Decision for Michael Dudley Holgate and others

Question 1

13. Wayne Smith Holm – Director of Holm Associates Ltd OB1143972

Accepted Answer

Heard at the Office of the Traffic Commissioner, Hillcrest House, Leeds on 29/7/2019

Before: Mr M Hinchliffe, Deputy Traffic Commissioner

Question 2

15. Background

Accepted Answer

It is often said that the relationship between the Traffic Commissioner (“TC”) and the holders of operator licences, directors and transport managers, is a relationship built on trust. A TC, or deputy acting on her or his behalf, is entitled to know what the true corporate structure is of entities using an operator’s licence or licences, and is entitled to know who the people are that act as the controlling minds, decision-makers, directors and transport managers. This is not just so that such people can be kept out of the industry if they have an adverse history of noncompliance, but so that – in the event that a TC decides it is better to have such a person within the regulatory regime – appropriate and focussed measures can be put in place in order to monitor compliance and, if necessary, take strong and urgent action before disaster occurs.

On 3/4/2018 at around 9.30am a lorry pulling a trailer carrying a mobile home between junctions 36 and 37 of the M62 motorway crashed through the central reservation and into the path of an oncoming car. The driver of the car, a man aged 41, died at the scene. His passenger, a man aged 37, died ten days later in hospital. The lorry, registered number T7RMV, was in convoy with another lorry T15RMV which was not directly involved in the tragedy. The fatalities are, obviously, the subject of other investigations and proceedings, and I do not know whether the reason for the crash was a tired driver, a dangerous or unstable load, maintenance related, or some other cause. Both lorries were specified on an operator’s licence held by Holm Associates Ltd. Both these vehicles had previously been specified on an operator’s licence held by a company called R&M Vehicle Services Ltd. Both vehicles had been removed from this licence on 20/2/2017 and then specified on the licence of Holm Associates Ltd less than seven weeks later, on 4/4/2017. The fatal accident happened a year (less one day) after that. In the cab of T15RMV several delivery notes bearing the name RM or R&M were found, suggesting that the vehicle was still being operated on their behalf. The escort vehicle, also with a cherished RMV number plate, was running on red diesel. T7RMV was written off and was removed from the Holm Associates Ltd licence on 13/4/2018 - ten days after the accident. T15RMV was also removed from Holm Associates Ltd licence at that time but, later that year, was specified on the licence held by a company called RM Group Hull Ltd, one of the operators before me now.

R&M Vehicle Services Ltd had appeared at a public inquiry before the then TC in Leeds on 6/7/2016. The company held a standard national operator’s licence with authorisation for 20 vehicles and 13 trailers. At the time of that inquiry, 19 vehicles were in possession, including T7RMV and T15RMV. Graham (Dudley) Holgate and his son Michael (Dudley) Holgate were company directors and Graham Holgate was also the transport manager. A man called Duane Harrison was “Fleet Manager”. The TC in his written decision describes how, on 2/7/2014, an unsatisfactory maintenance investigation had taken place with recommendations for improvement and follow-up a year later. There had also been a warning letter issued. During the course of the ensuing year, on 25/2/2015, T15RMV (the same vehicle as was in the convoy on the M62 when the fatal accident occurred) had been stopped on the A55, pulling a trailer loaded with a mobile home, passing through roadworks. To prevent “conflict” with vehicles travelling in the opposite direction through a tunnel, the roadworks had a width limit of 3.2 metres. When measured, the load on T15RMV was found to be 4.15 metres wide. The width restrictions had been widely publicised in advance and there was clear signage at the scene. However, not passing through the roadworks and tunnel would have involved a very lengthy and time-consuming detour of around 40 miles.

When the follow-up maintenance investigation took place it was again found to be unsatisfactory with, amongst other things, time gaps between important safety inspections being stretched, vehicles going back onto the road which had not been signed off as roadworthy, and a number of prohibitions issued to company vehicles during the very year when improvements were supposed to be taking place, and over 20 mechanical prohibitions had been issued to company vehicles over the previous five years.

But it was not the maintenance situation that caused the TC serious concern back in 2016. Rather, the TC learned of widespread tampering with vehicle tachograph equipment with (between 4/9/15 and 1/3/16) convictions sustained by Michael Holgate, Graham Holgate and nine other drivers for knowingly making false tachograph records to conceal drivers’ hours infringements. Michael Holgate was convicted of four such offences and Graham Holgate sustained five such convictions. Substantial fines were imposed. At the conjoined drivers’ hearing more than one driver (but not all of them) told the TC that they had been put under pressure to offend. One said that ‘management’ had told him to pull his card to get the vehicle back to the yard. Another said that Michael Holgate had told him to do what he needed to do and falsify his records although, when cross-examined, he drew back and said that he had been told to “crack on and get the job done”. In his conclusions, the TC said that drivers’ hours and tachograph infringements persisted over a substantial period of time, and he described the danger that tired drivers present, especially when behind the wheel of a large HGV:

“A sleep-related crash is characterised as one where the driver had a clear view of the object being struck for at least seven seconds and took no avoiding action. The resulting collision will therefore be heavy, particularly when (as is the case with the vast majority of heavy commercial vehicles) the vehicle has cruise control and full speed will be maintained until the point of impact”.

The TC added that there had been widespread and long-term non-compliance. Indeed, as far back as 2011 a penalty had been issued for failing to produce records, and in 2014 there had been incidents of using a vehicle with no tachograph card or chart in place and, where a card or chart was in place, insufficient daily rest was recorded. This offence was repeated in 2015. The underlying reason, said the TC, was “a deep-seated drive to prioritise commercial gain over compliance” and the TC found that the directors had put drivers under undue pressure to satisfy commercial requirements. The TC also articulated the obvious point that the “wide load incident” involving T15RMV had put lives at risk. After conducting a balancing exercise, the TC revoked the operator’s licence held by R&M Vehicle Services Ltd and disqualified Michael Holgate and Graham Holgate from holding an operator’s licence for three months. He also disqualified Graham Holgate from acting as a transport manager for three months. These decisions were initially supposed to come into effect on 10/9/2016 but, following an unsuccessful appeal to the Upper Tribunal, the date was put back to 17/2/2017.

At the public inquiry of 6/7/2016, Graham Holgate was also dealt with as a vocational HGV driver – based upon the five convictions for making false tachograph records to conceal drivers’ hours infringements. In a decision dated 29/7/2016, the TC found that Graham Holgate’s offending as a driver was aggravated by the fact that he was also a director and the transport manager of the company where the offending occurred. He revoked Graham Holgate’s vocational entitlement, with effect from 20/8/2016, and disqualified him from holding a vocational entitlement for 40 weeks, that was until 27/5/2017 - after which, if he wanted a vocational entitlement, he would have to apply for it. The revocation of the vocational entitlement left Graham Holgate with just an ordinary car driving licence. Graham Holgate failed to produce his driving licence at the public inquiry and it took two letters from the Traffic Commissioner’s office (and a threat to recall him to a further driver’s hearing) to obtain it so that the DVLA could remove the vocational entitlement, leaving just the ordinary car entitlements. This replacement driving licence, without the vocational entitlements endorsed upon it, was issued to Graham Holgate on 13/10/2016 – long before the disqualification from holding a vocational entitlement came to an end. In the event, Graham Holgate did not apply for the return of his vocational entitlements until August 2018, and this application was granted with effect from 5/9/2018.

The Upper Tribunal decision, dated 6/1/17, is even more condemnatory than the Traffic Commissioner’s decision was in relation to the company, its directors and transport manager. The tribunal found that within three years of being granted an operator’s licence the company had become “manifestly non-compliant” and that Graham Holgate, the person principally responsible for compliance, failed to discharge any of the obligations and responsibilities of being a director and transport manager. He had “abdicated” his responsibilities to someone who was not the company’s transport manager, whilst Graham and Michael Holgate had created a “culture of falsification” of both tachograph and drivers’ hours offences:

“The irresistible inference is that their own misconduct and the undue pressure which they placed upon the drivers was driven by a wish to gain a competitive advantage over other operators undertaking abnormal load work, by ensuring that satisfying their customers was given priority over regulatory compliance … It is plain and obvious that the reason why there were no systems in place was because all of those with managerial functions within the company were well aware that the operation was not compliant, not only by reason of their own misconduct as drivers, but also by reason of the way that the journeys were scheduled and the misconduct of the employed drivers who were pressured into driving unlawfully… The directors’ reaction to the investigation was to deny wrongdoing … This stance and that of their drivers did not and does not indicate that the directors wished to take any immediate and effective steps to put matters right.”

The TC’s approach to the issue of disqualification of Michael Holgate and Graham Holgate was, said the tribunal, “lenient, to say the least”. The tribunal added:

“An order of indefinite disqualification in the case of Graham Holgate could not have been open to criticism and in the case of Michael Holgate a long period of disqualification, if not an indefinite order, could not have been open to criticism.”

Meanwhile, a different but linked company, R&M Leisure Homes Ltd was called up to public inquiry before the same TC on 4/10/2016. It was authorised under a standard national operator’s licence to run three vehicles and three trailers, which authorisation it used to the full. Michael Holgate had been a director of this company, but he resigned a couple of months before the inquiry took place, and he was replaced by Duane Harrison, the ‘Fleet Manager’ of R&M Vehicle Services Ltd. The other director was Michael’s brother, Robert Holgate (hence the initials ‘R&M’ in company nomenclature, and the use of RMV in the cherished number plates of vehicles). Robert had been appointed a director in February 2016, but the TC had not been told of this. Michael Holgate had also been the transport manager of this company which shared an operating centre, ‘Scotts Wharf’, with R&M Vehicle Services Ltd. This is also the operating centre of RM Group Hull Ltd, one of the companies now before me.

The call-up letter referred, inevitably, to Michael Holgate’s convictions for knowingly making a false tachograph record but did not refer to Robert Holgate’s convictions – not surprisingly since the TC had not been informed that Robert Holgate was a director. Robert Holgate’s convictions were also for dishonesty – he had four convictions of letting his name be put on tachograph charts in vehicles driven by other driver or drivers. This obviously made it look as if those drivers had stopped driving and had been replaced in the driving seat by Robert Holgate, when this was not the case. They provided cover for drivers’ hours offences committed by others, and the TC said that for a director to allow an employee driver to fraudulently use his identity to “mask drivers’ hours abuse” was “of the most serious type”. Michael Holgate was the transport manager at the time of this offending.

Moreover, on 31/8/2016, less than a month after the same TC had issued his decision revoking the licence of R&M Vehicle Services Ltd, R&M Leisure Homes Ltd had applied to triple its authorisation from three vehicles and trailers to nine of each. This, said the TC, “appeared to be a device to, in part at least, circumvent that revocation order”. On top of that, the removal of Michael Holgate as a director of R&M Leisure Homes Ltd “was clearly done to avoid regulatory action on this licence” although, if R&M Leisure Homes Ltd continued to hold an operator’s licence, the TC thought it unthinkable that, in reality, Michael Holgate would cease to exert influence behind the scenes.

