Decision

Decision for Milbury Commercials (Hire) Ltd (OH2038343) and Ian Gribben

Published 14 May 2021

0.1 WESTERN TRAFFIC AREA

0.2 MILBURY COMMERCIALS (HIRE) LIMITED

0.3 OH2038343

0.4 IAN GRIBBEN

1. AT A PUBLIC INQUIRY HEARD IN BRISTOL

1.1 22 APRIL 2021

2. BACKGROUND

This is an application for a standard national operator’s licence to authorise the use of 3 vehicles and 3 trailers from an operating centre at Bagstone Garage, Rangeworthy, Gloucestershire. The sole director is Mr John French, date of birth January 1946. The nominated transport manager when the application was made was Simon Halls. The application was submitted on 1 December 2020.

On 18 September 2020, I had received an application from Milbury Logistics Ltd for a standard national licence to operate three vehicles and three trailers from Bagstone Garage. The sole director was Mr Ian Gribben. The nominated transport manager was Richard Reed. Mr Gribben declared a previous insolvency in relation to a company CVR Trailers (Bristol) Ltd but failed to declare the revocation of associated licence OH1115711. Review of the bank statements identified payments which suggested that the applicant may already be operating as a sub-contractor for a local bulk haulage operator. There were also payments to a DVSA Authorised Test Facility, a Volve truck dealership and for large amounts of fuel that would not be associated with light vehicles. It was also apparent that Mr Gribben had failed to declare the insolvency of Milbury Services Ltd, of which he had been the sole director, replacing John French on 1 April 2013. and of Milbury Commercials Ltd.

My office wrote to Mr Gribben on 15 January 2021 asking for an explanation for the failure to declare the insolvencies and in relation to the other concerns. Mr Gribben responded on 1 February as follows:

Dear Sir,

Unfortunately, due to the time taken for the application to be granted, I have decided to not continue on with the application process.

The opportunity to operate our own fleet and not be reliant on external subcontracted haulage has passed.

I would however like to still provide the information you required regarding the questions raised in your correspondence dated 15/01/2021.

As previously mentioned in communication with the OTC, We are operating a hire and brokerage company. The deposits noted on the accounts statement from EW Gardner and Grandson reflects the income for the brokerage and hire of equipment in addition to loads that are subcontracted out to third parties.

The payments noted to Eurotaxis and WW Truck and Bus are for fuel. We have to offer this incentive to our subcontractors. Within the industry, it is difficult to get reputable and professional subcontractors willing to work on slim margins. We provide an incentive to Owner Drivers, who work for us for extended periods of time to fill up at a cheaper rate. This brings down the overall cost to operate for the company.

Failure to report on the previous liquidation has been noted in the previous correspondence as there is limited information available to be able to produce as evidence.

It is regrettable that at this late stage of the application that I have taken the decision to not continue with the application as I had already instructed a Transport Consultant, who would be monitoring the compliance, conducting frequent audits, and would be assisting in the company operations. Drivers which have been waiting for the Operator Licence to be granted will now be required to seek work elsewhere.

I would appreciate it if you could confirm receipt of this email and the notification provided by myself that I will not continue on with the application.

Kind regards Ian Gribben.

Exceptionally, given the high workloads as the traffic commissioner service recovers from Covid, I accepted withdrawal of the application. I was not at that time aware of this very similar application. When this application was subsequently referred to me due to the obvious links, which included the same contact telephone number, I decided that it be called to a public inquiry. On being notified of that, the applicant responded as follows:

Good Day Leanne,

With reference to the Operator Licence application (OH2038343 / 1219199), I would like to formally inform the Office of the Traffic Commissioner that I no longer wish to proceed with the application.

Due to the time taken to get to this stage of the application, there is no longer a requirement for an Operator Licence.

Kind regards John French.

