Decision

Decision for Manhani Transport Ltd (OF2013035), Lakhbir Singh – TM, Pardeep Virk – Former TM and R S D Transport Ltd (OF1121786), Gardawar Singh – TM

Published 30 December 2020

In the Eastern Traffic Area

Written Decision Of The Traffic Commissioner

1. Background

Manhani Transport Ltd holds a Standard International Goods Vehicle Operator’s Licence authorising 2 vehicles and 2 trailers. The Director is Lakhbir Singh, who is also the Transport Manager. The previous external Transport Manager, Pardeep Virk, resigned on 21 August 2019. Mr Virk was removed from the licence on 23 August 2019.

There is one Operating Centre at 29 Stuart Street, Leicester LE3 0DU. There is one declared contractor showing on the licensing record: M N Commercials Ltd, undertaking Preventative Maintenance Inspections of vehicles and trailers at 6 weekly intervals. In written evidence I was told that there had been a change to Midland Truck Tech Limited on the 1st January 2020 because it was difficult to get the vehicle booked in at MN Commercials. Mr Singh proposed to rely on a mobile fitter but there also appears to be repeat invoiced for major work from L T Transport.

RSD Transport Ltd holds a Standard National Goods Vehicle Operator’s Licence authorising 3 vehicles and 2 trailers. The Directors are Lukwinder Dhami and Amrat Kaur Dhami. The Transport Manager is Gardawar Singh. The operator lodged an application to increase authority by 2 vehicles on 10 October 2019.

There are two Operating Centres: Horsepool Grange Industrial Estate, Elliotts Lane, Stanton under Barrow, Markfield LE67 9TW, and Brem Transport Ltd, Unit 9, South Leicester Industrial Estate, South Street, Ellistown, Coalville LE67 1EU. There are four declared contractors showing on the licensing record: K Colman Mechanical Services, Harbys Haulage, Midland Truck Tech and Volvo Truck and Bus, undertaking Preventative Maintenance Inspections of vehicles and trailers at 6 weekly intervals. I heard in evidence that each of the vehicles had a different contractor, and that Midland Truck Tech is a mobile facility. Only two of the contractors have roller brake facilities.

2. Hearing

The Public Inquiry was originally listed for 7 October 2020, but that date had to be vacated when it was found that documents had not been served on Mr Virk. An attempt to relist on 16 November 2020 was similarly unsuccessful as the second lockdown restrictions impacted on the level of administrative support within the tribunal office. The hearing eventually proceeded on 30 November 2020 in Tribunal Room 1 of the Office of the Traffic Commissioner in Cambridge. Manhani Transport Ltd was present in the form of Lakhbir Singh, Director, and in his role as Transport Manager, represented by Carolyn Evans of CE Transport Law. Its former Transport Manager, Pradeep Virk, was unrepresented and appeared by video-link due to quarantining. RSD Transport Ltd was present in the former of Lukwinder Dhami, Director, accompanied by Gardwar Singh, who was called as the Transport Manager. They were represented by Laura Newton of Smith Bowyer Clarke.

An interpreter was present for part of the hearing at the request of Lakhbir Singh. The language was Punjabi. The video-link failed, and I was forced to utilise a zoom call facility on Ms Evans’ laptop. That did not prove particularly effective and concern was expressed at the accuracy of the translation by other Punjabi speakers present. Having checked with the advocate, I was assured that Lakhbir Singh understood 90% or more of what was being asked. After canvassing views, the tribunal did not re-establish links with the interpreter after the short adjournment when Lakhbir Singh had already given his evidence. I continued to monitor the understanding during the remainder of the hearing, and I was greatly assisted by the advocates and others present.

3. Issues

The public inquiry was called for me to consider whether there were grounds for me to intervene in respect of the licence held by Manhani Transport Ltd and specifically by reference to the following sections of the Goods Vehicle (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995:

• Section 26(1)(b) – failed to notify operation of vehicle by another entity
• Section 26(1)(c)(iii) – prohibitions
• Section 26(e) – failure to comply with statement on compliance and specifically who was operating
• Section 26(f) – failure to comply with undertakings
• Section 26(h) – material change:
• Section 27(1)(a) – no longer of good repute, financial standing and/or professional competence
• Section 28 – disqualification

Lakhbir Singh was called separately for me to consider whether I should make a direction preventing him from relying on his Certificate of Professional Competence and specifically by reference to Section 27(1)(b), Article 4 and Schedule 3.

Pardeep Virk was called separately for me to consider whether I should make a direction preventing him from relying on his Certificate of Professional Competence and specifically by reference to Section 27(1)(b), Article 4 and Schedule 3.

I was also to consider whether there were grounds for me to intervene in respect of the licence held by RSD Transport Ltd and specifically by reference to the following sections of the Goods Vehicle (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995:

• Section 26(1)(a) – operating more vehicles than the maximum number on your licence
• Section 26(1)(b) – conditions on the licence, specifically that you appear to have been operating using vehicles beyond your authority
• Section 26(1)(c)(iii) – prohibition/s
• Section 26(1)(ca) – fixed penalty notice/s
• Section 26(e) – statement made when applying for the licence were either false or have not been fulfilled - that the operator would abide by any conditions which may be imposed on the licence
• Section 26(f) – you have not honoured the undertakings you signed up to when you applied for your licence
• Section 26(h) – material change
• Section 27(1)(a) – to consider the operator is still of good repute, financial standing and professional competence

In respect of the variation application, the hearing was to allow the applicant opportunity to satisfy me that the statutory criteria were met and in particular:

• Section 17 - Variation application
• Section 13A(2)(b) - good Repute
• Section 13A(2)(c) - financial standing
• Section 13A(2)(d) - professional competence by reference to 13A(3)(a) and Article 4
• Section 13C(2) - arrangements for ensuring compliance with the rules on drivers’ hours and tachographs
• Section 13C(4) - arrangements and facilities for maintenance by reference to 13D.

Whilst an extension to the Operating Centre could be granted, the increase in authority remained to be determined.

Gardawar Singh was called separately for me to consider whether I should make a direction preventing him from relying on his Certificate of Professional Competence and specifically by reference to Section 27(1)(b), Article 4 and Schedule 3.

4. Summary of Evidence

4.1 Licence lending

On 16 August 2019 vehicle M25 RSD was stopped and it was found there was no goods vehicle operator’s licence identity disc displayed in the vehicle.

