Decision

Decision for SJ & JM Munden Ltd t/a Guyan's Minibuses

Published 11 June 2024

0.1 WESTERN TRAFFIC AREA

1. Decision of the Traffic Commissioner

2. Public Inquiry in Bristol, 21 March 2024

3. SJ & JM MUNDEN t/a GUYAN’S MINIBUSES PH1037113

4. SIMON MUNDEN – TRANSPORT MANAGER

5. ALAN PETERS – TRANSPORT MANAGER

6. BACKGROUND

SJ & JM Munden Ltd (“Mundens”) is the holder of a standard national public service vehicle operator’s licence authorising the use of fifty vehicles from two operating centres, one at Freestone Road, St Philips, Bristol for ten vehicles and another at Emery Road, Brislington, Bristol for forty vehicles. The directors are Simon James Munden and his son James Martin Munden. Simon Munden is the nominated transport manager along with Alan Peters.

The addition of Alan Peters as transport manager came about following an increase in authority from forty to fifty vehicles in January 2022 when an undertaking was attached to the licence to nominate a second transport manager by no later than 30 June 2022. That nomination – made on 30 June 2022 - was not referred which is surprising given that Mr Peters was named as an external transport manager and was already responsible for fifteen vehicles on Abus Ltd and four on his own sole-trader licence. On grant, the operator accepted a further undertaking for Mr Peters to undertake refresher training and for evidence of that to be lodged with the Office of the Traffic Commissioner.

Despite a reminder from the licensing team, 20 March 2023 came and went with no sign of refresher training for Mr Peters. On 31 May 2023, my office wrote to the operator stating that I proposed to revoke the licence due to the breach of undertaking. A refresher training certificate was then provided which indicated that Mr Peters had indeed attended refresher training in March 2023. It was during that compliance referral that I came to associate Guyan Minibuses with a larger operation. I had seen a Guyan Minibus parked on the road outside my office. I had assumed it was a single-vehicle restricted operation with a legacy operating centre from the days before Google maps allowed licensing staff easily to check the suitability of parking arrangements. I had not thought it to be one of fifty such minibuses. A parking schedule was requested and duly provided. It showed vehicles parked at a total of thirty-five unauthorised locations, some of which were allocated private parking, some driveways, others simply on-road.

Given the issues with vehicle parking, I requested a maintenance investigation. The report was produced by Vehicle Examiner Daniel Field and was marked as “report to OTC”. In terms of the core maintenance report, the main concerns were:

• Prohibitions issued at fleet check

• Safety inspections frequency does not align with the eight weeks on the licence

• Driver detectable defects found at safety inspections with no corresponding driver defect report

• Ineffective driver walk-round checks and reporting system

• Transport manager Simon Munden held acquired rights with no evidence of any continuing professional development

• It was not clear who was undertaking the transport manager role

In addition to the maintenance issues, a number of licensing matters were identified. The licence has an undertaking for all vehicles used under its authority to be specified on the licence and that had not been done. The operator was in possession of seventy-seven vehicles, some of which were out-of-scope of operator licensing but it was not clear under what authority they were being used.

The operator responded in detail on 22 December 2023 by way of a letter signed by Simon Munden. The main points made were:

• He believed that safety inspections were due at eighty-four days, not fifty-six, so that had been what they had been working to.

• A new driver defect reporting system had been introduced.

• A decelerometer had been preferred to the roller brake tester due to a training deficiency. That had been remedied and roller brake testing would now be part of each inspection.

• They had not been aware of the need to keep the fleet list up-to-date nor how to do this on VOL. That would be done from now on.

• There was an increasing grey area with respect to the extra thirty-two vehicles. They had been supplied to Bristol City Council as exempt “Disabled Passenger Vehicles”. The operator was keen to get clarity on the use of those vehicles.

The operator made two applications for new operating centres in September 2023. Both were city-centre sites in narrow streets so I asked that DVSA visit them to assess suitability. The first was for ten vehicles at an area to the rear of 97-105 Wilder Street, accessed from Argyle Road. The second was for “Snow Zone” (a car wash) in St Gabriel’s for eight vehicles.