Having noted that this application was linked by operating centre, authority, historic business links and contact telephone number to Milbury Logistics Ltd, I was concerned that it may be a front for that entity or another business operated by Ian Gribben so I called the applicant to public inquiry in order to satisfy me that:

under Section 13A (2) of the Act, the applicant:

(b) is of good repute (as determined in accordance with paragraphs 1 to 5 of Schedule 3),

(c) has appropriate financial standing (as determined in accordance with Article 7 of the 2009 Regulation),

(d) is professionally competent (as determined in accordance with paragraphs 8 to 13 of Schedule 3 of the Act)

under Section 13A (3) of the Act that the appplicant has designated a transport manager in accordance with Article 4 of the 2009 Regulation who:

(a) is of good repute (as determined in accordance with paragraphs 1 to 5 of Schedule 3),

(b) is professionally competent (as determined in accordance with paragraph 13 of Schedule 3)

(c) in the case of a transport manager designated under Article 4.2 of the 2009 Regulation;

(i) is not prohibited from being so designated by a traffic commissioner, and

(ii) is not designated to act as a transport manager for a greater number of road transport undertakings or in respect of a greater number of vehicles than the traffic commissioner considers appropriate

and that under Section 13D of the Act, that the provision of the facilities and arrangements for maintaining the vehicles in a fit and serviceable condition is not prejudiced by reason of the applicant’s having insufficient financial resources for that purpose.

I also called Mr Ian Gribben as a de facto director of the applicant company.

3. THE PUBLIC INQUIRY

No-one has attended for the applicant or Mr Gribben today. I am content that all parties are aware of the proceedings. On 15 April 2021, my office received an e-mail from Philip Brown, solicitor:

Subject: Milbury Commercials (Hire) Ltd OH2038343

Dear Josh

We refer to your email of yesterday’s date addressed to Mr Ian Gribben of Milbury Logistics Ltd (OH2036314). This application was withdrawn in February 2021.

We understand that the Traffic Commissioner has listed an application by Milbury Commercials (Hire) Ltd for a public inquiry on 22 April 2021. We further believe that an application by the director of Milbury Commercials (Hire) Ltd to withdraw this application was refused by the Traffic Commissioner.

We have been instructed that the nominated transport manager of Milbury Commercials (Hire) Ltd has now withdrawn from the application and as a result, the applicant company is not in a position to proceed with the application in any case.

As a result, neither director John Gordon French nor the director of Milbury Logistics Ltd, Ian Gribben, will be attending the public inquiry, in the knowledge that the application must be refused because there is no nominated transport manager to manage the transport operation.

In the light of the above information, Mr French has no desire to become involved in operator licensing at any time in the future and as we understand it, Mr Gribben is not a party to these proceedings, although he has been requested to attend the hearing.

We look forward to receiving a copy of the Traffic Commissioner’s decision in due course.

Kind regards.

Philip Brown Consultant Solicitor Road Transport Law, Road Traffic and Regulatory Crime

It is not clear whether Mr Brown is instructed by Mr Gribben and the applicant but it would appear that there has been communication and that both parties are aware of the hearing. Mr Brown appears not to have seen Mr Gribben’s call-in letter. I proceed to make a decision.

4. FINDINGS OF FACT

4.1 Financial Standing & Stable Establishment

Fresh finances were requested for the hearing but not provided. Financial standing is not satisfied.

4.2 Professional Competence

The transport manager has withdrawn from the application and it is without professional competence.

4.3 Good Repute

Ian Gribben and John French have both at one time or another been office-holders in the following businesses:

Milbury Rentals Ltd	Dissolved November 2020	Compulsory strike-off
CVR Trucks Ltd	Dissolved	Voluntary strike-off
CVR Truck & Trailer Ltd	Dissolved March 2021	Compulsory strike-off
CVR Trailers (Bristol) Ltd	Insolvent liquidation February 2015	Owed £71,002 of which £35,000 to the Crown
Milbury Services Ltd	Insolvent liquidation February 2015	Owed £61,972 of which £24,372 to Bristol City Council tax division
CVR Refinishers Ltd	Accounts overdue	Propose to strike-off 5 April 2021

Ian Gribben, in addition, has been an officer of the following:

MID Developments Ltd	Liquidation 2010	3 years after Mr Gribben resigned
Gossington Food Stop Ltd	Dissolved 2012	Compulsory strike-off
Gontoland Ltd	Dissolved May 2019	Compulsory strike-off
Milbury Trading Ltd	Active	Incorporated June 2019
Milbury Commercials Ltd	Insolvent liquidation July 2008	Owed £1.3Million, £42,000 to the Crown
Slickstones Group Ltd	Dissolved April 2020	Compulsory strike-off
Milbury Logistics Ltd	Active	Incorporated June 2019
SAS Storage & Supply Ltd	Dissolved March 2021	Compulsory strike-off
CVR Commercial Group Ltd	Active	Incorporated September 2018
Solutionsatoz Ltd	Active	Incorporated November 2020