Duane Harrison recounted to the TC an extraordinary story (which I consider to be of relevance to the case before me of Peter Tod, and which I therefore need to mention) of discovering that, without his knowledge or consent, he had somehow become a shareholder in R&M Leisure Homes Ltd on the very day of the inquiry, and yet he had not paid to purchase any shares. The eventual explanation settled upon was that it was a mistake by the company’s accountants.

The TC concluded that Robert Holgate, as a company director, had “willingly put the lives of others at risk by allowing his identity to be used by another driver to abuse the drivers’ hours rules”. The TC revoked the operator’s licence held by R&M Leisure Homes Ltd, disqualified Robert Holgate from holding an operator’s licence for six months, and added concurrent disqualifications of three months for Michael Holgate both as director and transport manager. Wisely, these decisions were not the subject of an appeal to the Upper Tribunal.

The first TC decision, affecting 20 of the 23 vehicles and disqualifying Graham and Michael Holgate, was dated 1/8/2016. The Upper Tribunal dismissed the appeal on 6/1/2017, and the TC’s second decision affecting a further three vehicles and again disqualifying Michael Holgate, is dated 16/1/2017. All these decisions came into effect on 17/2/2017.

Essentially, the cases before me are all about what happened once the authorisations for 23 vehicles, across two R&M licences, were placed in jeopardy and were then eventually removed, and what happened to the father and son combination of Graham and Michael Holgate, and others in their orbit, in the months leading up to the tragedy on the M62, and thereafter.

In March 2017 two new companies were incorporated at Companies House, namely RM Group Hull Ltd, and RM Leisure Homes Ltd (an almost identical name to R&M Leisure Homes Ltd, but without the “&”). Then, in July 2017, GHD Transport Ltd was incorporated.

The sole director of RM Group Hull Ltd was (and is) none other than Michael Holgate. The three-month disqualification from holding an operator’s licence and from acting as transport manager expired on 16/5/2017 and the operator’s licence, with Michael Holgate as transport manager, was applied for three days later on 19/5/2017. Authorisation for nine vehicles and nine trailers was sought, with the operating centre again at ‘Scotts Wharf’, promised time gaps between safety inspections were set at six weeks for all vehicles, and maintenance was to be carried out in-house by a Mr Judge. Without even a public inquiry, a standard international operator’s licence authorising the nine vehicles and trailers requested was granted on 24/8/2017.

Peter (Lance) Tod was appointed as an additional transport manager on 15/5/2018, a post he held until 29/1/2019, when he resigned. Both in a letter sent to the Traffic Commissioner’s office, and in oral evidence before me, he described an extraordinary situation where, out of the blue, he received letters from Companies House congratulating him on being appointed as a director of RM Leisure Homes Ltd and RM Group Hull Ltd. This had been done without his knowledge or consent. He questioned Michael Holgate as to why this had occurred, to be told that it was a mistake by the company’s accountants. Mr Holgate failed to remove him and so Mr Tod had to persuade the Registrar that his appointments as director had been without his agreement. He was then removed in February 2019. In the case of RM Group Hull Ltd this left Michael Holgate as sole director and transport manager.

The original sole director of RM Leisure Homes Ltd was Duane Harrison, with Fay Andrew joining him on 10/5/2017. Ms Andrew is the stepsister of Michael and Robert Holgate. A standard international operator’s licence with authorisation for five vehicles and trailers was then sought, with the operating centre again at ‘Scotts Wharf’, promised time gaps between safety inspections set at six weeks for all vehicles, and, again, maintenance to be carried out inhouse by Mr Judge. Duane Harrison was also nominated as transport manager. The licence was granted on 25/8/2017 - the very next day after the licence in the name of RM Group Hull Ltd was granted. Duane Harrison resigned as a director in October 2017 and, once Mr Tod had persuaded the Registrar that his appointments as director had been without his consent, he too was removed as director, leaving Fay Andrew. Duane Harrison resigned as transport manager in April or May 2018, and was subsequently replaced by Peter Tod, who then resigned at the end of January 2019, following his shock over mysteriously becoming a director. On 11/3/2019 Dennis Malcolm Young was nominated as transport manager, but his CPC was limited to national road haulage, so there was an email exchange about altering the operator’s licence from standard international to standard national. The email chain shows an email from Fay Andrew to Michael Holgate, from Michael Holgate to Mr Young, and from Mr Young to the Traffic Commissioner’s office. The operator’s licence was changed to standard national, and Mr Young’s nomination was accepted, and he remains as transport manager - with Fay Andrew remaining as sole director. Given his evidence to me, Mr Tod may be surprised to learn that, in the information provided by Companies House on 2/6/2019, he was still recorded there as being a person with “significant influence or control” in this company – and this only ceased on 26/7/2019, the Friday before the public inquiry opened before me.

The sole director of GHD Transport Ltd is Graham Holgate, Michael and Robert’s father. On 18/9/2017 this company applied for a standard national operator’s licence authorising four vehicles and two trailers, with time gaps between safety inspections set at six weeks for vehicles, and, again, maintenance to be carried out in-house by Mr Judge at ‘Scotts Wharf’. Graham Holgate was also nominated as transport manager. This application was, at least, considered at a public inquiry and the current TC in Leeds granted the application with effect from 19/2/2018 - but with a requirement that, by 30/9/2018, there should be an independent audit of arrangements for maintenance and drivers’ hours. An extension was granted to 22/10/2018 and the report was submitted on 8/10/18 with a covering letter signed “p.p.” by Peter Tod. The report stated that Mr Tod (who, of course, was not the transport manager for GHD Transport Ltd) was present for the duration of the audit, which took place on 5/10/18, whilst Graham Holgate was absent “on holiday”. In an email of 2/10/2018, however, Graham Holgate had said that there would be a delay in filing the audit because he was working in Holland.

So, once the likelihood of the R&M licences being revoked first arose, until 17/2/2017 at the latest, over 20 previously authorised vehicles from the two R&M companies needed new operator licences if they were to continue operating on the public roads.

What happened to those vehicles? This table is not conclusive or complete, but it provides an indication of the initial distribution that then occurred:

Reg. No.	Old Operator	New Operator	Re-allocated
T2RMV	R&M Leisure Homes Ltd	MAT International Ltd	13/4/2017
T5RMV	R&M Vehicle Services Ltd	CPL Transport Ltd	4/3/2017
T6RMV	R&M Vehicle Services Ltd	T Hebden t/a DATS	23/2/2017
T7RMV	R&M Vehicle Services Ltd	Holm Associates Ltd	4/4/2017
T8RMV	R&M Vehicle Services Ltd	T Hebden t/a DATS	23/2/2017
T9RMV	R&M Vehicle Services Ltd	T Hebden t/a DATS	23/2/2017
T13RMV	R&M Vehicle Services Ltd	T Hebden t/a DATS	23/2/2017
T14RMV	R&M Vehicle Services Ltd	T Hebden t/a DATS	18/3/2017
T15RMV	R&M Vehicle Services Ltd	Holm Associates Ltd	4/4/2017
T18RMV	R&M Vehicle Services Ltd	MAT International Ltd	13/4/2017
T20RMV	R&M Vehicle Services Ltd	T Hebden t/a DATS	28/3/2017
EU14KVF	R&M Vehicle Services Ltd	SRSS (Hull) Ltd	27/3/2017
BRZ8330	R&M Vehicle Services Ltd	SRSS (Hull) Ltd	27/3/2017
YKZ1912	R&M Vehicle Services Ltd	CPL Transport Ltd	23/2/2017
FJ05ZKB	R&M Vehicle Services Ltd	T Hebden t/a DATS	23/2/2017
PX08BJU	R&M Leisure Homes Ltd	MAT International Ltd	13/4/2017

T7RMV – This is the vehicle directly involved in the double fatal RTA on 3/4/2018.

T15RMV – This is the vehicle indirectly involved in the double fatal RTA on 3/5/2018. It has since been re-allocated to the O-licence held by RM Group Hull Ltd.

That is not the end of the story. Once it was possible, most of these vehicles were then taken off these licences and re-allocated to either RM Group Hull Ltd, RM Leisure Homes Ltd or GHD Transport Ltd. For example, T10RMX previously on T Hebden t/a DATS went to RM Group Hull Ltd on 30/8/2017, within a week of the licence being granted. And vehicles continued to swap around. For example, T10RMV went from T Hebden t/a DATs to RM Group Hull Ltd to GHD Transport Ltd, and T19RMV went from RM Leisure Homes Ltd to T Hebden t/a DATs to GHD Transport Ltd.

MAT International Ltd and CPL Transport Ltd have been dealt with. Their licences have been revoked and the companies, their directors and transport managers have all been disqualified indefinitely. In each case, misuse of those operator’s licences, or the unused margin thereon, was found to be fronting, as defined in Silvertree Transport Ltd [2013] UKUT 0117(AAC):

“Another way in which to describe the same situation would be to say that: ‘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 an operator’s licence and the manner in which the vehicle is being operated requires, if the operation is to be lawful, that the real operator holds an operator’s licence”.

Question 3

16. Events prior to the Public Inquiry

Accepted Answer

Once a possible pattern had become clear, the decision was taken to call all those now before me to a conjoined public inquiry. This decision was not universally supported by those involved. For example, Fay Andrew told me that she felt that RM Leisure Homes Ltd should be dealt with separately, and not as part of a conjoined public inquiry. Indeed, two weeks before the scheduled conjoined public inquiry, I was asked to consider applications to adjourn by the two RM companies, a request by Graham Holgate to be dealt with before his holiday on 31/7/2019, and a request by Mr Hebden to receive his evidence in private.

The response was:

The Deputy Traffic Commissioner has considered a number of procedural requests and has decided as follows. He is not minded to grant an adjournment at this stage. Once essential ‘housekeeping’ and clarification of issues and evidence has been dealt with, and particularly if any evidence is taken in respect of one or more of the cases called-up, then it may be that the question of an adjournment of one or more of the cases, or issues arising, will need to be reconsidered. The Deputy Traffic Commissioner considers that he will be best placed to decide if an adjournment is necessary in respect of all, some or none of the cases or matters before him, once the key issues have been clarified, and the evidence relevant to those issues has been identified.

The Deputy Traffic Commissioner considers that linking these various cases together in the first instance is necessary in the interests of justice, because this is the best way to ensure that any party potentially prejudiced by any evidence presented at the hearing has an opportunity to hear or read it, and to challenge it if necessary. Moreover, it is the Deputy Traffic Commissioner’s hope and intention to try and reach decisions across the board that are consistent, cohesive and integrated, and he does not think that he will be helped in this endeavour by dealing with matters piecemeal when, prima facie, the issues alleged or raised potentially suggest a number of complex links and associations between those called up.