In his statement of 22 August 2019, the Traffic Examiner, Roger Dent, details the stop and his interaction with Ashish Sharma. Mr Sharma was formally interviewed and confirmed the details of the load and stated that the vehicle was operated by RSD Transport Limited. He confirmed that RSD Transport Ltd deducts his tax and pays national insurance contributions. He also confirmed that he had failed to record other work that morning. Mr Dent was subsequently sent an email by Mr Dhami dated 16 August 2019, at 12:25 (page 47 or 66). It states: “My driver Ashish Sharma arrived at his vehicle at 7 am at his own accord, he had started washing his vehicle before the start of his shift, which was at 8 am. RSD Transport Ltd has hired vehicles M25 RSD to Manhani Transport Ltd from 29th July to the 29th September. I hope this clears all the matters, please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any more queries.”

There was no indication of any history involving Mr Sharma and yet RSD’s transport consultant records that his employment was terminated less than a month later (17 October 2019) “for persistent infringements”. However, Mr Dhami apparently re-employed Mr Sharma on the basis that he had changed his ways.

Mr Dent requested that the driver contact the operator in order that they could ascertain that the vehicle was being operated under a goods vehicle operator’s licence. Mr Dhami supplied a photograph of a Standard International Goods Vehicle identity disc for vehicle M25 RSD in the name of Manhani Transport Ltd (page 45 or 65).

The operator was involved in a vehicle stop by a traffic examiner (TE). At the time vehicles KX09 XUG and M25 RSD were specified on the licence held by Manhani Transport Ltd, against an authority of 2 vehicles and 2 trailers. The following vehicles were specified on the licence held by RSD Transport Ltd: M23 RSD, M21 RSD, FD65 MYR, against an authority of 3 vehicles. M25 RSD has been specified on OF1121786 since 7 November 2019 when FD65 MYR was removed.

Traffic Examiner, Darren Lewis, set out his inquiries, in his statement dated 20 January 2020. Analysis of the raw tachograph data provided by Mr. Dhami for RSD Transport Limited on 20/01/2020 revealed that between 17 July and 1 November 2019 inclusive RSD Transport had operated four vehicles on forty-seven separate occasions.

In an interview with the DVSA, Lukwinder Dhami, director of RSD Transport Limited, admitted that his company required an additional vehicle to fulfil a Tarmac contract and Manhani Transport Ltd (OF2013035) had allowed him to use the “space” on their licence not realising the seriousness of the situation. The director of Manhani Transport Ltd (OF2013035) Lakhbir Singh was also interviewed and gave the impression of not understanding the problem, despite having a Certificate of Professional Competence.

In a short interview (page 60 or 79) on 29 November 2020, the director, Mr Dhami, confirmed that the vehicle was being driven by Ashish Sharma and that he was employed by RSD Transport. It was RSD Transport which gave him his instructions on 16 August 2019. He agreed that RSD was the operator.

“Basically I was at his (Lakhbir Singh) house having dinner and explaining that tarmac had given me a franchise but I needed another vehicle but I couldn’t put it on the road. He said he had space on his licence and I said is it okay if I put it on their. He agreed. However I didn’t know how bad defence was. I had already applied to increase my licence so it was only going to be a short period of time the vehicle was on his licence before it was back on mine. After the roadside check on 16 August, I then informed my transport manager what I had done and he told me it was illegal I should not do it. Now I realise that I cannot do this I’ve taken a vehicle off the road and parked it up awaiting the outcome.”

Mr Lakhbir Singh was interviewed before Mr Dhami, and without an interpreter present, on 6 November (page 48 or 79). His first answers were inconsistent with those given later version by Mr Dhami when he stated that M25 RSD was being operated by Manhani Transport Ltd on 16 August 2019. He stated that the vehicle had been loaded at Mountsorrel and was carrying tarmac to Boston. He confirmed that he specified the vehicle on the Operator’s Licence on 18 July 2019 and that he had received an operator licence disc, which he had given to the driver. He did not check whether the driver had fixed the disc in place. He was unable to explain why the disc was not displayed when it was stopped on 16 August 2019. In his explanation he stated that the driver had the disc. He was asked to explain why the stopping officer who is supplied with a photograph of that disc by RSD Transport Ltd to which he responded: “I don’t understand”. He then admitted that he had given the disc to the driver employed by RSD Transport Ltd, who he identified as Ashish Sharma; when asked whether Mr Sharma was employed by Manhani Transport on 16 August 2019 he replied, “Yes because I can hire him from RSD”. He then admitted that RSD had paid the driver for that day and that the driver had been given instructions by RSD.

He was therefore asked to explain how the driver was employed by Manhani Transport, to which he replied “because RSD’s owner is cousin to my wife and we can work together” but there was no contract for work. He was asked whether he was aware of the number of vehicles RSD Transport was authorised to operate, he replied “no”. He contradicted Mr Dhami when asked whether there was an arrangement to add the vehicle onto his operator’s licence: “No, but he can give me trailers”. In his statement of 29 September 2020, he claimed there was no gain. I heard in evidence that he is engaged in different work to RSD and now wishes to move into articulated haulage. It was suggested to Lakhbir Singh that Manhani Transport was not the operator on 16 August 2019 and that RSD Transport Ltd had been allowed to operate vehicles on his margin, to which he responded, “Yeah because after he can give me work and make the adjustment for work”. He admitted knowingly lending his licence. When he was asked to explain how this amounted to continuous and effective management, he stated that he was new and had only been in post for three months.

The Operator’s Licence was granted to Manhani Transport Ltd with effect from 5 June 2018. Lakhbir Singh has been a Director since 7 November 2016. He made an application to be added as the Transport Manager on 3 September 2019, having qualified on 25 July 2019. A decision was taken by a member of OTC staff to grant that application without reference to me on the ongoing inquiries.

The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency apparently decided not to prosecute any offences arising from this investigation. There were no interviews under caution with the Transport Managers Pardeep Virk or Gardawar Singh. The above analysis suggests that an additional vehicle was used on 8 occasions prior to Mr Virk’s resignation and 39 times afterwards.

There was no issue around the DVSA findings. Both advocates opened their cases on the basis that their respective clients were unaware of the seriousness of the licence lending until after the interviews under caution conducted by DVSA. At the outset, Ms Evans suggested that this was a finely balanced case. Lakhbir Singh and Mr Dhami knew each other for work. It was then discovered that they were distantly related by marriage. When they met, they would discuss business opportunities and Mr Dhami indicated that Lakhbir Singh was interested in entering into a Tarmac franchise. There was talk of them doing business together. The advocates made much of the naivety of what was described as the ‘dining room table’ discussion. It was suggested that they thought DVSA attention was centred on the tachograph fault. I was assured that there was no intention to deceive. That did not prove to be the case during the hearing.

