Decision

Decision for Masud Ahmed (PK2067830) Under Consideration & Ioan Foulkes Davies (previously proposed transport manager)

Published 29 April 2024

0.1 LONDON & SOUTH EASTERN TRAFFIC AREA

1. WRITTEN DECISION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER

2. PUBLIC INQUIRY HELD ON 18 MARCH 2024 

3. OPERATOR: MASUD AHMED (PK2067830) Under Consideration & IOAN FOULKES DAVIES (previously proposed Transport Manager)

4. Reasons

The full history is set out in the Public Inquiry call in letter and supporting documents in the bundle served on Mr Ahmed firstly on 12 October 2023 and then updated and re-served on 8 February 2024.

The application was originally due to be heard at a Public Inquiry on 20 November 2023. Mr Ahmed did not attend and failed to submit in advance any of the required documentation. Mr Davies did attend fully prepared for the hearing to proceed. I indicated originally that the application would be refused but Mr Ahmed then sent in by email a letter purported to have been sent to my office dated 2 November 2023. That letter was never received and had not been sent by email or tracked delivery. However, I gave Mr Ahmed the benefit of the doubt and allowed a further period for him to nominate a different transport manager and then reconvene the Public Inquiry. In light of the allegation that Mr Ahmed or someone on his behalf falsified the signature of Mr Davies on the TM1 form, Mr Davies was asked to further attend.

The updated call-in letter dated 8 February 2024 again included case management directions which required the applicant within 14 days to submit the attendance sheet, evidence of financial standing and evidence in support of meeting a Licence’s conditions and undertakings. Nothing at all was received. On 13 March 2024 my office telephoned Mr Ahmed to see if he was actually pursuing the application and he said that he would be attending but when my clerk tried to ask him about the failure to submit documents he said goodbye and ended the call. On 14 March 2024 Mr Ahmed attended with his newly proposed Transport Manager Mrs Dey. He also had with him two individuals of which we had no prior notice of their attendance and therefore ID checks were undertaken. Mr Manzur Ashraf Khan provided ID and was described as “Office Manager”. Mr Raul Amin described himself simply as “employee”. As he had no ID his date of birth was taken for the record.

It became apparent early on that Mr Ahmed’s English is limited in terms of the spoken word although he appears to understand more than he can speak. I asked Mrs Dey if she had been in direct communication with Mr Ahmed and she said that she had and that they did have a common language other than English. I was prepared for her to undertake some translation for me to see how far we could get but I stated I was not prepared to allow Mr Khan or Mr Amin to do so as they are not sufficiently arms length. This is particularly so in this case because (a) Mr Khan is named on a previously refused Licence; and (b) Mr Amin’s name is on email addresses (‘Ray Amin’), even though the emails are signed off by someone else.

I was able to extract that Mr Ahmed has been on holiday but in any event he leaves everything to his employees and deferred to Mr Amin in particular. Mr Ahmed said that they did receive the 144-page bundle, but it was at the office and he could not explain why it was not at the hearing. He was unable to explain why none of the documentation had been sent in advance, despite how clear it is on all the paperwork because he leaves that to others. Mr Ahmed suggested he did go to the online Guide to Public Inquiries, but he failed to request an interpreter. He suggested that he thought someone else could do it but that is not what the guide says. Mrs Dey was able to assist through all of this. However, when I asked Mr Ahmed whether he was aware of the allegations in relation to Mr Ahmed or a member of staff falsifying Mr Davies’ signature, Mr Amin interrupted and said that he did not think that the interpretation taking place was good enough. I therefore drew a line.

I am satisfied that refusing this application is appropriate and proportionate. The burden of proof is on the Applicant and Mr Ahmed failed to submit any supporting documentation, not even the attendance sheet. Mr Ahmed wasn’t able to assist me on any material matter, deferring to his staff for everything. If there had been some meaningful co-operation in advance then I may have granted a further adjournment. I am satisfied that Mr Ahmed sufficiently understood what he was saying prior to the communications around the alleged false signature interrupted matters. I see no unfairness by refusing this application now. Tribunal resource is limited and a great deal of time has already been wasted, including a prior adjournment which failed to spur the Applicant into action.

4.1 Addendum

Traffic Commissioners must know whom they are regulating. As per the hearing bundle case summary, Mr Masud Ahmed was added to application PK2063794 Unique Express Hire Limited and then immediately removed even though he had never been a director of that company. The directors are Mr Abul Hasan Ahmed and Mr Manzur Ashraf Khan (the said “Office Manager” of Mr Ahmed). The application PK2066312 Abul Hasan Ahmed and Masud Ahmed t/a Cars and Limos, includes emails on it which are purportedly from Abul Hasan Ahmed but the email is from Mr Amin by virtue of the email address above the subject matter line. The role of Mr Amin in these applications is unclear as he would only state himself to be “employee” to the Case Manager. However, any future applications involving Masud Ahmed, Abul Hasan Ahmed, Manzur Ashraf Khan and/or Raul (Ray) Amin must be referred to a Traffic Commissioner and not be dealt with under any purported delegated authority. Further any application involving any of these gentleman must only be accepted if the Transport Manager application form is signed by the Transport Manager using the electronic facility available through VOL, no papers forms can be accepted. This will then prevent any future “misunderstanding”.

Mr Davies has been fully co-operative throughout. Although limited evidence was given, I find him credible and there is no tarnish on his reputation whatsoever by virtue of these proceedings.

5. Decision

The application by Masud Ahmed t/a London Travel for a Standard National Licence authorising two vehicles is refused because I remain to be satisfied that Mr Masud Ahmed meets the mandatory requirements of Section 14ZA(2)(b) and Schedule 3 of the 1981 Act and Section 14ZA(2)(c) of the 1981 Act.

I make no adverse findings in relation to the previously nominated Transport Manager Mr Ioan Foulkes Davies, and he remains of good repute.

Miss Sarah Bell
Traffic Commissioner For GB

18 March 2024