Not all evidence will be pertinent to all those present, and so a real effort has been made by the Traffic Commissioner’s Office to prepare call-up letters, and briefs, that best reflect the issues and evidence relevant to each company and person called-up. Of course, it may be that other matters emerge in the evidence or at the hearing that adversely affect others present, for example if in putting forward his or her case, a person criticises or blames someone else, or puts forwards a version of the facts with which others disagree. However, with the assistance of all present, the Deputy Traffic Commissioner will be alert to take all reasonable steps to ensure that everyone who needs to challenge or respond to any such material evidence is given an opportunity to do so, and that everyone has a fair hearing.

The Deputy Traffic Commissioner wishes to stress that the alleged complications, links, associations and evidential cross-connections are not of the Traffic Commissioner’s making. They arise as a consequence of the issues raised and allegations made, and the prima facie corporate and business arrangements that, allegedly, some or all of those called-up to the hearing may have chosen to enter into. That is why the early decision was made to list the cases together, and for 5 days. Now that the Deputy Traffic Commissioner has had a chance to take a preliminary look at all the briefs, he recognises that the likelihood of some matters being adjourned is sufficiently high to justify vacating Friday 2 August 2019, so that only 4 days will be reserved for the hearings that will all commence at 10.30am on Monday 29 July 2019.

The Deputy Traffic Commissioner will bear in mind his powers under Paragraph 2 of Schedule 4 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Regulations 1995 to go into private session if he is satisfied that it is just and reasonable for him to do so by reason of –
(a) the likelihood of disclosure of intimate personal or financial circumstances;
(b) the likelihood of disclosure of commercially sensitive information or information obtained in confidence; or
(c) exceptional circumstances not falling within sub-paragraphs (a) or (b),

Finally, the Deputy Traffic Commissioner is aware that Mr G Holgate wishes to go away on holiday on Wednesday 31 July and, whilst he cannot offer any guarantees, he will strive to consider whether matters can be so arranged to make this possible.”

Then, on the Monday morning of the scheduled hearing, an email was received from solicitors formerly acting for RM Group Hull Ltd to say that they were no longer acting. It was understood by these solicitors that RM Group Hull Ltd was in the process of being dissolved and Michael Holgate no longer had authority to speak on behalf of the organisation.

I did not consider the absent solicitor’s ‘understanding’ to be a good reason to adjourn the case involving RM Group Hull Ltd, which continues to hold an operator’s licence authorising the use on the roads of nine heavy goods vehicles and trailers. No official approach had been made by administrators or liquidators (and Companies House records showed no change in status) and, in any event, Michael Holgate could still be expected to provide evidence by way of explanation, and to speak on his own behalf. He had chosen not to attend.

At the same time, a letter by email was received from solicitors formerly acting for RM Leisure Homes Ltd which simply stated that the solicitors were no longer instructed and so they would not be attending.

Meanwhile, Mr Radford of SSRS (Hull) Ltd wrote to the Traffic Commissioner’s office to say that he would not be attending either. He was no longer interested in in running or having any involvement with any sort of transport firm. And Mr Holm (former director of Holm Associates Ltd) also wrote in to say that he could not attend the hearing. He explained that he was now a Senior HSE Consultant and Instructor with ‘Holm Safety Services Ltd’ and he had a job starting on the day of the public inquiry. In Mr Holm’s case, there had been time for the Traffic Commissioner’s office to reply in order to stress the seriousness of the position, but Mr Holm had insisted that, although he realised the seriousness of the inquiry, he had resolved not to attend. He was content, amongst other things, for me to hear and accept the evidence of Mr Berriman, a Senior Traffic Examiner with DVSA. I decided to deal with both cases as part of the matters before me and without further delay - because there was no good reason to adjourn.

Mr Young, the current transport manager of RM Leisure Homes Ltd had not been called-up since his appointment post-dated the issues raised but, as is customary, he was invited to attend should it be necessary to consider current and proposed maintenance arrangements etc. In the event, Mr Young provided a folder of information which I have considered. Thus, although he kindly attended, neither I nor Fay Andrew required him to give evidence.

So those who attended and gave evidence were: Graham Holgate, Terence Hebden, Peter Tod (accompanied by Mr Aisbitt, a transport consultant who gave character evidence but was not a representative), and Fay Andrew. From DVSA were Senior Traffic Examiner (STE) Berriman, Traffic Examiner (TE) Wiles and Vehicle Examiner (VE) Jackson.

At my invitation Ms Andrew repeated her request for an adjournment so that the case involving RM Leisure Homes Ltd could be called separately. After reconsideration I refused this request because, in my judgement, the reasons why a conjoined inquiry was in the interests of justice held good. I had considered whether the sheer number of companies and people involved might make the public inquiry unwieldy or unmanageable. I decided that it would not, although I do not think it would have been wise to have added any further operators.

Mr Hebden made an application for his evidence to be heard in private (and I allowed him to make the application in private) but I decided against him on this point because there were no exceptional circumstances or any other grounds made out - although I did tell him that if there was any question that he did not wish to answer, then I would permit him to say ‘No comment’. In the event, Mr Hebden did not avail himself of this facility. He gave evidence on his own behalf and, by nodding and interjection, enthusiastically agreed with evidence given by Mr Tod.

Question 4

17. Evidence

Accepted Answer

I first dealt with the case of GHD Transport Ltd, and Graham Holgate, as director, transport manager and driver. I heard from Traffic Examiner Wiles who told me that, on 1/8/2018, he had stopped Graham Holgate who was driving a lorry (T8RMV - This vehicle has since been re-allocated to the O-licence held by RM Group Hull Ltd) which was then specified on the licence of T Hebden t/a DATS. The 1/8/2018 incident, therefore, relates both to that operator and to this driver – hence the value of a conjoined hearing. It occurred right in the middle of the period when, having granted an operator’s licence to Graham Holgate’s company after a public inquiry, the TC had attempted to put that company under the spotlight and provide an independent audit of arrangements for managing systems including systems for driver monitoring etc. Mr Wiles found that Graham Holgate had no HGV driving entitlement on his licence at all – his licence was simply a standard licence for driving cars. Indeed, Graham Holgate had not had an HGV driving entitlement since that entitlement was revoked by the then TC back in August 2016 for repeated offences of knowingly making a false tachograph record. Obviously, driving a motor vehicle without a driving licence, authorising such driving is a serious offence, especially by a professional driver and especially if the vehicle is an HGV. Such conduct generally invalidates any insurance cover. Graham Holgate was subsequently interviewed and he said that when he got the licence back from the DVLA following his appearance before the TC, he did not check it and he thought it was exactly the same as the one he had previously held before his HGV entitlement had been revoked. Mr Wiles pointed out that Graham Holgate’s driving licence had been issued back to Graham Holgate (without the HGV entitlement endorsed) on 13/10/2016, which was less than 11 weeks after the 40-week disqualification came into effect. But in interview Graham Holgate insisted that:

“Like I say it was, I thought a mirror like version of my original. I just thought it had the same entitlements. Now I know different.”

Mr Wiles also told me that on 9/8/2018, shortly after Graham Holgate had been stopped driving an HGV with no driving licence entitlement to do so (and still whilst the TC was expecting an audit of GHD Transport Ltd’s drivers’ hours and maintenance arrangements etc), a lorry specified on the GHD operator’s licence was stopped - and the driver’s digital tachograph card and vehicle tachograph were downloaded and analysed. This revealed that, during the period between 23/7/18 and 24/7/2018, the vehicle had been driven for 3 hours 53 minutes without any driver card inserted at all. This triggered a request to GHD Transport Ltd to produce all the ‘raw’ vehicle unit and driver data covering the period 1/3/2018 to 31/8/2018. An email from the email address of Peter Lance Tod followed, attaching some data but not what was required. Further communication took place and another email was sent, signed by Peter Tod, attaching the same (inadequate) data again.

Eventually the data was sent – again by Peter Tod (who, it will be recalled, also conducted the communications for GHD, later that year, in relation to the delayed audit for the TC). Peter Tod recognised in his email that some driver data was still missing – for example because a driver had left without his driver card being downloaded. The data produced revealed missing data for two of the company’s vehicles, one of which was missing for the entire 4-month period from 17/4/2018 to 31/8/2018. There was no driver card data produced for 14 different drivers, all of whom had driven GHD vehicles. These drivers with missing driver data included Michael Holgate, Robert Holgate, and Terence Hebden. A significant number of drivers’ hours infringements were identified. Excluding those where the time infringements were less than 15 minutes, there were eight offences of exceeding 4.5 hours continuous driving, including one instance of 7 hours 11 minutes, and another instance when Graham Holgate himself had driven for 5 hours 2 minutes. An offence of exceeding the daily driving limit showed one instance of driving for 10 hours 27 minutes, and there were offences of both driving without a driver card inserted at all, and inserting the card whilst driving - with Graham Holgate himself found to have inserted a driver card whilst driving on three separate occasions, during July 2018.

On top of that, the evidence showed that Graham Holgate had driven HGVs without having an HGV driving entitlement on over 180 occasions over the 38-week period of 7/11/2017 to 1/8/2018, when he was stopped. Some days he drove different vehicles for seemingly different operators – for example, on 27/1/2018 he drove four different vehicles for what appeared to be three different operators: MAT International Ltd, RM Group Hull Ltd and for RM Leisure Homes Ltd; and on 22/6/2018 he drove for RM Group Hull Ltd, then Terence Hebden and then GHD Transport Ltd. Other operators who allowed Graham Holgate to drive their HGVs when he had no driving entitlement to do so included SSRS (Hull) Ltd, CPL Transport Ltd, and Holm Associates Ltd. Indeed, the schedule in TE Wiles’ statement covering the period 7/11/2017 to 1/8/2018 suggests to me that Graham Holgate would have had little or no time left to run and transport manage his business. Hence, as it seemed to me, Peter Tod (the transport manager for the RM companies) had to deal with the various DVSA and TC enquiries to GHD Transport Ltd in 2018.

Mr Wiles was of the opinion that GHD Transport Ltd was not an independent operator, but an extension of the RM companies. Mr Tod, he thought, was de facto transport manager and was responsible for (amongst other things) any driver and vehicle downloads that were done. All records were kept at RM, all maintenance was done by Mr Judge at RM (Mr Judge was described on the GHD licence application as “an owner or employee of the business” even though he actually worked for the RM companies), and most work was organised through RM companies.

Graham Holgate gave evidence and insisted that he controlled GHD Transport Ltd, although he did have professional help from the RM companies. He said that he did all the driver licence checks (although he had not checked his own) and all his vehicles were owned by R & M Holdings Ltd, a company of which he (Graham Holgate) was a director. There were leasing agreements, but a sample produced to me stated that the charge for the vehicle was “£1000 per week/month (delete as appropriate)”. Graham Holgate said it was per month, but when pressed he admitted that no money actually changed hands because one thing was set off against another. This led to a request to see the bank statements for GHD Transport Ltd, since none had been presented. Graham Holgate said that the bank statements would not show much as the account was essentially inactive. Almost everything was done by cash.