The statement of Lakhbir Singh dated 29 September 2020, was lodged prior to the Public Inquiry. It confirms his admissions to loaning what he terms “the space” but claims that it was for a short period “at a time when I did not appreciate the seriousness of what I had done” and accepts that it will affect his repute as Transport Manager as well as the reputation of the company. He states that he agreed that the arrangement could continue until Mr Dhami secured an increase in authority. He claims to have assumed that the interview under caution was related to the defective tachograph. On his own admission he failed to read the communication from Mr Lewis.

Lakhbir Singh’s statement confirms the fronting for RSD Transport Ltd, which was uncovered through the stop of M25 RSD on 16 August 2019 and the admissions of Driver Sharma. He confirms that Lukwinder Dhami is his wife’s cousin and that Mr Dhami supplied a photograph of the operator licence disc issued to Manhani Transport Ltd. Mr Dhami alerted Mr Singh to the stop but was unaware that a prohibition had been issued until my bundle was served on him. He was unaware of Mr Dhami’s contact with Mr Dent. On Mr Singh’s original version, he did not realise that fronting was serious until after the interview, when the vehicle was removed. He states that there was no financial gain involved but in evidence he stated he wanted to help Mr Dhami but referred to the situation becoming dangerous and he then told Mr Dhami to remove the vehicle from the Manhani licence.

Mr Virk submitted written representations and ahead of the hearing on 30 November 2020. In those representations he indicates that during the time that he was the external transport manager for Manhani he was assured that all the safety inspections were carried out on time and was involved in checking that operations were carried out and that there were no shortcomings he described the operations as smooth and compliant. He describes his responsibilities as ensuring that vehicles were properly maintained, checking the preventative maintenance inspections were booked according to the forward planner and carried out on time, as well as ensuring that they were completed correctly and signed off. He also ensured that the daily defect reports were filled-in correctly and the tachograph and vehicle units were downloaded every fortnight.

Mr Virk states that his last payment from Manhani was on 5 August 2019. He was unaware of any involvement with RSD Transport Ltd. On 25 July 2019 Lakhbir Singh inform him that he had passed his CPC exam and that he intended to be his own transport manager going forward. He was asked for 28-days’ notice, which started on 25 July 2019. When he resigned as Transport Manager, he was not aware of any involvement with RSD Transport and he refers to the Director’s admission that it was his decision to add the RSD vehicle onto the operator’s licence. Mr Virk confirms that the Director, Lakhbir Singh, had access to the self-service account. Mr Virk only became aware of the investigation through the evidence supplied by OTC and he had no knowledge of the incident on 16 August 2019 involving M25 RSD. When he resigned, he handed over the paperwork to the director.

Lakhbir Singh corroborated Mr Virk’s evidence. He confirmed that he never asked Mr Virk or anyone else for advice about the arrangement with Mr Dhami. Lakhbir Singh confirmed that M25 RSD was never present at the Manhani Operating Centre, no records were retained by Manhani, and there was no interaction with the driver. I was therefore satisfied that there were obvious indications that he was running another vehicle, which might have prompted Mr Virk to carry out other inquiries. I suggested to him that he might have checked the list of specified vehicles more often but with the agreement of the advocates, I released Mr Virk to continue his recovery. There was no regulatory action required in respect of him.

I was provided with an unsigned and undated version of a statement by Mr Gardawar Singh, in advance of the reconvened hearing, which he adopted at the hearing. He confirmed his appointment as Transport Manager, having been qualified for 24 years. He indicates that he completed a CPC refresher course in February 2020. He has not been driving since the first lockdown and indicates that he works 3 to 4 hours per week for RSD Transport Ltd, attending Mr Dhami’s home office or at one of the Operating Centres where he can see the vehicles and drivers.

He states that he has access to the inspection records and that vehicles are now the subject of automatic downloads of data. I was told that this commenced in January 2020 and would not cover the period of the licence lending. He stated that he had no indication of the use of the fourth vehicles. Gardawar Singh was subsequently told that the Transport Manager on the other licence was being shown the records. He is adamant that if he had known about the additional vehicle, he would have given “strong advice and refused to continue in my role”. Evidence emerged during the hearing which undermined that assertion and with particular relevance to the suggestion that he was exercising effective and continuous management.

The unsigned and undated statement of Lukwinder Dhami confirmed that all driver and vehicle records were considered by Lakhbir Singh to ensure compliance. He did not mention the vehicle stop in August 2019. Mr Dhami went on to claim that the operation was overseen through Manhani Transport Ltd. That contradicted Lakhbir Singh’s claims during the interview under caution and subsequently in evidence before the tribunal. His evidence before me was that none of the paperwork was provided to Lakhbir Singh or Gardawar Singh.

Lakhbir Singh was newly qualified in July 2019. This was his second or third attempt to obtain a CPC. It was suggested that this might account for some confusion on his part. I cannot think of any part of the CPC syllabus which would confuse a CPC holder into thinking that it was permissible to allow another operator to operate behind the front of a licence belonging to another entity. As he accepted in cross-examination, he was aware that he was not permitted to operate whilst waiting for grant of his own licence. On his own evidence he had to ask Mr Dhami for the documentation regarding the tachograph issue. It was Mr Dhami who was monitoring the vehicle and Mr Dhami who was downloading the card and yet the vehicle was specified on the Manhani licence. This continued in his dealings with the DVSA immediately after the stop. There was no attempt to explain how the vehicle was managed or by whom. Lakhbir Singh persisted with his claim that he thought the issue was tachograph related until immediately after the interview under caution.

Mr Dhami also persisted with his claim that he was unaware of the seriousness of the licence lending until he was contacted by Lakhbir Singh after his interview under caution. In his evidence he described speaking to Mr Dent, the Traffic Examiner, when it was found that the registration on the tachograph head did not match the cherished plate. It was Mr Dhami who supplied a copy of the disc, in the name of Manhani Transport and the vehicle continued to be operated in that way. He said he acted promptly, removed another vehicle and specified M25 RSD the day after Lakhbir Singh’s interview. During cross-examination Mr Dhami was forced to acknowledge that he had been specifically warned that he had no authority to operate an additional vehicle, as per the letter from OTC sent to RSD Transport Ltd on 2 August 2019 (2 weeks before the vehicle was stopped), with a paragraph in bold: “You are advised that you must continue to operate within the existing terms and conditions of your licence until you are granted authority to do otherwise.” There was no justification for the supposed belief that a short-term arrangement for 2-3 weeks was allowed.

