Decision

Decision for SS Green Transport Ltd

Published 9 February 2024

0.1 IN THE EAST OF ENGLAND TRAFFIC AREA

0.2 PUBLIC INQUIRY IN CAMBRIDGE ON 18 JANUARY 2024

1. APPLICANT: SS GREEN TRANSPORT LTD

2. DECISION OF THE DEPUTY TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER

---

3. Background

The sole director of SS Green Transport Ltd is Sarah Saleem. The company’s name was Global Transport Leicester Ltd until 4 September 2023 when it changed to its current name.

On 26 September 2023 SS Green Transport Ltd applied for a standard international goods vehicle operator’s licence for 5 vehicles and 5 trailers. The company had recently appeared at a public inquiry on 31 August 2023 when the Senior Traffic Commissioner had refused its application for a standard international licence for 7 vehicles and 7 trailers. One of his concerns was that the application could be an intended front for continued operations by Global Transport Leics Ltd, whose director and transport manager was Mohammed Saleem, Sarah Saleem’s father. This company’s licence was revoked at the same inquiry and Mohammed Saleem was disqualified indefinitely from acting as a transport manager.

Because little of substance appeared to have changed in the three and a half weeks between 31 August 2023 (the date of the inquiry and of the STC’s decisions) and 26 September 2023 (the date of the new application), the application by SS Green Transport Ltd was set down for a public inquiry in Cambridge on 18 January 2024. This inquiry also considered a new application from Global Transport Leics Ltd (with a new transport manager proposed). The main differences in the new application made by SS Green Transport Ltd, compared with its previous one, were the company name change, a reduced number of vehicles and trailers (five instead of seven) and a different transport manager. Sarah Saleem was now the proposed transport manager on the licence.

4. Public inquiry

Sarah Saleem argued strongly at the inquiry that SS Green Transport Ltd was a separate business from that of Global Transport Leics Ltd and that she should not be held back from achieving her ambition of running a road haulage company by her father’s misdeeds. She intended to use the same operating centre and maintenance provider as Global Transport Leics Ltd because she was familiar with them and knew they were satisfactory. She intended to engage the assistance of a transport consultancy Total Compliance Ltd to help her manage a compliant operation. Intended arrangements for maintenance, drivers’ hours supervision, driver entitlement checking etc were described and appeared to be satisfactory. The company had joined the Road Haulage Association.

I asked Sarah Saleem about her business plan for her company. She said that she did not have one. To my surprise, she appeared to have no idea of what a vehicle might cost (whether purchased or leased), what the other expected costs of the business might be or what the expected income might be. Her explanation was that she wanted to acquire an operator licence first before looking further into these matters.

I drew Ms Saleem’s attention to some of the email correspondence which she had engaged in as part of the application process. On 26 November 2023 she had complained to the central licensing team in Leeds that the failure to grant her application by that point was “seriously affecting my life itself, I am being held back by the traffic commissioner from moving forward with my dreams and life.” She added that it was “unacceptable for the TC to assume things and impact others life [sic], I am seriously concerned to why this is even allowed to happen. I am not happy with letting the TC waste my time, time is precious and the TC is wasting mine!” She added that “I don’t see why I am requested to attend a PI [public inquiry], there is absolutely no reason”. In a follow-up email dated 27 November 2023 she commented that “Surely the TC should be making legal decisions, this feels more like they are making things up and ruining peoples [sic] lives, I would like to also know why that is even allowed”. Ms Saleem said that she had been frustrated by the length of time the application was taking and had expressed herself injudiciously.

5. Consideration of the issues

I found Ms Saleem to be an impressive person in many ways. She has qualified as a transport manager at the age of 19, a considerable achievement which shows a dedication to and passion for the industry.

But in considering whether to grant the application (perhaps for fewer vehicles than five initially), I remain concerned about the connections between the company and Global Transport Leics Ltd. As with the previous inquiry, it seems possible that the application by SS Green Transport Ltd might be intended as insurance against the event that the application of Global Transport Leics Ltd (also for 5 vehicles and 5 trailers) was refused. A number of factors point in this direction:

• most of the start-up funding for SS Green Transport Ltd (REDACTED) has been provided by Global Transport Leics Ltd as a loan;

• the correspondence addresses of the two companies are the same. The proposed operating centre is the same. The proposed maintenance provider is the same;

• SS Green Transport Ltd proposes to operate in the same segment of the market (general haulage in curtainsiders from ports) that Global Transport Leics Ltd operated in before its licence was revoked;

• the two companies share the same transport consultants.

I was also concerned about the immature tone and content of Ms Saleem’s emails referred to above. While I understand that the application process can be a frustrating one, Ms Saleem seemed to have little understanding of the traffic commissioners’ gatekeeper role and the need to ensure that companies whose licences had been revoked could not simply continue using others as a front. Her comments that traffic commissioners were simply wasting her time and that she was being called to an inquiry for no reason suggested to me that she might have difficulty – if the application were granted - in accepting the regulatory regime governing road haulage and the requirements and constraints that come with it.

But it is the complete absence of any business plan, and the complete failure to think through the projected costs and income of the business (i.e. whether it will be financially worthwhile to operate at all) leads me – in conjunction with the factors outlined in paragraph 9 above) to conclude that SS Green Transport Ltd is not intended to be a genuinely separate business from that of Global Transport Leics Ltd.

I refer to paragraph 54 of the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Guidance Document No 1 which states that “When concerns are raised that an applicant could be a ‘front’, they will need to do more than make bare assertions and rely on their good character to satisfy a traffic commissioner that there will be “clear blue water” between the applicant and the [other] entity. On the evidence presented, I cannot be satisfied that, if granted, there would be sufficient clear blue water between SS Green Transport Ltd and Global Transport Leics Ltd. It follows that I cannot be satisfied that the applicant company is of good repute (Section 13A(2)(b) of the 1995 Act refers).

6. Decision

The application is thus refused under Section 13A(2)(b) of the 1995 Act.

6.1 Nicholas Denton

Deputy Traffic Commissioner

19 January 2024