I next dealt with Terence Hebden t/a Driver Agency & Transport Services Humbs (“DATS”), and with Mr Hebden as an operator and transport manager. Mr Hebden had been called to public inquiry on 8/2/2017 for maintenance failings and, of greater concern, a lack of an effective drivers’ hours management system. There seemed to be a very high number of infringements for a number of drivers. Mr Hebden agreed to complete a Transport Manager CPC refresher course of not less than 2 days duration. At that inquiry, he received a formal warning. A further public inquiry took place on 30/1/2018. One issue raised related to T20RMV ( – this vehicle had been on R&M Vehicle Services until its licence was revoked and was subsequently specified on Mr Hebden’s licence on 28/3/2017, five days after it had been stopped. It was later transferred to RM Leisure Homes Ltd, then back to Terence Hebden, then back to RM Leisure Homes Ltd. ) which had been stopped on 22/3/2017 loaded with a static caravan. The vehicle was not actually specified on any operator’s licence at that time. However, the ESDAL (abnormal load notification) system listed the operator licence covering the journey as OB189248, which was Mr Hebden’s licence. Oddly, the paperwork gave Michael Holgate as the contact.

Another vehicle, T10RMV ( – once RM Group Hull Ltd was granted an operator’s licence on 24/8/2017, this vehicle was transferred to that licence (30/8/2017). This vehicle was removed from Mr Hebden’s O-licence five days later on 25/7/2018 and, the following month, allocated to the licence held by RM Group Hull Ltd. It was later transferred to GHD Transport Ltd ), appeared to be operating under Mr Hebden’s licence on 6/7/2017 but it was not specified, and there was no margin for it to be specified. It received a prohibition for carrying a dangerous load (load security in a dangerous condition). Additionally, it was not displaying a rear number plate. Once a margin had been created, this vehicle was allocated to Mr Hebden’s licence on 10/7/2017. The 30/1/2018 inquiry also heard that Mr Hebden was not in possession of a company card or downloading device to enable downloading of digital tachographs or driver cards, he did not keep any download records (tachograph downloads were on Duane Harrison’s computer), nor were there any records of infringements, and Mr Hebden had no knowledge of working time regulations. At the public inquiry, the TC specifically and carefully explored Mr Hebden’s links with the R&M/RM companies. He denied that he was operating any R&M vehicles and insisted that, although Duane Harrison (the then transport manager for RM Leisure Homes Ltd) did all the vehicle downloads and tachograph analysis, he did this in a personal capacity and it was “nothing to do with R&M”. Alexander Abel, a driver from ‘Driver Agency Transport Services’ allegedly working for Mr Hebden, also attended the hearing. He, along with another driver, had drivers’ hours offences recorded. The other driver had his vocational entitlement suspended for a week. Mr Abel was given a formal warning.

So far as the operator and Mr Hebden as transport manager were concerned, the TC accepted that there were no substantive links between Mr Hebden’s operation and R&M, and he also accepted that Mr Hebden was now “embracing technology”. He curtailed Mr Hebden’s licence for one week from nine vehicles to seven, and Mr Hebden as transport manager was given another formal warning. Subsequently, the TC required an audit by 31/12/2018 to check Mr Hebden’s systems. This has never been received, despite a reminder letter dated 23/1/2019.

Before me, STE Berriman spoke to TE Minter’s report. In theory, Mr Hebden has two operating centres, but his specified vehicles did not operate from them. Indeed, with one exception all the operator’s vehicles are effectively operated via the R&M or RM companies. As TE Minter put it in his report:

“Hebden has allowed his O-Licence to be used and he has effectively surrendered control to R&M. The vehicles used are R&M vehicles, R&M drivers, R&M fuel, R&M maintenance doing R&M contracts, the vehicles are kept at R&M operating centre/s. Vehicles are entered and removed from Hebden’s licence by R&M, the ESDAL (abnormal load notification) system is used exclusively by R&M from their offices.”

Offences or infringements recorded against vehicles specified on Mr Hebden’s licence included: • 6/7/2017 - Dangerous load - load security in a dangerous condition, and also no registration plate affixed. The vehicle was, in fact, T10RMV – see above. • 20/7/2017 – also T10RMV – Tachograph not fitted properly. • 22/2/2018 – T6RMV (– this vehicle was removed from Mr Hebden’s licence on 16/4/2018. It was subsequently allocated to RM Group Hull Ltd, put back on Mr Hebden’s licence between 6/2/2019 and 17/7/2019, and is currently specified on the licence of GHD Transport Ltd) – AdBlue emissions control emulator wired into the back of the dashboard (this resulted in an “S” marked prohibition). This was a mere three weeks after the public inquiry before the TC on 30/1/2018 when the licence had been curtailed and Mr Hebden had received another formal warning.

On 25/4/2018, less than three months after the last public inquiry before the TC, Mr Hebden was interviewed by STE Berriman and TE Minter. At the outset, Mr Hebden produced a number of invoices which purported to show that the use of RM drivers was a legitimate arms-length commercial arrangement with a driver agency, ‘Driver Agency Transport Services’ (a name similar, but not identical, to Mr Hebden’s trading name). This driver agency is run by Lynn Andrew who is the mother of Michael and Robert Holgate. The invoices produced were presented as invoices received each week from Ms Andrew’s company for driver hire over the period 5/1/2018 to 6/4/2018. Also produced were invoices from RM Group Hull Ltd for the alleged supply of AdBlue, received each month from 31/1/2018 to 31/3/2018.

However, the invoices looked suspicious – not least because the AdBlue invoices had been printed on a printer that was clearly running out of ink and showed the markings that arise in that situation, and yet the invoices purported to have been separately printed and issued on 31/1/18, and then on 28/2/18, and then on 31/3/18.

In interview it became clear that Mr Hebden had no idea how to make his abnormal load notifications using the ESDAL system. He could not remember his password and agreed that Duane Harrison (at that time the transport manager of RM Leisure Homes Ltd) helped him insofar as he had set the computer account up for Mr Hebden, but it was not yet on his computer.

Q. Whose computer is it on?

A. Well it will be on Duane’s

Q. Where does Duane work?

…

A. He is the administrator for R&M.

STE Berriman put to Mr Hebden that the situation was essentially one where the RM companies have the work and contacts, they are being paid for the work, they select a driver, they select a vehicle and they send the vehicle on its journey. He asked Mr Hebden why the RM companies needed to use him. Mr Hebden replied that some jobs required a volume of vehicles and that RM needed more than they could provide on their licence. Consequently, Mr Hebden’s vehicles were not kept at his operating centres, but at property under the control of RM. In effect, Mr Hebden accepted that his vehicles were RM vehicles, using an RM base, carrying an RM load, with an RM driver. Mr Hebden agreed that RM were doing the maintenance and the tachograph downloading. Mr Minter put to Mr Hebden that he was not operating the vehicles at all:

Q. They are their vehicles, their contracts, they are planning the load, and they’re going onto the computer under your password? A. Yes.

…

Q. So, basically, who’s operating? Not who’s operating licence but who is operating those vehicles?

A. They are. I am really by the short and curlies

When conversation turned to the invoices that Mr Hebden had produced, he was asked:

Q. Have these been picked up as a job lot?

A. They’ve been picked up as a job lot, yes.

Q. OK, do they reflect the invoices you receive week by week for the drivers?

A. No

Q. And similarly for the invoices for AdBlue, you’ve just been in and got those, picked them up today?

A. Yes.

…

Q. They are not a copy of anything you’ve received. They know you are coming here, and they have printed them off?

A. Yes.

…

Q. You’re happy that these invoices are not genuine, they have been basically manufactured.

A. Contrived.

Q. Contrived to bring to us today.

A. Yes.

Q. And you were there while they printed them out?

A. Well, they were printing something, whether it was them I don’t know. I presumed.

Q. In effect those documents are forgeries?

A. Yes. Yes.

Mr Hebden went on to explain that he had heard of RM using other licence holders to run their vehicles. Mr Minter pointed out that many RM vehicles came on and off Mr Hebden’s licence – easily recognisable by the RMV number plates.

Q. They come on, go off, come on, and go off, what’s happening there?

A. I don’t know what, I can’t really fathom it out - what that’s all about.

Q. Who’s putting the vehicles on your operator’s licence?

A. It will be over at their office.

Q. So they are doing that element of it as well, they are juggling your vehicles, is that correct?

A. It would appear that way, yes.

Discussion turned to the AdBlue emulator found on T6RMV a couple of months before the interview. Mr Hebden said that although he was the operator of the vehicle, he actually had no knowledge of it or even what an emulator was. He had, he said, “taken the fall for it”. He said that when the vehicle was subsequently taken off his licence on 16/4/2018, this had not been done by him.

The AdBlue invoices, like the driver invoices, had been prepared that day for him to bring to the interview, and were completely fabricated. Indeed, the drivers named were not even his drivers and were not employed by him. Mr Hebden said he had produced them to buy time, adding “I wanted more time to get my freedom, and get me out of their clutches”.

Mr Berriman told me that he believed that Mr Hebden’s operation was simply “a front” for a much larger operation than RM Group Hull Ltd actually had authorisation for.

Additional evidence before me indicated that, on 12/4/2019, vehicle T8RMV - then specified on Mr Hebden’s licence – was stopped on the A1079 with no insurance in place. Nor was the vehicle displaying any operator licence disc. The driver said that he was working for Michael Holgate and produced a fuel card for the vehicle which was in the name of RM Group Hull Ltd. Then, on 12/7/2019 - more than a month after the call-up letters for this public inquiry were sent out - vehicle T6RMV (– this vehicle was removed from Mr Hebden’s licence on 16/4/2018. It was subsequently allocated to RM Group Hull Ltd, put back on Mr Hebden’s licence between 6/2/2019 and 17/7/2019, and is currently specified on the licence of GHD Transport Ltd) was stopped on the M1 slip-road, again with no insurance in place. This vehicle was also specified on Mr Hebden’s operator’s licence although, again, there was no operator’s licence disc displayed.

Having declined to allow Mr Hebden to give his evidence to me in private, he gave his evidence in public. He alleged that calling him up amounted to “shooting the messenger”. He explained that he had wanted to sell his business because he [Redacted]. Initially the businesses were supposed to merge, and he had allowed Michael Holgate to effectively run his business because he had numerous hospital visits etc. Additionally, Mr Hebden said that Michael Holgate had persuaded him to take on responsibility for financing a number of vehicles that had previously been operated by R&M before the licences were revoked. Mr Hebden had a good name in the industry and so he was permitted to raise the finance and accept responsibility for the repayments. Mr Hebden, however, expected his business to be purchased by Michael Holgate and so he would thereby receive financial compensation from Michael Holgate or the RM companies for his business and for the re-financing of the vehicles etc. Unfortunately, the sale of the business dragged on and Mr Hebden found out that the accountants had not received proper information or instructions from Michael Holgate. Consequently, of course, no progress had been made, and nothing had been paid to Mr Hebden. In a pre-inquiry statement from Mr Hebden he said that he had not received any money from Michael Holgate for the truck financing, and Michael Holgate had lied to him about proceeding with the purchase, and about providing information to his accountants (which he had not done) whilst effectively taking over Mr Hebden’s operation during the time that Mr Hebden was ill. Mr Hebden said that, as a result of his involvement with Michael Holgate and R&M/RM he feared losing around [Redacted].