Mr Dhami attempted to explain the discussions with Lakhbir Singh as though it was perfectly normal for Lakhbir Singh to be interested in the Tarmac work and that this was a means of introducing him to it; unfortunately, there is no evidence that Lakhbir Singh had any operational involvement beyond the front he provided. His answer was that he (Lakhbir Singh) would put the vehicle on his licence, Mr Dhami would “look after things” but Lakhbir Singh would run it, did not stand up to scrutiny and he admitted that he was running the vehicle. He admitted that the vehicle was normally kept at the Horsepool Operating Centre. He stated that driver defect and other reports were not supplied to Gardawar Singh, but the driver’s hours and vehicle movement were downloaded onto the RSD account.

I was unsure how Ashish Sharma came to be dismissed “for persistent infringements” in October 2019, if Mr Sharma’s driving was not being monitored by the Transport Manager, I was then told that there was no actual employment control; Mr Sharma was ‘self-employed’. Mr Dhami appeared to be unaware of the Upper Tribunal’s decision in 2019/54 Bridgestep Ltd & Tom Bridge, which refers to the HMRC guidelines and states that “Unless they are an owner-driver, it is very rare for a lorry driver to be legally “self-employed”. The Tribunal warns about the inability of Transport Managers to direct non-employees. I was then told that all drivers’ records were being analysed at the time by the RHA. I had not seen any RHA reports but I soon discovered that the reports were completed by HTec and were contained in the bundle supplied on behalf of RSD. On closer examination I could see that Gardawar Singh was issuing warning letters throughout the relevant period and by reference to records, which included M25 RSD. He later told me that he had failed to notice the registration numbers or even the total number of vehicles being operated. That lack of scrutiny was mirrored in his approach to the maintenance systems and, in particular, to the record keeping.

There is some credit in the decision of RSD Transport Ltd/Mr Dhami to draw my attention to a Working Time infringement record immediately before I commenced a detailed examination of the HTec reports. The report dated 28 October 2019 purports to be signed by Mr Sharma, countersigned by Lakhbir Singh, as the ‘manager’, having discussed the infringements with the driver. It was then necessary to recall Lakhbir Singh, as this document contradicted what I had been told in evidence. He only then admitted realising he was in potential difficulty ahead of the interview with DVSA. It was for that reason that he approached Mr Dhami for records which he could produce to the investigating Examiner, Mr Lewis. Mr Dhami gave him this record, which had already been signed by a driver. Lakhbir Singh never met that driver, did not witness his signature, or explain the infringement to the driver. Following time with his advocate he admitted realising that he would be expected to have documentation if he were operating and managing M25 RSD, but he had none. He accepted that the document was produced to give a false impression. He retained his position that he only realised this was wrong once the Traffic Examiner asked for paperwork.

When Mr Dhami was recalled he told me he was feeling under stress and had not been thinking as clearly when he gave me his previous versions and when he referred to not being “a young guy trying to deceive anyone”. He described digging himself into a bigger hole. He finally admitted that he knew that the arrangement was wrong, when the vehicle was pulled over on 16 August 2019, but he had been looking for a way out and kept making the same mistake because everything was riding on the operator’s licence. He referred to making one false move but that he continued running with it. He told me that he has had nothing but ill-health since but unfortunately that did not prompt him to tell me the truth until more than half-way through the hearing.

4.2 Compliance

In his statement, Lakhbir Singh referred to his background and experience in transport. It was not sufficient to prevent the arrangement described above. He is, in effect, a one-man operation. There was no evidence of any major infringement. I noted his evidence that he downloads the driver card once a fortnight and the vehicle unit once a month. He then sends the data to Road Check for analysis and reporting. He relies on other records, which has resulted in only infrequent infringements. I saw reports from last November, February, March, August and to 13 September 2020.

I was less impressed by the maintenance arrangements. Manhani apparently employs a combined weekly driver report and working time record. There is a record of rectification work, although it is difficult to determine the time when this takes place. I was concerned by his decision to rely on a mobile fitter who he found to be “more flexible”. That fitter has undertaken all PMIs since January although it has only recently occurred to Mr Singh to notify OTC. He admitted that he had asked the mobile fitter to check the vehicle and then carried out the repairs himself. He claimed to have carried out a walk round on 15 May 2020, when he attracted an immediate prohibition for a cut to the tyre on the inner rear third axle so that the cords were exposed/damaged. It has only now occurred to him that he needs to undertake metred tests of brake performance despite having only completed training last year. He will now allow the fitter to conduct “the immediate repairs” on the vehicle.

I considered the maintenance records submitted on behalf of Manhani Transport. In the main I could not tell who had undertaken the Preventative Maintenance Inspections as there is no stamp and no other indication. KX09 XUG was inspected on 26 October 2019 but there was no brake test at all. On 7 December 2019, there was only a road test. There was a rolling road brake performance test carried out on 21 February 2020, which passed. There was a further inspection on 2 March 2020 but according to the invoices the vehicle broke down a fortnight later. There was a further inspection 13 April 2020 but no brake test. The format of the inspection sheets then changes. The inspection on 26 May 2020 records driver detectable and other defects which are communicated to the customer but not rectified. The form is signed but there is no declaration of roadworthiness and appears to miss at least one Inspection Manual item. That continues to be the case with inspections on 21 July 2020 and 13 August 2020. The vehicle was off-road from 7 to 20 July 2020. There is a rolling road test pass on 20 August 2020 but service brake performance records noticeable imbalances on axles 2 and 3. Defects are reported and only occasionally rectified. I noticed that a new AdBlue module was fitted on 29 January 2020 but for some reason the emissions memory had to be reset on 30 June 2020.

Additional records were submitted by Ms Evans on the weekend before the substantive hearing. They included a Preventative Maintenance Inspection record for KX09 XUG dated 17 October 2020, recording action taken to address a NOx fault and lift in the track rod, with an invoice dated 2 November 2020 for steering alignment. The vehicle apparently passed a roller brake test on the same day but outside the 7 days from the inspection date. The brake section on the inspection sheet had been scored through. A Tachomaster printout records an absence of identified infringements and missing mileage during October 2020. Lakhbir Singh told me in evidence that he had finally decided to move to LT Transport to conduct his inspections. That entity does not have a roller brake tester.

