Decision

Decision for Stirk House Logistics Ltd (OB22031882)

Published 13 January 2021

Traffic Commissioner for the North East of England

Public Inquiry hearing before Deputy Traffic Commissioner Simon Evans

Written Decision

In the matter of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (The Act)

Public Inquiry held at Leeds on 7 December 2020

Stirk House Logistics Ltd is an applicant for a new Standard National Goods Vehicle Operator’s licence for 4 vehicles and 6 trailers. The sole director of the company is Kevin Munford, his son Steven, is nominated as Transport Manager (TM).

The application was called in to a Public Inquiry for two reasons:

• Links to previous failed licences
• Unlawful use of a vehicle by the applicant company (driven by its director, Kevin Munford and on one occasion, its TM, Steven Munford), during the licence application process.

1. Concerns about links with other failed licences:

The licences referred to were:

• Geoffrey Munford (OB01831040) – The operator was Kevin’s father; Kevin had acted as his TM on the licence which was surrendered in 2011;

• Geoffrey Munford had subsequently been disqualified as a director for a lengthy period, (REDACTED) Geoffrey F Munford Ltd (OB0183104), which had entered administration;

• A licence held by Munford Haulage Ltd (OB1104988) the first licence – This licence was revoked in February 2016, after a Public Inquiry in December 2015. Kevin had been the TM and was a director of the company. His repute as such had been forfeit and he was disqualified for 12 months. The concerns leading to the decision had been related to “unacceptable” management of tachograph compliance in the part of the business covering hay transportation, the arrangements for the hiring-in of drivers from a linked company and that Kevin, together with his father, misled a Traffic Examiner about an incident that had occurred. There had also been a lack of transparency about the financial position of Geoffrey F Munford Ltd: (REDACTED) at the time of the grant of this first Munford Haulage Ltd licence;

• The second Munford Haulage Ltd licence (OB1143138) was granted in March 2016 - Kevin was a director of the company granted this new licence. It was called to a Public Inquiry in May 2017, following an unsatisfactory maintenance inspection in February 2017. Kevin’s repute as TM was restored at the same hearing. The Traffic Commissioner had expressed optimism about the business’ recent history being “put behind it”. Nevertheless, the company entered liquidation on 18 December 2019, (REDACTED) the licence was surrendered by liquidators on 23 June 2020.

There had been three directors at Munford Haulage Ltd including Kevin, his mother, Edna Munford and an independent accountant, Peter Chipp, who appeared to have been appointed in 2015 in order to give the company greater credibility after its earlier problems. Kevin said he had played no part in the predominant container work of the company, concentrating on his hay and straw business using a single vehicle, which he drove. (REDACTED) Companies House shows the business as “in liquidation” but no report about the process is yet available (REDACTED).

The new application for the Stirk House licence was made on 18 March 2020. The scale of this application is significantly different to the licence enjoyed by Munford Haulage Ltd (50 vehicles and 53 trailers), albeit that what is sought now is greater than had been previously required to facilitate the movement of hay and straw. The licence was not required to support the former container haulage work, which had been the main feature of earlier family licences.

2. Issues during the application process including the unlawful use of a vehicle

Vehicle MUN 4D, previously specified on the second Munford Haulage Ltd licence, was encountered by DVSA officers on both 18 September 2020 and 9 October 2020, whilst being driven by Kevin Munford, when no operator’s licence was in force authorising its use, for the carrying of hay and straw by the present applicant, Stirk House Logistics Ltd.

When first challenged by DVSA at the September stop, Kevin Munford had pretended to them that the vehicle was being operated by Riley Plant & Demolition. In oral evidence he told me this was in fact a “made-up” name, although a subsequent check (after the hearing) shows that a company, Riley Plant Hire Ltd (OB2013587) holds an operator’s licence, granted on 28 August 2020, which in fact shares an operating centre with the applicant company at Stirk House, Tollerton, York.

The applicant was asked if it wished to provide any further representations on the matter, since the applicant did not have the opportunity within the hearing to comment on what appeared to be an effort to mislead the officers at the scene and me at the hearing. Solicitors for the applicant stated:

[..] our client was aware that there was a company by the name of Riley Plant Hire Ltd which shares an operating centre with Stirk House Logistics Limited and our client wishes to clarify that when he stated at the hearing that he had ‘made up’ that company name, he meant he had ‘made up’ that he worked for that company and not that he ‘made up’ the company. Again, just to reiterate the point made at the hearing, we are instructed that our client intended this as a joke, as the irony was that he was carrying hay and Riley Plant Hire Ltd is a plant and demolition company and as such our client thought that it would be clear to the DVSA officer that this was intended as a joke.