Mr Hebden accepted the evidence regarding the fake invoices which he had collected from RM Leisure Homes Ltd on the day of his interview with STE Berriman and TE Minter. In fact, said Mr Hebden, it was Fay Andrew who had personally handed all the fabricated documents to him.

I next dealt with RM Leisure Homes Ltd and Fay Andrew as sole director. I record here that my impression, having had an opportunity of watching Ms Andrew throughout the hearing and of hearing her give evidence, is that she could not have been less interested in the proceedings.

The call-up letter makes it clear that one of the key issues before me is to ascertain “who the controlling mind of the company (RM Leisure Homes Ltd) is”.

As I have already noted, this company was incorporated on 30/3/2017, six weeks after the revocation of the licences held by R&M Vehicle Services Ltd and R&M Leisure Homes Ltd. The licence was granted for five vehicles and five trailers, but it subsequently applied to double its authorisation up to ten vehicles and ten trailers. At the start of the hearing before me, Ms Andrew sensibly withdrew this application.

Vehicle Examiner Jackson told me about a maintenance investigation that he had undertaken on 22/11/2018, at ‘Scotts Wharf’ in Hull. Mr Jackson was told that Mr Tod was off sick, so he met with Robert Holgate and a Mr Johnson. Whilst he was in the office, Michael Holgate came in and VE Jackson explained to him that he was there to undertake a maintenance investigation. Fay Andrew was not in attendance, nor was she called to attend. Maintenance was conducted in-house by Mr Judge and VE Jackson noted that the records for vehicles operated by RM Leisure Homes Ltd were kept in the same cabinet with the records for RM Group Hull Ltd, and other operators too. Although vehicle records were sorted in relation to which operator they were allocated to or specified on, the trailers were all lumped together and not allocated to different operators. VE Jackson took a photograph of this cabinet full of files.

The maintenance inspection was unsatisfactory. On 27/11/2018 a trailer had been presented for a roadworthiness inspection at Beverley Test centre with a tyre that was not roadworthy. The tyre in question would have needed replacement for some time and had not just become unroadworthy that day – indeed, when it was inspected three weeks earlier it was then shown as low tread. Mr Jackson thought it should have been replaced at that time. Instead, it was “recut”. Additionally, time gaps between safety inspections had been stretched in a number of instances: in the case of one trailer from six weeks to 20 weeks, and in the case of vehicle T20RMV ( – this vehicle had originally been on the O-licence of R&M Vehicle Services Ltd. On 28/3/2017 it was transferred to T Hebden (DATS) then, as soon as it got its licence, it went to RM Leisure Homes on 30/8/2017, then it went back to T Hebden, then back to RM Leisure Homes Ltd.), from six weeks to ten weeks, followed by 11 weeks. These time gaps were not explained by the seizure of PMI records by DVSA following the double fatal Road Traffic Accident.

STE Berriman saw the mechanic, Mr Judge, on 14/6/2019. He was a mechanic for both RM Leisure Homes Ltd and RM Group Hull Ltd. He made a statement to Mr Berriman which, amongst other things, says:

“Any item I had identified as needing replacement always needed a second opinion from Michael Holgate. He would regularly override my decision and tell me to leave replacing the component until the next inspection … Some of the trailers were old, and the extending trailers in particular had suffered lots of damage and subsequent repairs to the wiring looms. I advised Michael Holgate that we needed to replace looms, but he insisted that they be repaired, sometimes many times over. A similar situation existed in relation to tyres. Michael Holgate would buy used tyres rather than purchase new ones. I didn’t agree with this practice. I repaired the full fleet of RM vehicles, even those run by other companies such as SSRS (Hull) Ltd, CPL Ltd, MAT International Ltd, GHD Transport Ltd, Holm Associates Ltd and Terry Hebden … My belief was that the drivers and loads were all controlled by Michael and Robert Holgate via the RM Group administration office. Also in the office, the wages and administration were carried out by Lynn Andrew who is Michael and Robert’s mother, and Fay Andrew who is Michael and Robert’s step-sister”.

Fay Andrew gave evidence. She confirmed the family relationship and said that she was a director and did the payroll, plus health and safety. She oversaw the manufacturing side. She said that Michael Holgate gave her advice, but she insisted that she made “the decisions”. Ms Andrew was not able to help me with the maintenance issues – although she insisted that she had been on the premises when VE Jackson attended for the maintenance investigation. She had been upstairs, she said, but she could not explain why no-one had thought it appropriate to let her know that the DVSA inspector had turned up. Ms Andrew admitted that she had given Mr Hebden the batch of fake invoices which he produced at his DVSA interview and which he admitted were concocted and false, but she did not know what they were, or how they came to be made that day – she just took them off the printer and gave them to Mr Hebden.

I turned then to deal with Peter Tod. He had a transport background with larger companies but had accepted appointment to be transport manager for RM Group Hull Ltd and RM Leisure Homes Ltd. Mr Tod agreed with the evidence of Mr Judge in relation to Michael Holgate’s interference with maintenance, and told me of an occasion when Mr Judge had asked him to inspect some track-rod ends which needed changing. Michael Holgate had told him not to bother. Mr Tod agreed that they did need changing and authorised Mr Judge to proceed. Mr Tod said that in his view, in respect of both companies, Michael Holgate was the “main man”, he held “the purse strings” and “made the decisions”. Mr Tod then told me of his horror at finding that he had been appointed a director of the RM companies without his knowledge or consent. In a pre-inquiry statement submitted to the Traffic Commissioner’s office Mr Tod had explained that, when he discovered this, he questioned Michael Holgate and was told that “it was a mistake by the company’s accountants”. However, two weeks later a check at Companies House showed his name still listed. Mr Tod added that, as he was unable to get through to the directors with regards to changes that needed to be made, he felt that continuing as transport manager was untenable. He resigned, leaving the business at the end of January 2019. He considers that his employment with the RM companies was “a mistake which I now regret”.

Mr Aisbitt spoke warmly of Mr Tod, whom he has known professionally for some time. He considered that his reputation within the industry should be “untarnished”.

Turning to SSRS (Hull) Ltd, Mr Berriman’s report is dated 8/3/2019. In it, he notes that SSRS (Hull) Ltd was incorporated on 16/9/2016, less than a week after the first revocation date for R&M Vehicle Services Ltd. Mr Berriman noted that David Radford, the sole director and transport manager is a relative of the Holgates. SSRS operated from Scotts Wharf, from within the “R&M building”. Both vehicles initially specified on the licence had been R&M Vehicle Services Ltd vehicles and were added to the SRSS licence on 27/3/2017, in the month following the revocation of the R&M licences and while the various disqualifications were in force. The vehicles also had R&M Vehicle Services Ltd and R&M Holdings Ltd as the registered keepers.

Mr Berriman therefore believed that the R&M/RM group, in collusion with SSRS (Hull) Ltd had attempted to circumvent the operator licence system by continuing to operate after the revocations and disqualifications came into effect. Moreover, Mr Radford had failed to comply with a formal request made under Article 33(2) of Council Regulation (EU) 165/2014 and Section 99ZA (1),(2),(3),(4),(5) & (6) of the Transport Act 1968 for delivery to DVSA of a list of raw driver and vehicle data which would have allowed this to be investigated. Mr Radford definitely received the letter but replied to say that the documentation requested had all been damaged by vandals or stolen. Mr Radford went on to say that, due to “a few bad decisions on my behalf”, he no longer had anything to do with the transport business that he started in 2017.

Finally, I turn to the case of Wayne Smith Holm. The vehicles involved in the double fatality on the M62 were specified on the operator’s licence of Holm Associates Ltd. Mr Holm, as the company’s sole director and transport manager was obviously contacted immediately after the accident happened, and STE Berriman interviewed him on 7/4/2018. Mr Holm straight away explained that he had sold the company to R&M Vehicle Services in March 2017 for £2,700. He said that the transaction included “The company, Holm Associates Ltd, and operator licence OB114392”. He said that he was asked to stay on for a short period as a director and transport manager but he never actually worked at R&M’s premises – all he had done was call in to give R&M two vehicle O-licence discs and the company tachograph card. He said that he had not specified the two vehicles involved in the accident on his licence, this had been done by someone at R&M. He had no control whatsoever over these vehicles or drivers, or drivers’ hours, or maintenance and drivers did not receive any instructions from him. Mr Holm said that he was paid £300 per month for R&M to use his O licence which, he said, “was theirs, as they had bought the company”. In a further statement given to the police, Mr Holm said that he mostly dealt with Michael Holgate, and that staying on as a transport manager was “a sleeping position” and he actually took no part in the running of the company and did not even visit the yard other than to drop off the operator’s licence and the company card. The arrangement carried on for the best part of 2017. Mr Holm admitted that he was paid £300 per month “for my name to be used as a transport manager”. Mr Holm believed that he had been removed as a director but, following the fatal accident, he found that he had not been. He was then removed as from 9/4/2018 – and not replaced, which meant that the company had no directors at all. At around this time, however, he got a phone call from Michael Holgate: “He said to me that we needed to get our stories straight following the incident … I said to him that it was nothing to do with me, the vehicles and everything else were totally his responsibility.” In subsequently writing to the TC’s office to say that he would not be attending the public inquiry, Mr Holm added that ideally, he wished to hold onto his transport manager CPC in case the industry in which he now works goes quiet.

There is another odd feature of Mr Holm’s case. On 16/2/2018 the Traffic Commissioner’s office received an application to nominate Alexander Abel as transport manager for Holm Associates Ltd. Mr Abel signed himself as “Fleet Manager” for Holm Associates Ltd. Mr Abel had a CPC, but it was limited to national operations and the licence held by Holm Associates Ltd was a standard international one. So, the Traffic Commissioner’s office emailed Mr Holm seeking clarification. On 7/4/2018 Mr Holm replied to say that he had sold the company to R&M, and that he had no knowledge of a Mr Abel and had never had any dealings with him.

Mr Abel, it will be recalled, had been a driver employed by (amongst other people) Terence Hebden through the driver agency run by Lynn Andrew, Michael and Robert Holgate’s mother. He had appeared before the TC on 30/1/2018 – and so it appears that, less than three weeks after receiving a warning from the TC, he submitted what looks like an entirely bogus application to be transport manager on Holm Associates Ltd. Less than two months after that application had been submitted, two people had been killed by a vehicle, specified on the Holm Associates licence, smashing through the crash barrier on the M62 into the path of an oncoming car.