The same mobile fitter is listed on the RSD licence. RSD Transport Ltd chose to submit an audit report prepared by a transport consultant, Sean Doherty, dated 19 September 2019, which was an obvious typographical error. Mr Doherty encountered similar difficulties with the maintenance conducted on behalf of RSD. In his examination of the records for M25 RSD he reports one occasion when the PMI interval was exceeded between 5 March and 28 April 2020. This was during the lockdown period. He records his considerable concern at the odometer readings between 23 July and 3 August 2020 suggesting that 961 km were travelled per day. He reports similar inaccuracies in the records of the associated trailer C491182. PMI intervals were also extended for M23 RSD between 15 April and 8 June 2020 and M21 RSD between 3 March to 11 May 2020. Mr Doherty comments with approval on the defect report for this vehicle but more generally he was not provided with access to the electronic driver defect reports.

Mr Doherty’s report appears to suggest a degree of satisfactory compliance, whilst noting the extended inspection intervals, that he was unable to access electronic driver reports, that missing mileage reports were not obtained from H-tech until 12 December 2020 and then only relating to M21 RSD, which was driven on four occasions without a card from 19 May to 26 June 2020 amounting to 46km. I noted the infringements recorded against Drivers Khodiar, Hacker, Yousaf and the single incident involving Mr Dhami.

I therefore expected to far better maintenance compliance than suggested by the Preventative Maintenance Inspection and driver defect records. In the period before the substantive hearing, I was supplied with a file of additional documentation (Annex B), which included compliance documentation. I could see the systems briefly referred to by Gardawar Singh. I was warned that the driver of M21 RSD used electronic defect reporting, apparently using systems obtained through Tarmac. No copies of those records were provided. I was told that the operator had recently reverted to using carbon defect report books as it had proved so difficult to print off records in preparation for this hearing. Gardawar Singh insisted that he had been able to audit the records with Mr Dhami. There was no evidence to that effect and the general impression is that any checks were insufficient to deliver the obligations imposed by the operator’s licence. I noted that the lack of defect reporting as against the PMI sheet for 3 November 2020 and the later findings of the maintenance provider.

I became increasingly alarmed by the state of the records as I went through them with Mr Dhami and the Transport Manager. I used the records for M25 RSD and the connected trailer CH91182 as examples. The PMI for 16 October 2020 recorded eight driver detectable defects. The nearest driver defect report was dated 2 October 2020. Not a single defect is recorded as rectified. I was assured that there were invoices and other records of repair. Gardawar Singh could not understand why Mr Dhami had not submitted those records. I could not understand how Gardawar Singh had permitted the vehicle to return to operation without the declaration of roadworthiness having been signed. I regret that this was not an isolated incident. The same was true of the accompanying trailer record dated 20 October 2020. The attendant roller brake tests of that date for both vehicle and trailer indicated significant failures in braking efficiency. The vehicle and trailer inspections on 3 August 2020 were signed off, neither were brake tested, in any way. The vehicle inspection on 23 July again showed a list of defects, only two were rectified. One endorsement on tyres was apparently added afterwards but the declaration of roadworthiness was not signed. There was a successful brake test of the vehicle, but the trailer parking brake failed to achieve the required efficiency. The rather dated pro-forma was not signed as roadworthy. The inspection sheet for 8 June 2020 suggests that the fitters at Harby’s Commercials will complete the work and sign the vehicle as roadworthy, when allowed to do so. I was assured that no vehicle was permitted to operate in an unroadworthy condition. The records produced did not confirm this. Having gone through the records that were copied for me, I am satisfied that this is illustrative of the approach of this operator, and of the level of scrutiny, which Gardawar Singh was exercising in respect of this transport operation.

As with DVSA. Mr Doherty has had no contact with Gardawar Singh. He apparently attended a one-day TM CPC refresher course on 15 February 2020. As Mr Doherty records, the transport manager must exercise continuous and effective management of the transport operation. He works for RSD Transport Ltd on a part-time basis for 4 or 5 hours per week. Mr Doherty references the starting points for hours in the Annex to Statutory Document No. 3. He does not refer to the responsibilities outlined in paragraph 54. Mr Doherty cites what Mr Dhami told him: “Mr Singh advises him where appropriate” with Mr Dhami managing in his absence. I compare that reactive approach with the proactive duties described in the Statutory Document.

According to Gardawar Singh, he has not read Mr Doherty’s report. In his statement, Gardawar Singh states that he undertakes 3 to 4 hours of work per week in his capacity as transport manager for RSD Transport Ltd. On his application at pages 42-47, he declared that he would work 8 hours per week: 2 each day from Tuesday to Friday but Mr Dhami’s evidence was that he was engaged once a week, at most, although I noted he met with one driver 2 or 3 times when it was convenient to see him as they were both working near Cambridge. He was also a part time HGV driver, but has not driven since before the lockdown restrictions. I have seen a certificate for his attendance at a 1-day CPC refresher course on 15 February 2020. I cannot see any reference to the course content.

I noted that he was given access to maintenance records and that vehicles were on “automatic download”. In his statement he described a mistake on the part of Mr Dhami. Since this incident it has been agreed that the director will keep him informed of any changes with drivers or vehicles, which should have been the case in any event. I can accept his evidence that he was unaware of the vehicle being operated by this operator behind the Manhani licence between July and November 2019, due to the lack of scrutiny employed across the compliance systems. His statement claimed that he had been advised by Mr Dhami after the event that all the records were being shown to the transport manager or operator of the other licence. The reports prepared by HTec and his own infringement letters show otherwise; he just did not notice. On his own admission he did not look at the registration. He apparently takes a similar approach to the maintenance records. In evidence he confirmed that Mr Dhami told him that work was being undertaken on the vehicles. He apparently failed to check the records.

In his evidence Gardawar Singh referred to the restrictions in the past year. He indicated that he had been required to isolate so that he had not been able to attend the office or Operating Centres. There was no notification to that effect. In referring to issues with maintenance he appeared to be totally unaware of the Contingency Statutory Document or Response to Covid 19 – Operator Licensing, Local Bus Service Registration and Vocational Driver Conduct - Advice for Operators issued on behalf of Traffic Commissioners at the start of the initial lock down and updated during that period.

