Decision

Decision for Philip Carthy & Steven Edginton t/a Chase TPT Services (OD0253702)

Published 7 July 2023

0.1 In the West Midlands Traffic Area

1. Written Decision of the Deputy Traffic Commissioner

1.1 Philip Carthy & Steven Edginton t/a Chase TPT Services (OD0253702)

2. Background

Philip Carthy and Steven Edgington t/a Chase TPT Services hold a standard national goods vehicle operator licence, granted in October 1995, for three vehicles and two trailers. Philip Carthy is also the nominated transport manager.

2.1 “O Licence for Rent”

An observant caseworker in the office of the traffic commissioner in Leeds noticed a post on TransportForum.com by “Phil1953” under the heading “O license [sic] for rent”. The post, dated 13 March 2023, read: “I currently have an o license [sic] with 3 spaces for 3 vehicles, if anybody is interested. Please get in touch via (email address redacted). The email address corresponded with the contact address given for licence OD0253702 held by Philip Carthy and Steven Edgington. The caseworker noted that a vehicle, MX13 DUU, had been specified on the licence the very next day, 14 March 2023.

The post attracted a number of comments. One of the respondents – “Lorry” - appeared to have a similar level of knowledge of and regard for operator licensing law to Philip Carthy, writing “Hi mate how much you looking for thx.” Perusing the subsequent comments I was relieved to see that “Bluecorn” and “LanarkshireDave” had a somewhat better understanding, respectively commenting “A great way to get invited for no tea and biscuits with the TC” and “I smell a revocation coming on”. Prescient words, as it has turned out.

3. Public inquiry

The partnership of Philip Carthy and Steven Edgington was duly invited to a public inquiry. Philip Carthy was also called to the inquiry in his capacity as transport manager, to consider his good repute. The call-up letters were sent on 18 May 2023, citing Sections 26(1), 27(1) and 28 of the 195 Act. The inquiry was scheduled to take place in Birmingham on 28 June 2023.

On 10 June 2023 the partnership submitted electronically an application to surrender their licence. Consideration of this was held in abeyance pending the public inquiry.

Neither Mr Carthy nor Mr Edgington appeared at the inquiry earlier today. I have therefore proceeded to consider the matter on the available evidence.

4. Considerations

Section 38(1) of the 1995 Act states that “A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to deceive, he —

……..

(b) lends to, or allows to be used by, any other person a document or other thing to which this section applies.”

Section 38(2) states that among the documents to which Section 38(1) applies are any operator’s licence or any vehicle operator licence disc.

Even if he was not specifically aware of the exact content of Section 38, Philip Carthy should, as an operator and transport manager, have been perfectly aware of the general principles of the operator licensing system, including the non-transferability of licences. Under these principles, an applicant for a standard national licence is assessed by the traffic commissioner against criteria such as financial standing, professional competence, good repute and stable and effective establishment. Only if these tests are passed, plus additional tests relating to the suitability of operating centres and adequacy of arrangements for ensuring proper maintenance of vehicles and effective oversight of drivers’ hours, does the traffic commissioner grant a licence to the body applying for it. For that body then to seek to lend its operator licence to another body entirely unknown to the traffic commissioner, is to subvert the entire system. Such an action enables bodies who might not meet the (onerous) requirements for holding an operator licence nevertheless to operate HGVs under the umbrella of a legitimate licence holder. The lending of a licence is a wholly disgraceful act.

5. Findings

Because the partnership has sought to lend its licence to a person and persons unknown, with the purpose of enabling those persons to by-pass the requirements of holding an operator licence, I find that the good repute of both Philip Carthy and Steven Edgington is lost (paragraph 1 of Schedule 3 to the 1995 Act refers).

6. Decisions

6.1 Revocation of the licence

That being the case, the licence must be revoked under Section 27(1)(a) of the 1995 Act. I am revoking it with immediate effect, as it is clear that the vehicle specified on the licence is in reality wholly outside the control of the partnership.

6.2 Disqualification – partnership

Both partners are in their 70s and, I hope, are unlikely to wish to re-enter the industry. But to ensure that they do not, and to mark the utter unacceptability of what they have done, I am disqualifying them under Section 28 of the 1995 from holding or obtaining a licence in the future and from being a director of any company holding or obtaining a licence. The disqualification is indefinite.

6.3 Disqualification – transport manager

Having removed Philip Carthy’s good repute, I must also disqualify him from acting as a transport manager on any operator’s licence (paragraph 16 of Schedule 3 refers). Such has been his breach of trust that I am imposing an indefinite disqualification.

6.4 Action against the vehicle on the licence

I note that the vehicle specified on the licence the day after Philip Carthy’s “O Licence for Rent” post – MX13 DUU - is still on the licence. I have asked DVSA to deploy its ANPR capability with a view to identifying and stopping that vehicle and – if appropriate – impounding it.

Nicholas Denton

Deputy Traffic Commissioner

28 June 2023