On 7/4/2018 STE Berriman spoke to Michael Holgate about Holm Associates Ltd. He said “we never intended to buy the company. The initial thing was to buy work”. Michael Holgate admitted that R&M had instructed the drivers regarding the loads carried on T7RMV and T15RMV on 3/4/2018. He claimed that he paid Holm Associates Ltd through the bank but, when asked to show evidence of payments made to Holm Associates in the last three months, he replied “There is nothing been sent to Wayne Holm”.

Question 5

18. Findings

Accepted Answer

It seems to me that the evidence is completely overwhelming that the Holgate family, and principally Michael Holgate, have abused their own and other people’s operator’s licences in order to continue the substantial levels of business formerly undertaken by R&M Vehicle Services Ltd and R&M Leisure Homes Ltd. I am aware that I make this finding without having heard from Michael Holgate. But he was not unwell, and he knew that the public inquiry was taking place. His non-attendance, I believe, was nothing other than a tactical ploy. But even if he had attended, it is hard to see what he could have said to overcome the picture painted by the totality of the evidence that I have attempted to summarise in this decision.

I accept the evidence of Mr Hebden and Mr Tod, and (even though he did not attend) the written evidence of Mr Holm. I believe the RM mechanic, Mr Judge, also told the truth in his statement. Having had an opportunity of watching and listening to them give evidence, I reject the evidence of Graham Holgate and Fay Andrew.

The account given by Mr Hebden is a distressing one. He had cancer. He was not only enticed into allowing Michael Holgate and the RM companies to utilise his operator’s licence, he was encouraged to use his good name to re-finance some R&M vehicles on the promise of a sale of his business. The tactic of dangling the promise of purchasing the business to an operator in difficulty, in return for use of the operator’s licence authorisation, has a striking similarity with the account given by Mr Wade in the CPL Transport Ltd case. Mr Hebden still hopes to recover some money from the Holgates or the RM companies, as he says that he still has a debt of around [Redacted] to repay, after he agreed to re-finance the R&M vehicles.

But Mr Hebden is not without significant blame and responsibility. I find, on balance, that just like Mr Holm and others, he allowed his operator’s licence to be taken over by the Holgates and the R&M/RM companies in the unfulfilled hope of some financial return. The position is aggravated in Mr Hebden’s case because he lied to the TC when he appeared at public inquiry on 30/1/2018 and then, less than three months later on the day he was to be interviewed by the DVSA, he was handed a bunch of fake and fraudulent invoices by Fay Andrew, the sole director of RM Leisure Homes Ltd, and he then presented them to the DVSA examiners as genuine. However, before the interview was half-way through, he had admitted the truth.

What happened, going back to around the time when the R&M licences were revoked, is that a number of operators, including Mr Hebden, Holm Associates Ltd, SSRS (Hull) Ltd, MAT International Ltd and CPL Transport Ltd, all allowed their operator licence authorisations to be taken over, at least until RM Group Hull Ltd, RM Leisure Homes Ltd and GHD Transport Ltd could operate under their own, new, licences. But these new companies had not sought (and would almost certainly not have been granted) authorisations of sufficient size to fully compensate for the loss of the two R&M licences, although together they came close. Especially after the comments of the Upper Tribunal, it is small wonder that Michael Holgate, beyond the authorisation that he had managed to get, hid behind others in order to carry on and expand. And, it has to be said, to behave with little regard for compliance – with numerous drivers’ hours, tachograph, AdBlue, maintenance, dangerous load and other infringements arising in relation to the various operators with which, on paper, he had no connection - but in which, in reality, he had a controlling and dominant influence.

GHD Transport Ltd was incorporated on 26/7/2017, but it was not in any way a separate operation from that of his sons’ businesses. Graham Holgate is a driver, and the schedule of his driving from November 2017 to August 2018, all whilst he had no HGV driving entitlement, shows how he would have had little or no time for GHD Transport Ltd. When the DVSA investigated a number of drivers’ hours infringements, it was Mr Tod who had to deal with the DVSA. And what is particularly shocking is that, despite the history of R&M Vehicle Services Ltd and the comments of the Upper Tribunal, this man again abdicated responsibility and cared not at all that vehicles and drivers using his operator’s licence were again committing drivers’ hours offences. It is worth recalling the comments of the tribunal:

“Graham Holgate, the person principally responsible for ensuring compliance, not only by reason of being the nominated transport manager but also the director with a leading role in the company, failed to discharge any of the obligations and responsibilities those roles imposed upon him”

Those words could just as well have been written about GHD Transport Ltd and Graham Holgate’s role within it. I asked Graham Holgate what he had done about the drivers who had committed serious drivers’ hours infringements. He said he had warned them and recorded the warnings. But after a pretence of looking for the papers, he feigned surprise that he did not have anything with him. Then, when I asked to see the company bank statements, he told me that the account was virtually dormant. That he nevertheless expected me to believe that his operator’s licence was anything other than a piece of paper for his son to use, or that his business was anything other than a sham, shows how detached from reality this whole artifice had become.

Then there is the explanation offered for driving without any HGV licence following the revocation of his vocational entitlement. I do not believe that Graham Holgate can possibly have thought, having been asked to send in his driving licence so that his HGV entitlement could be removed following its revocation, that the licence then sent back to him a short time later – and whilst he was still disqualified – would somehow still show an HGV entitlement. The licence sent to him did not show such an entitlement because, as Graham Holgate well knew, it had been revoked. There came a time when he was no longer disqualified from having such an entitlement, but this was much later and, when that time came, Graham Holgate did nothing at all. He was fined £400 for a sample offence at Teesside Magistrates’ Court. Mr Hebden should, by rights, have reported this conviction but, of course, he had precious little to do with the business and there is no question that the real controlling mind, Michael Holgate, would take that step. Graham Holgate should also have reported it, but he did not.

Fay Andrew works in the office of RM Leisure Homes Ltd, but she is not the controlling mind. As Mr Tod and Mr Judge said, this would be Michael Holgate, and Fay Andrew is just a nominal director. She, I believe, was complicit in manufacturing the concocted and fake invoices intended to create the illusion of Mr Hebden actually running a separate operation. No-one thought to call her when Mr Jackson arrived to do an unannounced maintenance investigation. The man who attended and to whom an explanation was given was Michael Holgate. I find beyond doubt that RM Leisure Homes Ltd was set up to add to the authorisations that Michael Holgate could use, and to which on his instructions vehicles could be transferred from the various smaller companies used in the immediate aftermath of the R&M revocations and disqualifications. RM Leisure Homes Ltd, like Terrence Hebden, GHD Transport Ltd, SRSS (Hull) Ltd, Holm Associates Ltd, CPL Transport Ltd and Mat International Ltd were all effectively created or taken over in order to allow Michael Holgate and his company, RM Group Hull Ltd, to operate a far bigger fleet than authorised, and in order to provide a complex and convoluted shield (or series of shields) behind which Michael Holgate and others could hide and conceal their unsatisfactory approach to maintenance, drivers hours and regulatory compliance. No lessons at all were learned from the previous encounters with the TC and the Upper Tribunal, save perhaps that, in future, ever more complex strategies could be attempted to try and hide the reality of what is actually happening.

Thus, these companies together provided a large and interwoven front, and I commend the DVSA for unpicking it. I adapt the definition in Silvertree to say that what happened here was the creation of appearances to suggest that a significant number of vehicles (or fleets of vehicles) were being operated by the holders of a number of operator’s licences, when the reality is that they were being operated by a company (under the control of an individual) which did not hold an operator’s licence authorising it to operate to the extent and degree that it did - and the manner in which the vehicles were being operated required, if the operation was to be lawful, that the real operator possessed a much larger operator’s licence and greater authorisation than was actually the case.

To see the extent of this control, one only needs to look at the scattered distribution of the R&M vehicles following the R&M revocations, and the fact that vehicles have then switched and swapped from one licence to another with, by and large, the specifications and de-specifications being done by persons working for Michael Holgate in the RM offices, frequently using the log-in details and passwords of operators who themselves knew nothing of the changes being made in their name.

Question 6

19. Considerations

Accepted Answer

What are the positive points to place in the balance, so far as RM Group Hull Ltd and Michael Holgate are concerned? I find that there are none. Of course, I note that the case in respect of this company is not based on the usual issues of maintenance or drivers hours – but if I transfer maintenance and drivers’ hours and other infringements and issues from the operators whose licences and authorisations were used illicitly, and hold Michael Holgate and RM Group Hull Ltd to account for the wider picture, then that positive point falls away entirely. There have been some PG9s, including an immediate PG9 for defective tyre. But the wider truth is that Mr Judge described Michael Holgate’s malevolent effect on maintenance, and the irresistible conclusion that I reach confirms Michael Holgate’s total disregard for the relationship of trust that the TC expects to have with all holders of an operator’s licence. This is a grave and irredeemable situation, made even worse by Michael Holgate’s history as the controlling mind of R&M Leisure Homes Ltd, even after he ducked out of being a director to be replaced by Duane Harrison before the licence was eventually revoked and he, Michael Holgate, was disqualified. Given the offences of knowingly making a false tachograph record it is astonishing that he did not take heed of the comments of the Upper Tribunal and count himself incredibly lucky that he had not been disqualified indefinitely. Instead, he determined to carry on as before, and to the same or an even greater extent - and to use such corporate manoeuvres, people, operator licences and vehicle/trailer authorisations as were available, to allow this to happen. This was deliberate and has caused harm or distress to at least some of those involved. I believe road safety was compromised and the abuse of other operator’s licences and authorisations, together with continued cutting of corners, gave him and RM Group Hull Ltd a clear commercial advantage, permitted driver offending albeit principally on his father’s operator licence, and placed those who were little more than his stooges into the firing line - as in Mr Hebden taking ‘the fall’, as he put it, for the discovery of an AdBlue emulator, and being expected to present entirely faked invoices to the DVSA, including AdBlue invoices purporting to come from RM Group Hull Ltd. The whole pattern of behaviour and corporate structure was designed and created to obfuscate and conceal the truth. The regulatory starting point is severe. I ask, can I trust Michael Holgate or RM Group Hull Ltd to be compliant in the future. I cannot. Does RM Group Hull Ltd deserve to be put out of business? If it depends for its existence on its operator’s licence then yes, it does.

I find that RM Group Hull Ltd has lost its good repute. I find that Michael Holgate has lost his good repute as transport manager and is not fit to be a transport manager. It is a proportionate response to impose a disqualification from acting as a transport manager in the future and I am unable to think of an appropriate rehabilitation measure in the circumstances of this case. The operator therefore is also without professional competence. I am told that the company is moving towards dissolution. I have not been given evidence of finances and I find that the company no longer has financial standing. I find that there have been PG9s and that there has been a material change in circumstances, namely that RM Group Hull Ltd was clandestinely and for its own purposes operating vehicles specified on the licences of RM Leisure Homes Ltd, Terence Hebden, GHD Transport Ltd, SRSS (Hull) Ltd, Holm Associates Ltd, CPL Transport Ltd and Mat International Ltd.