I was left with the impression that he felt his role was a favour to Mr Dhami but as he said, it never occurred to him to leave even after he admitted what he had done. Gardawar Singh kept referring to Mr Dhami trying to run before the operator could walk, to expanding too fast but he failed to prevent the errors which I have identified. In his own words “I’ve been a little bit lazy”. I would agree. He admitted that he left most of the maintenance issues to the Director The evidence of his involvement does not amount to effective and continuous management of the transport undertaking.

5. Determination

I refer to the definition provided by the Upper Tribunal in 2012/071 Silvertree: ‘fronting’ occurs when appearances suggest that a vehicle, (or fleet), is being operated by the holder of an operator’s licence when the reality is that it is being operated by an entity, (i.e., an individual, partnership or company), which does not hold (authority). In our view once a Traffic Commissioner is satisfied that the evidence establishes that fronting has taken place, he or she is entitled to take a serious view of such conduct.

In written representations, Lakhbir Singh referred to his sub-contracting work. He refers to assistance from a Gurvinder Singh, a transport consultant. He suggests that he could survive a period of suspension and asked me to allow him to retain his repute as a Transport Manager. Those representations accepted that he had done wrong but failed to admit that he allowed the licence lending to continue, unlawfully.

In closing submissions Ms Evans suggested that the case was finely balanced. I was referred to the period of compliance since the stop and interviews under caution. I was reminded that Lakhbir Singh did not actually present DVSA with the infringement report dated 28 October 2019 document. It was said that he acted promptly to remove M25 RSD from the Manhani licence the day after the interview under caution. I am reminded of the size of the operation and told that there are no plans to expand beyond the one vehicle currently specified. As a driver his infringements were described as well managed with only minor matters arising. Ms Evans confirmed that the operator could survive a suspension and referred to a closed period from 14 December 2020 but accepted that a longer suspension would be appropriate. It was accepted that in permitting RSD Transport to operate behind the licence granted to Manhani Transport, he did not meet the statutory duty on a Transport Manager.

I asked Ms Evans to address me on whether his position as Director could be distinguished from his position as Transport Manager. I recognised that Regulation (EC) 1071/2009 describes a slightly different approach and allows for formal rehabilitation of a Transport Manager. However, I have been unable to depart from the decisions in 2013/008 Vision Travel International Limited and 2013/061 Alan Michael Knight which treat the conduct of a sole Director effectively as the conduct of the limited company and repute is determined. As was touched on during the hearing the Upper Tribunal took a disparaging view of attempts to separate the role of operator and Transport Manager in 2017/055 Alistair Walter.

Ms Newton asked me to find Gardawar Singh to be frank and honest, to his detriment but to accept his evidence that he did not know about the illegal operation of M25 RSD. It was accepted that he had “let the ball drop” but that he had been present at the operation (except during Covid). Paragraph 70 of the Contingency Statutory Document puts operators on notice of the negative impact where Traffic Commissioners find, amongst other issues:

• use of coronavirus as a device to evade specific operator’s licence requirements and undertakings, without first notifying the Office of the Traffic Commissioner;
• lack of metred brake performance testing for vehicles in use during the coronavirus restrictions;
• failure to complete an effective first-use inspection or equivalent in accordance with the coronavirus maintenance guidance.

Operators were clearly advised of the need to carry out and record evidence of risk-based decision making during the restrictions. Like the rest of the systems which were said to be managed by Gardawar Singh, there was little of the evidence expected.

It was suggested that he was still eligible to act as a Transport Manager because he had not been dishonest. It was further suggested that any deficiencies might be addressed by attendance at further CPC refresher training. I find I cannot attach much weight to that suggestion. His approach to his statutory duties has been reflected in his approach in preparing for the Public Inquiry. All the evidence seen suggests an absence of scrutiny which is required to exercise effective and management control. His failure to notice the number of vehicles being operated fell far below the standard expected of a reputable Transport Manager and that has continued even to the date of the Public Inquiry.

Ms Newton accepted that it was a more difficult position for RSD. It was suggested that Mr Dhami had convinced himself that he had not realised how serious his decision to operate behind the Manhani licence really was. It was accepted that he should have acted sooner but it was suggested that I should look at his previous history (with an absence of S marked prohibition notices) and take into account that the financial pressures had clouded his judgement. It was suggested that he had not attempted to cover his tracks and that he made admissions at interview under caution. I was asked to find that he cooperated with the DVSA and to treat his actions as down to him covering his eyes to the obvious. It was suggested that I might categorise this as an isolated incident. It was further suggested that because of the involvement of Mr Dhami’s personal finances, he would be unlikely to permit this level of non-compliance again; sadly, it was not sufficient to prevent him from making the decision in the first place or to continue to provide misleading information. He chose to retain a fourth vehicle, which has not been operated since November 2019.

If there is any doubt in the mind of either operator or Transport Manager, I refer to the Statutory Guidance on repute. It summarises the appellate case law:

“56. Dishonesty and illegal operation are very serious matters. Traffic commissioners are entitled to conclude that a person does not have the required repute where they have decided to operate without authorisation (either on an interim or full licence) particularly in the face of warnings not to (2005/537 West Mix, 2002/027 D Broadie). All operators have a positive duty to co-operate with DVSA and the traffic commissioner (2010/064 JWF (UK) Ltd, this may include attendance at educational seminars – 2014/044 Stephen James Beattie t/a Sowerby Minibus Travel or to provide compliant documentation – 2013/029 Stuart McAuliffe). Any attempt to deceive a traffic commissioner is serious conduct that cannot be condoned, particularly where an operator and/or applicant relies on a document that has been altered so that it might mislead a traffic commissioner 2002/009 Gollop, 2005/087 P Duckmanton (maintenance records), 2002/075 Hazco Environmental Services (Drivers’ hours). Similarly, operators who deliberately deceive and present false evidence to traffic commissioners either in correspondence or at public inquiry are also liable to prosecution through the criminal courts and are likely in serious cases to receive a custodial sentence.”