The reported maintenance shortcomings and licensing concerns caused me to call the operator to public inquiry in the following terms:

• Section 17(3)(a), that vehicles had not been normally kept at the stated operating centres,

• Section 17(3)(aa), that the laws relating to the driving and operating of vehicles had not been observed,

• Section 17(3)(c), that prohibition notices had been issued,

• Section 17(3)(e), that there had been a material change in the circumstances of the licence holder,

• Financial standing,

• Stable establishment,

• Professional competence.

Alan Peters and Simon Munden were called separately to consider their good repute as transport managers.

The applications for new operating centres were called under Sections 14ZA and 14ZC.

On 22 February 2024, an application was made to add Mahamud Bille Mohamed as an additional transport manager. Mr Mohamed had no adverse history and I granted that application on 5 March 2024.

7. THE PUBLIC INQUIRY

Simon Munden, James Munden, John Leigh, Bille Mohamed, attended for the operator represented by Peter Woodhouse, Stone King solicitors. Alan Peters attended represented by Jeremy Woodcraft, solicitor, Keystone Law. Three members of Bristol City Council also attended. Both parties had produced witness statements and supporting evidence in advance and had shared with each other. Immediately prior to the hearing, the parties had been passed some documentation relating to the appointment of Mr Peters as transport manager in 2022 along with a letter from the OTC in Bristol from 2005 confirming that the inspection period could increase from eight to ten weeks, although the licence record had not been changed on that point.

I opened by remarking upon the wide range of matters at issue and suggested it was unlikely that      I would make an oral decision on the day. The focus of the morning was on ensuring that the facts were as clear as they could be and to consider the law insofar as it related to the operation of the smaller vehicles.

Finances were satisfied as a preliminary matter. The operating centre applications were amended to be for three vehicles at Snow Zone and ten at Wilder Street. On that basis, the DVSA Examiner had confirmed the sites to be suitable for that number of minibuses.

Proceedings were recorded and a transcript can be produced if necessary. In producing this written decision, I have reviewed my written notes and listened to the recording. Where I have quoted directly from a witness, I have recorded that in italics.

7.1 The evidence of Alan Peters, Transport Manager

Mr Peters adopted his statement. He told me that he had thought Mr Munden’s increase to fifty vehicles should have been granted without a second transport manager as that was the limit in the guidance. “At the very last minute” he had “agreed to be put on to the licence because they were struggling to gey anyone through the exam at the time.” He was happy to do that “on the grounds that the vehicles were allocated to St Phillips depot which is where [he] was working and could be responsible for them no problem”. That had been communicated during the course of the application process. No vehicles were allocated to St Phillips and no extra contracts taken up, so he felt he was not being used as transport manager. He had not been told anything to the contrary. Later he spoke to Simon Munden and was told that he wasn’t on the licence. Mr Munden’s solicitor at that time (summer 2023) had also told him that he was not on the licence. He had been unaware of the maintenance investigation. Had he been, he would have attended to make sure that it was clear he was not involved.

I asked about the undertaking for refresher training. Mr Peters was clear that he had done the refresher course because of his other licences and he had done it on time. Mr Peters had not seen a letter from OTC licensing dated November 2022 which confirmed him as a transport manager on the licence. I took a short break to make sure that all relevant documents were available. Mr Peters repeated that he did not remember seeing the letter.

Mr Peters noted that he should not have been accepted as transport manager for the fifty-vehicle fleet in addition to his own licences. I noted Mr Peters’ long history in the industry in his written statement.

Mr Woodcraft offered to provide written closing submissions in seven days which I accepted.

7.2 Evidence of James Munden

James Munden adopted the company’s submissions. He had been involved from the start of the business, mostly on the vehicle side. The work was home to school contracts, mainly with Bristol City Council but also South Gloucestershire and BANES. There were forty-five PSVs in use.