ANPR data showed that in the period 23 August 2020 to 20 November 2020 there had been 74 sightings of the vehicle by cameras located at various points on the road network on 29 separate days.

Subsequent analysis commissioned by the applicant from the RHN Consultancy confirms no further use of the vehicle since the stop on 9 October 2020 (up to at least 12 November 2020, when a vehicle download took place). Before it however, there had been 103 duties worked since 1 March 2020, during which no licence was in force. Whilst there had been a minimal number of drivers’ hours and working time directive breaches, in the period nearly 36,000 kms had been driven, all of it unlawful.

The analysis also showed that the vehicle was driven for over 4000 kms between the stops by DVSA on 18 September 2020 and that on 9 October 2020.

3. Findings

In the positive: I have no particular concerns about the proposed nomination of Steven Munford as TM on the licence.

Financial standing is comfortably met.

Albeit that a fixed penalty was issued for an overloading during the stop in September 2020, and there were minor drivers’ hours offences detected in October 2020, when no company card was in use, data had not been “locked-in” and no analysis software was available to it, maintenance of the vehicle had not been an issue. The safety of other road users has probably not been compromised.

On the other hand, however: making a decision about the good repute of Stirk House Logistics Ltd and its guiding mind, requires a focus on the history of Kevin Munford. That history is not a positive one, his repute as a TM was lost (but later regained). The issues at that time were though, significantly, about trust in him (See paragraph 3, third bullet above). There has also been an association with a company failure, although I am inclined to accept (on the evidence presently before me) (REDACTED)

Further, as to the events that have taken place during the application process, this application was made as the COVID-19 pandemic struck. Inevitably delay in getting this matter to a hearing has been both longer than normal, and beyond what is desirable. Admissions have been made and business-related explanations provided for the operation of the vehicle when no licence was in force that took place over an extended period. Kevin referred to his need to make a living and that there was “panic” on his part. (REDACTED). The pandemic does not however justify Kevin doing what he did, a position that he has accepted.

The extent of the use of the vehicle has been very great with many kilometres covered. I find that I cannot accept the explanation offered about the initial response to DVSA during which he named another operator, said to be a joke, albeit I do accept that the falsity was soon abandoned. I also reject the somewhat disingenuous attempt to explain away the further use of the vehicle after the first stop and up to the second one, some 3 weeks’ later, that he had not realised that the vehicle ought to have been taken off the road straightaway.

4. Consideration and decision:

This is of course the company’s application and that the onus is on it to satisfy me that it has the necessary good repute to hold the licence, that arrangements for the running of vehicles are sound, and that there is a sufficiency of financial resources to ensure that vehicles will be operated in fit and serviceable condition.

I have described in my findings above the balancing factors relevant to my decision in this case.

The Upper Tribunal decision in the case of Aspey Trucks Ltd (2010/49) makes clear the role of the Traffic Commissioner as “the gatekeeper” to the haulage industry, when considering new applications. Those who are allowed entry must satisfy the Traffic Commissioner of their good repute. In answering that question whether I am so satisfied in respect of this application, I need to be awake to what the public, other operators, and customers and competitors alike would expect of those permitted to join the industry that they will not blemish or undermine its good name or abuse the privileges it bestows.

I find on the balance of probabilities that the requirement of good repute is not presently met. I remain to be satisfied that Kevin Munford is of good repute and thereby that of Stirk House Logistics Ltd. Repute is not defined in the legislation, but I am satisfied that I cannot presently look beyond the circumstances in which vehicles have been operated when they have been for so long unlawfully. Whilst I give credit for the cessation of that use in early October 2020, some ten weeks ago, that was 36,000 kms and some 7+ months after it started. Even allowing for the apologies offered and the readiness that the applicant could cope with fewer vehicles, I cannot conclude that enough has yet been done to persuade me that trust can be said to have been regained. A competitive advantage has been achieved over those applicants who have waited for their applications to be considered rather than those who have acted unlawfully when they knew what they were doing was wrong. It would not be proportionate to allow this application to succeed in current circumstances.

I therefore refuse the application in accordance with sections 13A (2) (b) and Schedule 3 of the Act.

5. Note:

Whilst any consideration of repute is not a mathematical equation, the passing of time since adverse events, and demonstration over a longer period of compliance with the legal requirements (as a non-licence holder) is likely to represent evidence of change and may constitute positive factors justifying a different outcome, in the event of any future application.

Simon Evans

Deputy Traffic Commissioner for the North East of England

21 December 2020