I must be satisfied to the civil standard of proof that there have been breaches of the licence requirements. I have attempted to summarise the evidence above. I make the following formal findings, reflected in the decision above:

• RSD Transport Ltd gave instructions to Driver Sharma and was therefore the operator of M25 RSD on 16 August 2019
• RSD Transport Ltd did not have sufficient authority on its Operator’s Licence to operate M25 RSD on 16 August 2019
• The use of M25 RSD on 16 August 2019 by RSD was behind the front Manhani Transport Ltd.
• This was not an isolated incident, with 47 occasions where RSD was found to have operated beyond its authority between 17 July and 1 November 2019, i.e., after the stop on 16 August 2019.
• This operation was for the commercial benefit of RSD Transport Ltd.
• Pardeep Virk was not aware of the operations carried out behind the front of the Manhani licence.
• The email from Mr Dhami on 16 August 2019 was intended to deceive DVSA.
• An application was only lodged by RSD Ltd on 10 October 2019.
• Gardawar Singh should have noticed that more vehicles were being operated than authorised but failed to do so.
• Gardawar Singh has failed to exercise effective and continuous management of the transport operation by RSD Transport Ltd
• Mr Dhami and Lakhbir Singh both continued to claim ignorance.
• I am satisfied that there was a conscious decision to allow the arrangement to continue even after the roadside stop on 16 August 2019.
• Lukwinder Dhami and Lakhbir Singh attempted to deceive DVSA before, during and after their interviews under caution.
• They attempted to deceive me at Public Inquiry.
• The responses from Lakhbir Singh to DVSA and subsequently, including at the Public Inquiry are not those of a reputable Transport Manager.
• There have been shortcomings in the compliance of both entities.

Ms Evans accepted that the judgment in R v. Lucas, QB 720 (1981) would not directly apply but suggested that there might be assistance to be drawn from a Lucas Direction where a judge would advise a jury that a lie is only evidence of guilt if they are satisfied the lie was made deliberately; remind the jury that people might lie not because they are guilty, but for other reasons (for example, to bolster a weak case, to protect someone, out of panic, or to cover up disgraceful behaviour), and tell a jury that because the lie alone is insufficient evidence, they should not rely solely on the lie but should also look to the other evidence to corroborate guilt. However, the purpose of a Public Inquiry is not to determine guilt, it has a very different purpose, and it starts with the question posed by the appellate Tribunal in 2009/225 Priority Freight: how likely is it that this operator will, in future, operate in compliance with the operator’s licensing regime?

I find it interesting that the Supreme Court in Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017] UKSC 67, removed any reference to what a defendant thought about how others would regard his actions and relies simply on the objective standards of reasonable and honest people. However, as I have made clear, I am not concerned with guilt, although I am guided by the approach suggested by the Tribunal in 2002/009 George Gollop referring with approval to a decision in Browne was: would other operators who have heard of this ruse consider the perpetrator to be of good repute?

What lies at the heart of my determination and the Priority Freight question, is the issue of trust. That is why the Statutory Document places such a heavy emphasis on telling the truth. The reason this is so important is explained in 2013/082 Arnold Transport Ltd: The Tribunal has stated on many occasions that operator’s licensing is based on trust. Since it is impossible to police every operator and every vehicle at all times the Department in Northern Ireland, (and Traffic Commissioners in GB), must feel able to trust operators to comply with all relevant parts of the operator’s licensing regime. In addition other operators must be able to trust their competitors to comply, otherwise they will no longer compete on a level playing field. In our view this reflects the general public interest in ensuring that Heavy Goods Vehicles are properly maintained and safely driven. Unfair competition is against the public interest because it encourages operators to cut corners in order to remain in business. Cutting corners all too easily leads to compromising safe operation.

This is not a case of just weighing the positives and negatives, identified in Statutory Document No. 10 although it was accepted by both advocates that the licences were at risk. It will be clear from this decision that I am satisfied that there have been attempts by both Directors to conceal offences or failings. In the case of RSD Transport Ltd, there was a clear commercial advantage; in the case of Manhani, it permitted that offending. As the Tribunal indicated in Arnold Transport, the approach to the Public Inquiry can be particularly instructive. In this case both Directors decided to avoid the truth in their statements lodged in advance and then again in their evidence at the hearing. Those were persistent and deliberate acts on their part. I have no doubt that other operators who have heard of this behaviour would reach an adverse decision regarding repute and I have reached that same conclusion.

I have attempted to distinguish between the different actions of Lukwinder Dhami and Lakhbir Singh in respect of the licence lending. However, their recent actions at Public Inquiry, in their misguided attempts to mislead me and only tell the truth as they were about to be found out, convinces me that neither operator can be permitted to remain within the industry and I make the resultant findings in respect of the repute of both operators, as set out in the decision section. In setting the dates for revocation I have allowed time for the safe run-down of operations and the period where that may be halted due to the ultimate client’s shut down.

In the recent decision of 2019/072 Cavendish School of English Ltd, the Upper Tribunal sought to correct any misapprehension in the approach to disqualification: We appreciate, on one reading, the decision in the St Mickalos case might be taken as amounting to a statement of inflexible principle that, where a PI is held, where no mention of disqualification is made by the presiding TC, and where the TC subsequently decides to disqualify, unfairness will always result and such unfairness will always justify the setting aside of a disqualification decision and, at least, remittal. But we think, if the Upper Tribunal had intended to go that far in the St Mickalos case, it would have made it absolutely and abundantly clear that it was doing so. For our part, we can contemplate circumstances where a lack of warning of contemplated disqualification at a PI might not necessarily lead to a finding of unfairness. That might be so, for example, where the issue of disqualification is highlighted in a call-up letter and where lawyers acting for a subsequently disqualified Operator or subsequently disqualified individual have already submitted written argument in advance of a PI addressing issues surrounding disqualification.

That said, I was aware that proceedings concluded after a long day of evidence. I was also mindful that Amrat Kaur Dhami was not present and that any representation in respect of the rehabilitation of Lakhbir Singh and Gardawar Singh would depend to a degree on the factual findings. Following the approach in 2005/367 K Jaggard, I allowed both representatives 14 days from my draft decision to address me on any order for disqualification by reference to paragraphs 99 to 102 of Statutory Document No. 10.

Statutory Document No. 10 correctly refers to disqualification as a potentially significant infringement of rights but there is no ‘additional feature’ required to order disqualification. Following the appellate decisions in 2001/074 Brian Edward Clark applying 2000/005 Marilyn Williams trading as Cled Williams Coaches and 2000/018 Euroline Transport Ltd, the Statutory Document recognises that there may be cases in which the seriousness of the operator’s conduct is such that a traffic commissioner may properly consider that both revocation and disqualification are necessary for the purposes of enforcing the legislation. I judge this case to fall into that category in respect of both operators and Directors. My factual findings are entirely consistent with a situation where the operators cannot be trusted to comply with the regulatory regime and that the objectives of the system, the protection of the public and fairness to other operators, requires that them be disqualified. Having assessed the evidence, as summarised above, I have proceeded to consider the appropriate length of the orders. On 14 December 2020 I received written submission from Ms Evans, signed by Lakhbir Singh on 13 December 2020. It was accepted that a disqualification must inevitably follow the loss of his repute as a Transport Manager, but I was asked to use my discretion in respect of the limited company and as a director. Reference is made to the necessary improvements required in maintenance and so that driver’s hours are managed and monitored. I was reminded that he gained his CPC 18 months ago.