Three small vehicles were used in South Gloucestershire, none in BANES. In Bristol, it was maybe a dozen to twenty, but he did not have the precise number. The South Gloucestershire small vehicles were operated on the operator’s licence. The position of those in Bristol was ongoing with the Council. They were operated as “DPV” currently but that might not continue.

I asked about the involvement with the application to increase authority in 2021. James Munden had not dealt with it.  

I asked why the vehicles were being inspected on a twelve-week cycle when the licence said eight. He wasn’t aware what was on VOL which he said was unacceptable. I referred to the 2005 letter increasing the period to ten weeks and asked how the operator had got as far as twelve weeks. DVSA VE Ford had on a previous inspection some time ago, said that twelve weeks was appropriate given the usage and low mileage.

I asked why the operating centres had not been used. The operator had got in to disarray with Covid and doing a lot of work for the council. Forty vehicles had never been operated from Brislington.

James Munden was not the appropriate witness to deal with the detail of the parking arrangements but told me that they could park forty at Brislington, with the two new operating centres and potential five drivers’ private drives, the operation could park legally. Mr Woodhouse noted that there would be an impact on service provision.

I asked why the parking issue had not been addressed prior to the public inquiry, as soon as they were on notice last summer that there was an issue. James Munden could not answer that question.

7.3 The evidence of John Leigh, Operations Manager

Mr Leigh oversaw the maintenance scheduling, coordinating the drivers to get vehicles in for maintenance, booked MOTs, everything to do with the vehicles. He had been in the company sixteen years and had always inspected to the twelve-week period. They had been a Class 4, 5 and 7 MOT station and kept the roller brake tester calibrated for the Class 1 & 2 testing they still did. The roller brake tester had been used on every inspection since the DVSA investigation. Printouts were attached to the PMI sheet.

The technician completed the PMI sheets and he or James would review them. His office was adjacent to the working ramp. He would confer with the technician during the inspection. He then checked that all the relevant boxes were completed, all the inspection details were there. I referred to a PMI I had reviewed which had a driver-reportable defect that had not been identified by the driver. Mr Leigh told me they were overhauling driver defect reporting.

I also noted that most PMIs had an occasional defect but pre-MOT there were many, there was even a box on the form to mark that it was a pre-MOT inspection. Mr Leigh told me they used the same process. I referred to a pre-MOT inspection that had multiple serious mechanical and structural defects. Mr Leigh told me that the technician was very proud and would over-prepare for MOT.

Mr Leigh was responsible for the maintenance of seventy-nine vehicles, including spares. There was one primary technician and three to four others. There had been a supply issue with vehicles after Covid and so some older vehicles were still on-fleet but that was starting to change again. They tended to buy ex-lease vehicles at about three to four years old. Mr Leigh was booked on to the transport manager CPC in May. It would have been earlier but for the DVSA investigation. Mr Mohamed had taken the place booked for him in December.

7.4 The evidence of Mahamud Bille Mohamed

Mr Mohamed had been a civil servant as an aerospace engineer working on airworthiness and was a charted engineer. Personal reasons had caused the change of career. He met Simon Munden through a friend. He had developed a number of new policies and spent time training drivers. I was talked through fresh induction plans for drivers. An app was being trialled for driver defect reporting. Digital was also being considered for the workshop. He was being assisted by consultants Neil Kanter and John Burch (the latter ex-CPT).

7.5 The evidence of Simon Munden

Simon Munden adopted James Munden’s statement. They operated only 38 weeks a year for school terms. They lost a lot of good drivers when the CPC came in. The work started early in the morning. The drivers were spread across Bristol and had to pick up escorts early morning. It would be too early to go across the city to pick up a bus and then go back to collect the escort. One driver stayed with one vehicle and they did about forty miles a day. It had been his decision not to bring vehicles back to base – they wouldn’t be able to fulfil the services if the operated them all from Brislington. The impact would be thirty-six minibuses worth of students not able to go to school. They were one of Bristol City Council’s biggest providers and there were fewer PSV operators. It would be catastrophic for the authority.