Very sadly, amongst the vehicles operated in this way were two HGVs that were involved in the double fatality that occurred on 3/4/2018, when two entirely innocent road users in an oncoming car were confronted by the terrifying spectacle of an out-of-control lorry, transporting a large mobile home on its trailer, as it hurtled through the central crash-barrier of the M62 into their path, and the two men tragically lost their lives as a result.

RM Leisure Homes Ltd played its full part in this clandestine set of arrangements, and Fay Andrew allowed herself to be used as a front, and as a notional director when (although she did have some responsibilities in the company) she was certainly not the controlling mind. A positive point I must carefully consider is whether, with a transport manager to replace Mr Tod and (so far as I can tell from the folder of evidence provided) much improved systems in place, I can trust this company to be compliant in future. The problem is that I have no trust that Mr Young, the current transport manager, will fare any better than his predecessor, Mr Tod. Indeed, after Mr Young sat and heard all that had to be said at the public inquiry, I should be very surprised if he does not seriously consider his position. My finding is no reflection on him, but it is a reflection on Fay Andrew (who handed the fake invoices to Mr Hebden) and on Michael Holgate - who is the strong controlling mind of this company. No, I do not trust it to be compliant in the future. Does RM Leisure Homes Ltd deserve to be put out of business? If it depends for its existence on its operator’s licence then yes, it does. And because this operator is but an extension of RM Group Hull Ltd, the regulatory starting point is severe.

I find that RM Leisure Homes Ltd has lost its good repute. I find that an immediate PG9 had to be issued on 27/11/2018 due to tyre tread being worn away with cord or cords exposed on a company trailer. This defect should have been rectified weeks before it was presented for examination. That it was not, and was instead re-cut, is probably due to the interference of Michael Holgate, in the manner described by his mechanic, Mr Judge. I find that statements of intent have not been fulfilled, especially with regard to the time gaps between safety inspections. And most serious of all, there has been a material change in circumstances whereby this licence was used as a de facto extension of the licence held by RM Group Hull Ltd, and the controlling mind of the company was not its director but was Michael Holgate.

GHD Transport Ltd also played its full part in this clandestine set of arrangements, and Graham Holgate allowed his company to be used as a front, with himself as a notional director, when he was not the controlling mind and the company was little more than a shell operation, with no active bank account and no independent existence in any meaningful sense. The drivers’ hours offences probably arose because of the pressure of work placed upon the vehicles and drivers by controllers in the RM building, doing RM work using RM vehicles and RM drivers. History was repeating itself. Graham Holgate did not, as he claimed, do anything about it, he was too busy driving HGVs without any HGV driving entitlement. To argue that he checked drivers’ licences in these circumstances is absurd nonsense. He did not check anything and did not care a jot – hence his own disregard for the need to apply for the restoration of his HGV driving entitlement, once his lengthy disqualification had expired. As for positive points to place in the balance, there are some drivers’ hours infringements that are minor, and I have disregarded these. But I had an opportunity of watching and listening to Graham Holgate give evidence, and I found him to be an unpersuasive witness. He did not satisfy me that the obvious picture of a company’s authorisation being used by others was somehow erroneous, and he did not persuade me that he was in control - either as a director or as a transport manager. The regulatory starting point is severe. I ask, can I trust Graham Holgate or GHD Transport Ltd to be compliant in the future? I cannot. Does GHD Transport deserve to be put out of business? If it depends for its existence on its operator’s licence then yes, it does.

I find that GHD Transport Ltd has lost its good repute. I find that Graham Holgate has lost his good repute as transport manager and is not fit to be a transport manager. It is a proportionate response to impose a disqualification from acting as a transport manager in the future and I am unable to think of an appropriate rehabilitation measure in the circumstances of this case. The operator therefore is also without professional competence. There is no financial standing because such evidence as was submitted is entirely unconvincing and unexplained, and the company does not have an appropriately active bank account. Mr Holgate was convicted of a sample offence of driving otherwise than in accordance with his driving licence. He did not notify the TC of that conviction. Drivers operating vehicles specified on the GHD licence have committed drivers’ hours infringements. There are two PG9s from April 2018. The statement of intent that Graham Holgate would actually exercise the continuous supervision and control required of a transport manager has not been adhered to. And the undertaking that the rules on drivers’ hours and tachographs would be followed has been breached. The entire operation was a sham for the benefit of Michael Holgate, and Michael Holgate was the controlling mind.

As a professional driver Graham Holgate has shown by his conduct that he, once again, is not fit to hold an HGV entitlement. I have noted Graham Holgate’s disregard for the need to apply for the restoration of his HGV driving entitlement once his lengthy disqualification had expired. As I say, I do not believe that Graham Holgate can possibly have thought, having been asked to send in his driving licence so that his HGV entitlement could be removed following its revocation, that the licence then sent back to him a short time later – and while he was still disqualified – somehow still showed an HGV entitlement. The licence sent to him did not show such an entitlement because, as Graham Holgate well knew, it had been revoked. There came a time when he was no longer disqualified from having such an entitlement, but this was much later and, when that time came, Graham Holgate did nothing at all. If there is a positive point it is that there is no evidence before me that Graham Holgate actually drove HGVs whilst the disqualification from holding a vocational entitlement was in force. That, at least, allows me to draw back from an indefinite or permanent disqualification from holding an HGV driving entitlement, or one that last years rather than months. But, even so, the evidence did show that Graham Holgate had driven HGVs, with only a car driving entitlement, on over 180 occasions over the 38-week period of 7/11/2017 to 1/8/2018, when he was stopped. Quite apart from the regulatory implications for a professional driver with an obligation to keep his driver CPC up to date, he was also a director and qualified transport manager, and had an important role in checking driving licences of everyone driving vehicles specified on the GHD licence. It is beyond belief that he did not check his own entitlement or consider the insurance implications of driving all those HGVs otherwise than in accordance with his driving licence.

Terence Hebden deserves some sympathy, given his poor health - but not much, given his willingness to abdicate his responsibilities as a director and transport manager and to participate in a pretend arrangement whereby his operator’s licence and vehicle authorisation could be absorbed into Michael Holgate’s business. He did this for anticipated financial gain although he is unlikely to achieve any gain. He has previously (and successfully) deceived the TC at public inquiry as to his links with the R&M companies and vehicles, and he attempted to deceive DVSA officers by presenting them with entirely fake and fraudulent documents, given to him by Fay Andrew – although on balance I believe Michael Holgate was behind it all. It is a positive point that, when confronted, he admitted the attempted deception both to the DVSA officers, and to me. As a consequence of all these events, he may suffer a significant financial loss. I am sorry about this, but this is the price he has to pay for agreeing to the arrangement he entered into, largely for the benefit of Michael Holgate. Eventually telling the truth to the DVSA when faced with the obvious tell-tale signs of document fabrication does not necessarily mean that Mr Hebden can be trusted in the future. The regulatory starting point is severe. Taking account of the totality of the evidence and the repeated nature of Mr Hebden’s lack of candour in the past - if I ask, can I trust Terence Hebden to be compliant in the future? I cannot. Does his operation deserve to be put out of business? If it depends for its existence on its operator’s licence then yes, it does.

I find that Terence Hebden t/a DATS, as an operator, has lost his good repute. I find that his vehicles were not using his authorised operating centres. He failed to notify the TC of Graham Holgate’s conviction. There have been PG9s and fixed penalties, including for a dangerous load, an AdBlue emulator, tachographs not fitted and, recently, two specified vehicles have been found to have no insurance cover. There have been breaches of statements of intent and of undertakings. And as an overarching issue, there has been a material change in circumstances because the licence was used as a front by RM Group Hull Ltd and its controlling mind, Michael Holgate. I find that Terence Hebden has lost his good repute as transport manager and is not fit to be a transport manager. It is a proportionate response to impose a disqualification from acting as a transport manager in the future and I am unable to think of an appropriate rehabilitation measure in the circumstances of this case. The operator therefore is also without professional competence.

Peter Lance Tod made the point at the hearing that some of the failings identified at the maintenance investigation conducted by Mr Jackson arose ‘before his time’. I accept that, although not all the stretched time-gaps between safety inspections occurred before he became transport manager for the RM companies. Mr Tod should also have had alarm bells ringing before they finally did, given the extent to which (as it seems to me) he took on de facto transport manager functions for Graham Holgate and the other linked operators. However, the reality was that there was no real distinction between these various operators – all were run from the RM building with shared administrations and maintenance arrangements. He was also aware of Michael Holgate’s interference in maintenance, and the concerns expressed by Mr Judge. I draw back from finding that he knowingly participated in a sham arrangement. What finally caused the scales to fall from Mr Tod’s eyes was his discovery that his good name had been used to provide some respectability to the RM companies, by having him added to the list of directors without his knowledge. Given previous patterns of behaviour, I find it likely that this was probably a precursor by Michael Holgate to some corporate ducking and diving planned for the future. In the end, Mr Tod turned ‘whistle-blower’ and was candid about the true role played by Michael Holgate as the controlling mind across the various operator licences that he had effectively taken possession and control of. I give Mr Tod full credit for assisting me at public inquiry in nailing down the truth. I consider that he can be trusted to serve a different entity as transport manager and the industry may still benefit from his lengthy experience and expertise. I take no action against him as a transport manager.

SSRS (Hull) Ltd was another company, notionally run by someone with a connection to the Holgate family, which allowed its operator’s licence and vehicle authorisations to be hijacked and used improperly by Michael Holgate and RM Group Hull Ltd. The evidence of this, as set out in the evidence of Mr Berriman, is compelling. Mr Radford was aware of the public inquiry and did not attend. In advising the Traffic Commissioner’s office that he would not be attending, he added: “I would request that the Office of the Traffic Commissioner would leave me out of what appears to be an endless pursuance of RM Group and Leisure Homes in Hull”. This suggests to me that Mr Radford has yet to face up to the gravity of the situation. On top of that, the response to the request for his documentation and data, which effectively wheeled out the ‘old chestnut’ of thieves or vandals being interested in worthless tachograph records, does him little credit. There are no positive points. The regulatory starting point is severe.

Can I trust SSRS (Hull) Ltd or David Radford to be compliant in the future? I cannot. Does SSRS (Hull) Ltd deserve to be put out of business? If it depends for its existence on its operator’s licence then yes, it does. My understanding is that, so far as Mr Radford is concerned, it is no longer operating. I find that SSRS (Hull) Ltd has lost its good repute. There was a PG9 in September 2017 for a semi-trailer that was “obviously defective”. There has been a breach of undertakings and a material change in circumstances – particularly the failure to provide the documentation requested by the DVSA. I find that David Steven Radford has lost his good repute as transport manager and is not fit to be a transport manager. It is a proportionate response to impose a disqualification from acting as a transport manager in the future and I am unable to think of an appropriate rehabilitation measure in the circumstances of this case. The operator therefore is also without professional competence and, in addition, there is no financial standing.