I was also told that Lakhbir Singh is the sole worker with other dependent family members within the household. He had hoped to move away from the limited opportunities of franchise working and had limited his dividends in order to fund the purchase of an articulated vehicle. The Public Inquiry process is described as a stark lesson, but this was clearly insufficient to prevent the conduct I have described. He is described as deeply ashamed and now regrets his reticence in accepting the facts as described above. Ms Evans refers to an isolated period of unlawful loaning of a licence in circumstances where an application to increase was pending, as if the latter made it more acceptable. She refers to the state of the vehicle on 16 August 2019, but it was not being run by Lakhbir Singh.

Lakhbir Singh indicates his intention to return to driving and to then reapply for an operator’s licence in 6 months. It was suggested that any disqualification should be at the lower end of intervention.

Representations on behalf of RSD Transport Ltd, its Director and Gurdawar Singh were received on 15 December 2020. In that letter, Ms Newton suggests that disqualification is not necessary to achieve the aims of the legislation. I am told that Amrat Kaur Dhami is the daughter of Lukwinder Dhami. She was apparently appointed as a director to allow her to come into the business following her studies, but she was not very active within the business. She was not involved with the decisions which form the basis of my findings above. The representations properly recognise that as a director she had a legal obligation to exercise oversight but suggest should not by itself merit an exclusion from the industry.

The representations again refer to the impact on Lukwinder Dhami’s mental health. This is said to have resulted in his demeanour and what is described as disjointed evidence at the Public Inquiry. I am asked to give weight to the audit, which formed part of my assessment above. This is said to have given the operator a degree of false security. It cannot be said that it caused him to try and mislead me. I am reminded of the financial ramifications of the direction to revoke the Operator’s Licence.

The impact of the revocation decision will have significant financial consequences. However, the potential loss of the family home was not sufficient to deter Mr Dhami from the actions summarised above. I recognise the impact on his staff resulting from the revocation. That is due to Mr Dhami’s decision making. I am told that he would look to return to the industry and to make a further application for an Operator’s Licence. It is suggested that would allow an appropriate check of any processes and assistance in place.

For understandable reasons, neither of the sets of representations addresses the need for wider deterrent. As the Upper Tribunal explained in 2019/025 John Stuart Strachan t/a Strachan Haulage: “one of the aims of the regime is deterrence, both for the appellant and for operators as a whole, who might be tempted to flout the system”. I have referred to the Tribunal decision in Arnold Transport above. I repeat the guiding principle that other operators must be able to trust their competitors to comply, otherwise they will no longer compete on a level playing field. The Upper Tribunal goes on to spell out the consequences for safety if operators are encouraged to undermine the licensing system. For those reasons it is not only proportionate, but also necessary to impose orders for disqualification. I accept that I need not disqualify Amrat Kaur Dhami, although any application involving her will need to be closely scrutinised. On the evidence the corporate entities are the alter egos of first, Lakhbir Singh, and second Lukwinder Dhami. Those gentlemen separately and together sought to mislead DVSA in its investigation. They continued with that course into the Public Inquiry. That can never be acceptable.

The representations reflect on the proportionality of any decision. Ms Evans refers to the Tribunal decision in 2010/029 David Finch Haulage. The suggestion of a tariff in that decision has since been addressed although the Court of Appeal is considering an appeal on that point. I must look at each of these cases on its merits. Nevertheless, the Statutory Directions, which the law requires me to follow, suggest a starting point for a first public inquiry with consideration of a disqualification period of between 1 and 3 years. Serious cases, where there is an element of dishonesty, often coupled with an impact on safety may merit disqualification of between 5 to 10 years or in certain cases for an indefinite period. It is always open to a disqualified person to make application for a commissioner to vary or cancel an order. I can distinguish between the positions of Manhani and its Director and that of RSD and Mr Dhami. Mr Dhami finally admitted that he aware that this arrangement was not permissible, from the outset. Contrary to Lakhbir Singh’s initial evidence, he became aware of the seriousness during the course of the investigation and sought documentation from Mr Dhami to cover his tracks. He admitted that his signature on the infringement report dated 28 October 2019 was intended to mislead. Manhani Transport Limited is disqualified from holding or obtaining an Operator’s Licence for a period of 3 years, as is its Director, Lakhbir Singh. RSD Transport Ltd is disqualified from holding or obtaining an Operator’s Licence for a period of 4 years, as is its Director, Lukwinder Dhami.

There are different provisions relating to the disqualification of a transport manager where a rehabilitation measure may allow a transport manager to regain use of their CPC. I refer to my findings in respect of compliance by Manhani Transport Ltd. I was not impressed with Lakhbir Singh’s management, but acknowledge that this was his first appointment as Transport Manager. His qualification should have alerted him to the error in allowing the Operator’s Licence to be used by RSD Transport Limited but it is the lack of trust in his judgement which concerns me most. He will be disqualified from relying on his CPC for the same period, 3 years, following which, if he wishes to be appointed as a Transport Manager, he will need to persuade a Traffic Commissioner that he is capable, following the failures outlined above.

I am informed that the Public Inquiry was a sobering experience for Gurdawar Singh. I am also told that he is the sole earner in his household. That did not prove sufficient deterrent for him to exercise effective and continuous management. A 2-day Transport Manager CPC Refresher course is offered as suitable rehabilitation on the basis that the 1-day version he attended previously could not have covered the relevant content. It is suggested that any other order would be disproportionate. I quote from the Upper Tribunal decision in 209154/050 Andrew Harris t/a Harris of Leicester: “it seems to us that whether or not an individual has the character, personality, ability and leadership qualities to ensure compliant operation as an operator or to effectively and continuously manage the transport activities as a transport manager is a factor which can, properly, be taken into account when assessing good repute.” For the reasons set out above, I found that his attitude and lack of attention to detail fell far below the standard expected of reputable Transport Manager. In my assessment of his evidence and approach, he needs to retake and obtain a new Certificate of Professional Competence to demonstrate a level of technical competence to manage a transport undertaking.

For the reasons set out above, I make the directions as set out at paragraphs 1 to 7.

Richard Turfitt

Traffic Commissioner

17 December 2020