I presented a different view, that the operator had taken a commercial decision that it was cheaper to let the drivers take the vehicles home rather than use the listed operating centres. Mr Munden denied that. I asked why they had not moved sooner to get more operating centres closer to the drivers. The drivers were elderly. One driver didn’t even have a car. It wasn’t highly paid work. There would be a lot of dead mileage. They didn’t just think about themselves but about the drivers as well. I put it to Mr Munden that his approach was unfair. Other operators might not have bid as they would have seen the operation as unviable to undertake legally.

I moved on to the appointment of Mr Peters as transport manager. At the time, they had thought there would be more minibus routes. When Covid came along, the Council wanted fewer children per vehicle so they moved to DPVs. He had handed back some discs to the office in Bristol. He hadn’t known about VOL, that was a new thing at the time. He had been ill. For the three years of the lockdown, he had been working from home.

I reviewed the timeline. An application to increase from forty to fifty vehicles had been proposed to be refused unless an additional transport manager had been appointed. Mr Peters had been nominated and the increase granted with an undertaking for refresher training. When the certificate had not been forthcoming, I had proposed to revoke the licence and the training certificate had been provided as though Mr Peters was in post as transport manager. All that had tricked me in to leaving the 50-vehicle authorisation intact. How was that OK? Mr Munden told me that he had handed back six discs.

I asked about the DPV situation where the situation was very unclear. My concern was whether the Bristol small vehicles were being operated under the operator’s licence. Mr Woodhouse suggested I hear from the City Council and I agreed.

7.6 The evidence of Narinder Gharyal

Mr Gharyal is the quality assurance officer for special needs transport. He had been working with this operator for nine years and had a good relationship with them. The contract had not been required to be under PSV or PHV licence. There had been a challenge through the taxi licensing team. Historically the operation was run using patient transfer ambulances so it was assumed it didn’t require any regulation. The legal team were now saying it needed to be licensed. The incumbent contractors were able to challenge the legal position. There were a lot of grey areas. People didn’t understand the DPV designation. The new legal position will require much more funding even if it could be covered by taxis. In some cases, there was one child and four carers. Vehicles had to be wheelchair accessible and adopted to specific needs. I concluded that the operator thought it had been operating legally and the council had thought the same so I could make no adverse finding on this point.

I closed the hearing and invited written submissions by Friday 12 April.

7.7 Closing submissions

Written submissions on behalf of both parties were received on time. I summarise the main points here.

7.8 In relation to the operator and Simon Munden

Public inquiry preparations led James Munden to form the view that his father was inadequate in a modern operating environment. Simon Munden accepts that his management of regulatory issues was poor but there was no intention to deceive. In relation to Mr Peters, he had undertaken to provide a refresher certificate and he did so. Having handed back six discs, he had formed the view that the second transport manager was unnecessary. Having reflected upon his actions, he understands how they cause concern.

Simon Munden proposes to remove himself as transport manager and would play no further part in managing the Mundens business. It was accepted that the Bristol City Council contracts should not have been bid for if they could not be undertaken in compliance with the regulatory framework. In mitigation, it is noted that the Council has limited alternative options.

Two new applications for operating centres had been made in 2023 and those would provide parking for all authorised vehicles. Seven further potential sites have been identified, a mix of residential and commercial sites.

Significant maintenance shortcomings were accepted particularly, but not exclusively, the driver defect system. However, the actual standard of maintenance was good, evidenced by the MOT and encounter history. The DVSA had been impressed when they visited. An app-based defect reporting system was in trial. External advice and support had been sought. The missed inspections were actually caused by the licence wrongly stating eight weeks when the operator was working to twelve. With the recruitment of Bille Mohamed, John Leigh would have more time for maintenance which would address the DVSA resource concern.