Finally, I come to the case of Wayne Smith Holm. I accept that he ‘sold’ his business and operator’s licence to Michael Holgate a full year or so before the tragic accident happened involving a vehicle specified on his company’s operator’s licence. The TC was not told about the sale or change in control. Instead, Mr Holm then allowed himself to be a director and a transport manager in name only, in return for a monthly stipend of [Redacted] pm, in order to provide cover and legitimacy for the use of his vehicle authorisation by Michael Holgate and RM Group Hull Ltd. This went on throughout much of 2017. On the other hand, I accept that Mr Holm has found himself, as a result, deeply involved in the legal consequences of the M62 tragedy, and my understanding is that he continues to work with the police and other authorities as they seek to better understand what actually occurred, and to ascertain where responsibility really lies. Mr Holm removed himself, or was removed, as a director of Holm Associates Ltd on 9/4/2018. This left the company with no directors and no guiding mind. Inevitably, therefore, the company’s operator’s licence had to be revoked on those grounds alone. The TC reserved the question of disqualifying Mr Holm as a director, and he asked me to deal with that aspect together with all the other matters placed before me at this conjoined public inquiry. Disqualification of the company could have been raised, and Mr Holm could also have been called up as a transport manager – but neither was done, and it is too late to initiate that action now. All in all, I am content to take no formal action, save to ask that staff in the TC’s office draw to the TC’s attention any application by Mr Holm (in any capacity) to hold an operator’s licence, or any application that he be nominated as a transport manager for any undertaking.

It is well established that the power to disqualify operators and company directors is a power to be exercised to promote the dual objectives of the operator licensing system, which are the protection of the public, and fairness to other operators: see Thomas Muir (Haulage) Ltd v SoS for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [1998] S.L.T. 666, and T/2013/46 Shearer Transport Ltd and James Shearer, [2013] UKUT 489 (AAC). The Upper Tribunal decision in T/2010/029 David Finch Haulage [2010] UKUT 284 (AAC) summarises earlier decisions on the correct approach to disqualification:

“The imposition of a period of disqualification following revocation is not a step to be taken routinely, but nor is it a step to be shirked if the circumstances render disqualification necessary in pursuit of the objectives of the operator licensing system. Although no additional feature is required over and above the grounds leading up to revocation, an operator is entitled to know why the circumstances of the case are such as to make a period of disqualification necessary. Additionally, periods of disqualification can range from comparatively short periods to an indefinite period and can be confined to one traffic area or be extended to more than one. An operator subject to a period of disqualification is entitled to have some explanation, or a glimpse into the Traffic Commissioner’s mind, so that he understands why a particular order for disqualification has been made. The giving of brief but adequate reasons will also promote a consistent approach and explain why any distinctions are made as between different cases and different people.”

Plainly, a message has to go out that an entity secretly or illicitly acquiring and then abusing an operator’s licence or vehicle/trailer authorisation, or an entity allowing this to happen, will result in firm and resolute action all round. That message may not have been conveyed as clearly as it might have been in the past, at least in relation to some of the operators and personnel before me. But whilst I cannot put the clock back to before 3/4/2018, I can do what I believe is necessary today to protect the public and motorists in the future, and to ensure that law-abiding operators are not unfairly defeated by competitors who disregard the laws protecting drivers and road users, and that are there to ensure a level commercial playing field. I am entirely satisfied that the public interest requires that this entire business be stopped, and stopped permanently. Throughout this case I have had regard to proportionality. But great harm has already been done – the sort of harm that an effective regulatory system is intended to prevent. The history shows that, without enforceable impediments in place, it is more than likely that convoluted efforts will again be made to try and circumvent the regulatory regime. In terms of the drivers’ hours offending, the acquisition of unused or underused operator licences, the exploitation of more vulnerable operators, and the manifest disregard for public safety on the roads, and also for fair competition in the industry – it is obvious to me that, with the Holgate family and those that they have tempted into collusion, unacceptable conduct will persist, as it continued to do despite earlier action by TCs - unless it is permanently stopped.

I have regard to the Upper Tribunal decision in T/2017/55 Alistair Walter [2017] UKUT 438 (AAC) where the tribunal said:

“It is clear from the DTC’s decision, that she felt able to compartmentalise the issue of good repute as an operator and the issue of good repute as a transport manager in Mr Walter’s case. It is questionable whether such an approach is feasible or appropriate when considering an individual in Mr Walter’s situation and if it is feasible or appropriate, the DTC did not set out the reasons for such a proposition in her judgment.”

In all the cases before me with the exception of Peter Tod, the operator/director/transport manager roles are inexorably merged together, the businesses are relatively small, the issues encompass all aspects of operator and manager responsibility, and there is no case where I see any grounds for disqualifying a person in one role, and not in the other(s). Moreover, in very serious cases like this, fixed term disqualifications have the disadvantage of being fixed term, with a definite end and without further oversight by the TC. Where legally possible, I consider that there must be indefinite disqualifications of all the operators before me, and of directors, and of each transport manager that knowingly colluded with sham arrangements. In each and every case I judge that the decisions I take are a proportionate response. The authorities must be vigilant to make sure that, at some point in the future, corporate or other manoeuvrings are not attempted which might, once again, defeat the licensing regime. One way to do that, apart from comprehensive and water-tight disqualifications, is to ‘mark’ and follow the vehicles specified on the various licences which are now to be revoked and see what happens to them - just as, with hindsight, the scattering of those vehicles after the R&M revocations showed what was happening then. For the avoidance of doubt, it is my intention that none of the individual operators or companies that I now disqualify should ever return or be permitted to operate heavy goods vehicles in the U.K. Equally, those who I disqualify as directors and transport managers should, in my view, be excluded from this industry for longer than it is sensible to specify here. If and when the time is right, an application can be made to the TC to lift a disqualification. I would not expect any such application to succeed within, at least, the next ten years. The TC should also be informed if others said to be indirectly involved in the issues here considered, such as Robert Holgate, Duane Harrison or Alexander Abel, make any relevant applications.

Question 7

20. Decisions

Accepted Answer

Under S.27(1) and S.26(1) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995, I direct that the operator licences of RM Group Hull Ltd, RM Leisure Homes Ltd, GHD Transport Ltd, Terence Hebden and SRSS (Hull) Ltd are revoked. There is a compelling need for an immediate and total cessation of activity, before lives may be lost or more harm is done. It needs to happen before any further corporate strategies or manoeuvres are attempted to defeat the effect of these decisions. Any linked Community Licences must be marked ‘withdrawn’.

Under S.28(1) of the Act, I direct that RM Group Hull Ltd, RM Leisure Homes Ltd, GHD Transport Ltd, Terence Hebden, and SRSS (Hull) Ltd are indefinitely disqualified from holding or obtaining an operator’s licence in all traffic areas.

Under S.28(5) of the Act, I direct that, as directors of the above companies, Michael Dudley Holgate, Fay Andrew, Graham Dudley Holgate, and David Steven Radford, are indefinitely disqualified from holding or obtaining an operator’s licence in all traffic areas.

Under S.28(4) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995, I direct that if, at any time whilst disqualified, Michael Dudley Holgate, Fay Andrew, Graham Dudley Holgate, Terence Hebden or David Steven Radford:

(a) is a director of, or holds a controlling interest in:
(i) a company which holds an operator’s licence issued under the Act in any traffic area, or
(ii) a company of which such a company is a subsidiary, or
(b) operates any goods vehicles in partnership with a person who holds such a licence,

then that licence of that company or, as the case may be, of that person, shall be liable to revocation, suspension or curtailment under Section 26 of the Act.

Under Paragraph 16(2) Schedule 3 of the Act, I find that Michael Dudley Holgate, Graham Dudley Holgate, Terence Hebden and David Steven Radford are no longer of good repute as transport managers and I direct that they each be disqualified indefinitely from acting as a transport manager in any traffic area. I can think of no measures that might be appropriate to specify under Paragraph 17(2) of Schedule 3 of the Act.

I direct that the HGV driving entitlement of Graham Dudley Holgate is again revoked and, again, he is disqualified from holding such an entitlement for 40 weeks. At the end of the disqualification Graham Holgate may apply for the return of his vocational entitlement. There is no guarantee he will get it. Until he applies and until it is returned, Graham Holgate has no vocational driving entitlement permitting him to drive any HGV, and he must not do so.

All of the above directions will come into effect at 23:59 hours on Friday 16th August 2019.

I take no action in respect of Peter Lance Tod or Wayne Smith Holm.

M Hinchliffe,

Deputy Traffic Commissioner

2 August 2019

Decision for Michael Dudley Holgate and others

0.1 IN THE NORTH EASTERN TRAFFIC AREA

1. RM Group Hull Ltd OB2004325 – Operator Michael Dudley Holgate – Director

2. Michael Dudley Holgate – Transport Manager Peter Lance Tod – Transport Manager

3. RM Leisure Homes Ltd OB2004118 - Operator

4. Fay Andrew – Director

5. Peter Lance Tod – Transport Manager

6. GHD Transport Ltd OB2005957 - Operator

7. Graham Dudley Holgate – Director

8. Graham Dudley Holgate - Transport Manager

9. Graham Dudley Holgate – Driver

10. Terence Hebden t/a Driver Agency and Transport Services Humbs OB0189248 – Operator Terence Hebden - Transport Manager

11. SSRS (Hull) Ltd OB2001583 –Operator

12. David Steven Radford – Director, Transport Manager

13. Wayne Smith Holm – Director of Holm Associates Ltd OB1143972

14. REASONS

15. Background

16. Events prior to the Public Inquiry

17. Evidence

18. Findings

19. Considerations

20. Decisions

Is this page useful?

Help us improve GOV.UK

Help us improve GOV.UK

Cookies on GOV.UK

0.1 IN THE NORTH EASTERN TRAFFIC AREA

1. RM Group Hull Ltd OB2004325 – Operator Michael Dudley Holgate – Director

2. Michael Dudley Holgate – Transport Manager Peter Lance Tod – Transport Manager

3. RM Leisure Homes Ltd OB2004118 - Operator

4. Fay Andrew – Director

5. Peter Lance Tod – Transport Manager

6. GHD Transport Ltd OB2005957 - Operator

7. Graham Dudley Holgate – Director

8. Graham Dudley Holgate - Transport Manager

9. Graham Dudley Holgate – Driver

10. Terence Hebden t/a Driver Agency and Transport Services Humbs OB0189248 – Operator Terence Hebden - Transport Manager

11. SSRS (Hull) Ltd OB2001583 –Operator

12. David Steven Radford – Director, Transport Manager

13. Wayne Smith Holm – Director of Holm Associates Ltd OB1143972

14. REASONS

15. Background

16. Events prior to the Public Inquiry

17. Evidence

18. Findings

19. Considerations

20. Decisions

Is this page useful?

Help us improve GOV.UK

Help us improve GOV.UK