It would appear that the involvement of either John French or Ian Gribben is not a recipe for a long healthy life for a business. Mr Gribben in particular has had involvement with a truly remarkable number of businesses that have either failed with him at the helm or shortly thereafter. The most common reason for a company to be compulsorily struck off is a failure to file statutory accounts. Such a failure does not support the establishment of good repute.

In preparing this decision, I have reviewed the licence change history for the applicant company. I found the following:

Image redacted

It appeared that the licence application had been made by Ian Gribben so I looked further at the licence record and the registered user for the application appears as this:

Image redacted

I find the links between the applications for Milbury Commercials (Hire) Ltd and Milbury Logistics Ltd are as follows:

• The operating centre at Bagstone Garage

• The contact telephone number

• The previous business links between Mr French and Mr Gribben

• The operating authority sought

• The name “Milbury”

• The writing style of the emails seeking surrender, the justification given, the language used therein and the sign-off construction suggest the same author

• The application has been made by a user named “Ian Gribben”

My office rang the stated contact number and the following case-note was recorded:

03/03/2021 Rang number on application - I asked to speak to Mr French - a gentleman said “he’s not here at the moment”. I said I was calling from the OTC licensing and asked who I was speaking to and he said “Aaron”. I asked for a number to contact Mr French and he said he didn’t have one. I asked if he was connected to Milbury Commercials (Hire) Ltd and he said he was not. I asked why he thought his number would have been given for this application and he said he did not know. I confirmed number twice. I asked him if he knew Mr French and he said “he used to work here years ago”. He was elusive and did not want to give any information. I thanked him and ended the call.

John French is redacted years old. His address on Companies House is over an hour from the operating centre and the same from the address of establishment (which appears to be the address of an accountancy firm). Mr Brown confirms that Mr French does not wish to run a haulage operation.

The Upper Tribunal gave a helpful description of fronting in T2012/71 Silvertree Transport Ltd, at paragraph 4 of that decision:

“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 operators 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 operators 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”.

I find it more likely than not that this application is a front for operation of vehicles by Milbury Logistics Ltd or another entity controlled by Ian Gribben and that Mr Gribben is a, or the, de facto director of the applicant company.

Mr Gribben has failed in an earlier application to disclose all his previous insolvency history nor his revoked licence. The explanation given for the queried payments is unconvincing. As I am not today revoking a licence held by him, I cannot disqualify him from applying in future but any application in any way associated with him will undergo extreme scrutiny. I called him to the inquiry in his own right to allow him to set out his case and “clear his name”. He has failed to take the opportunity so that task still lies ahead for him.

In Aspey Trucks Ltd 2010 – 49, the Upper Tribunal comments on the difference between finding a loss of repute in an existing haulier and whether or not a new applicant to the industry met the standard to be of good repute:

“In a case such as this, the Deputy Traffic Commissioner was not looking at putting someone out of business. Rather, he was deciding whether or not to give his official seal of approval to a person seeking to join an industry where those licensed to operate on a Standard National or Standard International basis must, by virtue of S.13(3), prove upon entry to it that they are of good repute. In this respect, Traffic Commissioners are the gatekeepers to the industry - and the public, other operators, and customers and competitors alike, all expect that those permitted to join the industry will not blemish or undermine its good name, or abuse the privileges that it bestows. What does “Repute” mean if it does not refer to the reasonable opinions of other properly interested right-thinking people, be they members of the public or law-abiding participants in the industry?”

Fronting is a serious matter, denying the regulator the ability to scrutinise new entrants to the industry. Having found this application to be a front, it fails to establish its good repute.

5. DECISION

The applicant company has failed to establish its good repute, its financial standing and its professional competence. Section 13A(2)(b) fails to be satisfied on each aspect and the application is refused on each separately.

Any involvement of Ian Gribben in any application is to be referred to a traffic commissioner.

Kevin Rooney

Traffic Commissioner

22 April 2021