7.9 On behalf of Alan Peters

Mr Peters and Simon Munden have a long-standing relationship over many years. At the time of the application to add him as transport manager, they shared an operating centre at Freestone Road. Mr Peters had been clear about his involvement with only one operating centre throughout the application. No vehicles were ever allocated to the Freestone Road site so his responsibilities never emerged. He had written to Simon Munden in June 2023 “As I had heard no more I assumed my services were not required”. The operator’s evidence was that Mr Peters’ services were not required. Mr Peters had been open and honest with my office throughout.

8. CONSIDERATION AND FINDINGS OF FACT

8.1 The position of Alan Peters as transport manager and his good repute

Paragraphs 2 and 3 above describe how Alan Peters came to be added to the licence as a second transport manager as a condition for an overall increase in authority. The decision to request a second transport manager was referred to me but the later decision to accept Mr Peters was not.

Mr Peters was already responsible for nineteen vehicles across his sole trader licence and Abus Ltd. It is now clear from review of the application that Mr Peters was indeed open that he sought responsibility only for ten vehicles that were to be based at the Freestone Road operating centre. I heard that Freestone Road was never used to park vehicles, so Mr Peters formed the view that his responsibility never arose. I can see how that might be the case, although it remains a concern that he provided to Simon Munden his refresher certificate as required by an undertaking on this licence. I also find that it was incumbent upon Mr Peters to follow-up on his application for the statutory role.

Against this shortcoming, I must set Mr Peters’ long history in the industry and the roles he held such as with the West of England Bus Operator’s Association, ALBUM and the CPT. It is ironic that, had he set down those roles and his attendance at the various fora, he need not have undertaken a refresher course, but he did. And he did so on time. This history along with the openness at application offset the shortcoming of not following-up to ensure that his name did not remain on the licence. I find that Mr Peters’ good repute as transport manager remains intact.

Simon Munden knew that the increase from forty to fifty vehicles was conditional upon the appointment of a second transport manager. That had to be done by 30 June 2022 and the application to add Mr Peters came that very day. It appears now to have been an act of desperation. Whether he ever intended Mr Peters to have an active role, even if only at one operating centre, only he knows. He had a perfect opportunity to disclose that Mr Peters was not in the role when requested to supply the refresher certificate. But supply the certificate he did. In doing so, he continued the falsehood that the licence benefitted from a second transport manager.

Mr Munden sought to justify the lack of a second transport manager by telling me that he had relinquished six discs by handing them in to the office in Bristol. That is true, but only a long time later, in October 2023. He made no application to reduce authority back down from fifty to forty. The return of the discs appears to have been in response to the DVSA investigation. I find that Simon Munden knew full well that an increase above forty was conditional on a second transport manager, he did nothing to honour that undertaking until chased and, in reality, he was in full knowledge that the undertaking had never been honoured at all. I find it was all a ruse to trick the regulator in to granting additional authority. That ruse was repeated by submitting the refresher certificate to indicate that Mr Peters was active in the role. I find it was all an act of gross dishonesty.

8.2 The use of vehicles under s.79A of the Transport Act 2000 and whether more vehicles were operated under the licence than authorised

It is a frequent characteristic of the legislation covering PSV operator licensing that it is not always immediately apparent what it means and, even when that hurdle has been crossed, the legislation can end up not always being very specific. Section 79A is a reasonable example of that. In layman’s terms, what it says is that an operator operating PSVs with more than 9 seats can operate a few vehicles with less than 9 seats. The operator’s licence acts as a form of exemption from the requirement for a local authority private hire licence. It goes on to say that such operation of small vehicles is only legal if it is done “in the course of a business of carrying passengers by motor vehicles all but a small part of which involves the operation of large buses”. “Small part” is helpfully not defined. The Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Guidance Document No.13 refers to DfT guidance that describes small as meaning less than 10% by mileage. I cannot find the original DfT guidance so I rely upon the STC document.

