marker on the vehicle and stopped it was that they had intelligence that it was running under false plates. It was clearly not a one-off incident;

The company has failed to fulfil its undertaking to ensure the observance of rules relating to drivers’ hours and tachographs. No analysis of drivers’ hours or identification of infringements took place;

The company has failed to fulfil its promise, given on application, that vehicles would be given a safety inspection every six weeks. There is no evidence that vehicles were given anything other than sporadic inspections right from the start of the licence; even by Mr Pasieka’s own account the six week inspections became irregular after the company encountered financial difficulties from January 2022.

Given the above findings, it is clear that the Mr Pasieka as transport manager was entirely failing to exercise the required continuous and effective management of the transport aspects of the business. As the company encountered financial difficulties, more and more corners were cut, including maintenance, vehicle tax, and the need to apply for a new operating centre. A vehicle was knowingly and deliberately used on the road with false number plates to give the outward impression that it was taxed and MOT’d when the reality was that it was untaxed and out of MOT. This was not just a one-off event. In these circumstances neither the good repute of the company nor the good repute of Mr Pasieka as transport manager can possibly survive (Schedule 3 of the 1995 Act refers).

5. Conclusions

The company lacks financial standing and lacks a transport manager of good repute. Revocation of the licence is mandatory under Section 27(1)(a) and (b) of the 1995 Act. The licence is also revoked under Section 26(1)(a), (e), (f) and (h). As the company’s operations have already ceased the revocation takes effect immediately.

I have considered whether to disqualify, under Section 28 of the 1995 Act, the company and its directors from holding or obtaining an operator licence in the future. Taking into account the seriousness of the failure to operate lawfully and comply with undertakings, I have decided to do so. In deciding upon the length of the disqualification, I have taken account of paragraph 105 of the senior traffic commissioner’s Statutory Guidance Document 10. This paragraph states that

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

Although this has been the company’s first public inquiry, it is the case that there has been a deliberate breaking of the law and a deliberate use on the road of a vehicle which the company knew was out of tax and MOT. The number plates were falsified to disguise that fact. Maintenance was knowingly skipped because of the company’s parlous financial circumstances. I consider that the case falls squarely within the serious category outlined in the senior traffic commissioner’s guidelines and therefore merits a disqualification period of five years. The same disqualification period will be applied to Mr Pasieka as transport manager: he has manifestly failed to exercise the responsibility he has to the general public – through the traffic commissioner – to ensure that vehicles are operated legally and safely.

I therefore make the orders which appear at the top of this decision.

Nicholas Denton

Deputy Traffic Commissioner

9 January 2023