I was told that the operator has forty-five vehicles over nine seats. There are thirty-two vehicles with less than nine seats. However, I heard and I accept that, until this summer, all vehicles of that size operated for Bristol City Council do so under an exemption for “disabled passenger vehicles”, basically, as ambulances. Bristol City Council told me that a taxi operator had challenged that position leading to different legal advice which means that all vehicles of that size will need to be operated under a licence. I am satisfied that the Bristol vehicles have not sought to take advantage of the s.79A provisions. That leaves three small vehicles operated for South Gloucestershire Council which do rely upon the provision. It seems likely that journeys in vehicles of all sizes will be of similar length so I am content that the operation of three small vehicles meets the requirements of Section 79A of the Act.

Operating small vehicles on a PSV operator’s licence creates a myriad of opportunities for mischief. For that reason, permission to do so requires an operator to accept a number of ways of working. These are based on a generic starting-point but can be tailored to individual operations. They generally set requirements to reflect those in legislation such as the means of charging, and to enable enforceability. One such undertaking is attached to this licence as follows:

• The operator will advise the traffic commissioner of the make, model and registration number of vehicles used under that licence and will advise of any changes.

It is accepted that the undertaking was not complied with. I was told that was because the operator did not know how to update vehicles on the licensing system. That is not a reasonable excuse. Section 17(3)(aa) is made out.

8.3 The parking arrangements

I find as a fact that vehicles have been routinely parked at other than the nominated operating centres. That was accepted by the operator in a parking schedule provided on 21 July 2023.

I start by noting that the vehicles are all Ford Transit minibuses, equivalent in size to a 3.5 tonne long-wheelbase van. The operating centres of such vans used as goods vehicle are not regulated, even when the vehicles fall within scope of operator licensing due to international operations. But that is not the point. Parliament decided that passenger vehicles with more than nine seats should be regulated as public service vehicles and the law applies equally to them.

A number of features here trouble me. The first is the motivation. I was told that drivers keeping their vehicles at home was the only business model that made the Bristol City Council contracts viable. The issue with that is that the operator bid for those contracts knowing that they could not be undertaken viably whilst using the listed operating centres. It was a commercial decision that is likely to have undercut any competitors who based their bids on a legal business model. As such, I find it was a cynical move.

The application to increase authority from forty to fifty added an operating centre at Freestone Road in Bristol for the additional ten vehicles. I was told that the site was never used. Simon Munden sought to mitigate that by saying that he had returned six discs. That still left forty-four vehicles with an operating centre authorised for forty. No attempt was made to remove Freestone Road as an operating centre until September 2023 when it formed part of the application to add two new sites. Applying to remove Freestone Road earlier would have meant reduction in authority to forty vehicles.

The operator was put clearly on notice of the parking issue in July 2023. It is accepted that the position was still the same as at the day of the inquiry, eight months later. Applications for additional sites were submitted but still not covering the full parking requirement and one application was clearly overly-ambitious; the application was reduced from eight to three ahead of the inquiry due to limited space. Not rationalising the operation to use only the listed operating centres was a further cynical commercial decision on the part of Simon Munden. Vehicles have not been kept at the specified operating centres, Section 17(3)(a) is made out and I attach significant weight given the duration and extent of the breach, even taking in to account the modest size of the vehicles involved.

8.4 Maintenance matters

The maintenance matters boil down to four issues. The first is that inspections were scheduled and taking place to a twelve-week frequency when the licence statement of intent was eight weeks. I found on the licence record a request from 2005 to increase the period to ten weeks. This was accepted by a caseworker but not actioned. The DVSA Vehicle Examiner seems to accept that twelve weeks is appropriate. The issue appears to be one of administration and communication rather than poor management of maintenance. I note that the licence has been continued many times since 2005, when the continuation document will have clearly shown eight weeks each time.

The second issue is the lack of roller brake testing. There is a roller brake tester in the workshop and, by the date of the inquiry, it appeared to be regularly in use. Third was an issue of capacity within the technical workforce and I note this will be alleviated to some degree by the appointment of Bille Mohamed which will free some of John Leigh’s time. Finally, Mr Mohamed was already implementing improvements to driver defect reporting through trials of an app-based system and through training.

I find nothing in vehicle maintenance that has not been addressed and I have no continuing concerns.

8.5 The good repute of Simon Munden as Transport Manager

I have already found that Simon Munden acted in a grossly dishonest manner in relation to the steps he took to make it appear that there were two active transport managers on the licence. I have found that he acted cynically in bidding for contracts that he knew were not viable with a legal business model and he perpetuated that by not regularising the operation when put on notice of the parking issues. As transport manager, he is the root cause of the stated inspection frequency being breached over many years despite signing numerous licence continuations. He is also responsible for failing to comply with the small vehicle undertaking.

I conduct a balancing exercise. In the positive, it seems that he has now seen the writing on the wall and has resigned as a director. The maintenance matters are generally under control – whether that is down to Simon Munden or others, I do now know, but it is a positive. The recruitment of Bille Mohamed is a strongly positive feature in the operation and Mr Munden Snr deserves credit for that. I have found no evidence of operating over authority nor of breach of s.79A.

The positives are helpful. But I have found Simon Munden to be dishonest in relation to the second transport manager, and to cynically put, and retain, commercial gain ahead of compliance with the law. If a transport manager cannot be trusted to champion compliance over everything else, then he simply cannot remain as transport manager. I find that Simon Munden’s good repute as transport manager is lost and he is disqualified from acting as such. I can think of no remedial action so his disqualification is indefinite, with leave to apply. If doing so, he will need to put forward a compelling case for the disqualification to be lifted.

8.6 The position of James Munden

I find that James Munden has taken a very operational role and not fulfilled his director responsibilities in the way the law expects. However, it appears that the public inquiry has spurred him in to action. I found his evidence candid, not least because he accepted there was much he could not answer. Whether he can run a business of this size will remain to be seen. It appears inevitable that the business will be smaller in any case given the City Council position with the small vehicles and the regulatory action I will take. But, in Bille Mohamed and John Leigh, he has two very capable managers in support. I make no adverse finding in relation to his good repute.

8.7 The good repute of the operator

This has been a finely-balanced decision. The extent and duration of the parking abuse and the second transport manager sham puts this case in to revocation and disqualification territory, the latter in relation to Simon Munden. What causes me to step back from that is the resignation of Simon Munden as a statutory director. I am not so naïve that I believe that will be the end of his involvement in the business. It is his business he has grown with his family and a continuing interest after all these years is inevitable. It will be for James to ensure that his father does not jeopardise compliance, and does not seek to act as a de factor or shadow director. If that were found to be the case, it is difficult to see how the licence could survive.

8.8 The appropriate regulatory action

The main driver of regulatory action in this case is to right the wrong of the increase to fifty vehicles that was granted on a false pretence, and the ongoing, long-term commercial gain achieved by not using the nominated operating centres. A very significant curtailment cold be justified but I must also recognise the wider background. It seems inevitable that the business will lose the contracts with Bristol City Council for the small vehicles which in itself is something like a one-third reduction in fleet size, albeit the remaining vehicles are larger. A curtailment to forty vehicles resets the clock to where it was prior to the second transport manager issues arising and, in my judgement, is a fair reduction in commercial earning power to offset the parking benefits unfairly accrued. Taken with the City Council change in position, the operation will be cut in size by almost half.

9. DECISIONS

The good repute of Alan Peters as transport manager remains intact.

The good repute of Simon Munden as transport manager is lost. He is disqualified from acting as such indefinitely with leave to apply.

Pursuant to Section 17(3)(a), that vehicles have habitually not used the nominated operating centre, the licence is curtailed to 40 vehicles with effect from 31 July 2024, and thereafter indefinitely.

The application to add an operating centre at Snow Zone, St Gabriel’s Road, BS5 0RT is granted in amended form for THREE vehicles.

The application to add at operating centre at Argyle Road, to the rear of 97-105 Wilder Street, BS2 8QU is granted as applied for, that is, for ten vehicles.

Kevin Rooney

Traffic Commissioner

8 May 2024