Decision

Decision for The Pipe Corporation Ltd (OD1016457) and Mr Darren Sockett (Sole Director)

Published 22 November 2024

0.1 In West Midlands Traffic Area

1. Written Decision of the Traffic Commissioner

2. Virtual Hearing to Consider Whether a Direction should be made under s.28 held on 5 November 2024 at Bristol

2.1 Operator: The Pipe Corporation Ltd (OD1016457) and Mr Darren Sockett (Sole Director of The Pipe Corporation Ltd)

3. SUMMARY OF MY DECISIONS

The Pipe Corporation Ltd is disqualified from holding or obtaining any type of operator’s licence in any traffic area under sections 28(1), 28(3) and 28(4) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (the “Act”) and the period of disqualification starts at 2359 hours on 01 November 2024 and ends at 2359 hours on 01 May 2025 (a 6-month period of disqualification).

Mr Sockett, sole director of The Pipe Corporation Ltd, is disqualified from holding or obtaining any type of operator’s licence in any traffic area under sections 28(1), 28(3) and 28(4) of the Act and the period of disqualification starts at 2359 hours on 01 November 2024 and ends at 2359 hours on 01 May 2025 (a 6-month period of disqualification).

4. BACKGROUND

The Pipe Corporation Ltd (the “operator”), appeared before me at a public inquiry on 11 September 2024 represented by Mr Thomas, Solicitor. My decision was reserved into writing and that written decision dated 07 October 2024 was issued on 08 October. My decision was to revoke the this operator’s operator licence, effective from 2359 hours on 01 November 2024.

Section 28 of the Act was cited in the calling in letter dated 02 August 2024. For whatever reason submissions were not made about disqualification at the end of the public inquiry. It may have been that neither the operator’s Solicitor nor myself remembered to deal with that issue at the time. In any event, having made my written decision, I determined that consideration of section 28 of the Act was required which is why the final paragraph of my written decision states what it does.

When submissions relating to section 28 of the Act are not received in a public inquiry the Traffic Commissioner has two main options; to request written representations about the issue of disqualification or to call a further short hearing to hear representations on that subject before a decision is made.

In this case I opted for the latter approach. Since I had already made the decision to revoke the operator’s licence, with full reasons for doing so given in my written decision, only submissions relating to that written decision, and the findings of fact that I had made in it, were to be considered at the hearing today. There was to be no calling of evidence as the public inquiry had already concluded. 

This is important to mention because several applications to adjourn the hearing today were made and all were refused. The main reason for the request to adjourn was that the operator’s sole director, Mr Sockett, was going to be on holiday abroad from the 18 October 2024. However, as no new evidence was to be taken his attendance at the hearing as a witness was not required but he could still join the hearing, if he wanted, via a video link with his Solicitor being present to make submissions on behalf of the operator and/or Mr Sockett.

The letter calling the virtual hearing today was dated 08 October 2024. That gave plenty of time for the Solicitor representing Mr Sockett and the operator to take instructions on the very narrow issue that was to be determined before Mr Sockett went on holiday. A virtual hearing was called because until January 2025 my offices, and the public inquiry hearing room, are now vacated to allow for major building and renovation works to be completed.

In the last refusal to adjourn I stated the following in my response to the operator’s Solicitor:

“The application to adjourn is refused. The hearing is just for me to hear submissions on whether a disqualification should be imposed and the effect of any such action. This should have been undertaken on the day of the PI as part of the Solicitor’s submissions but for some reason it was not which is the only reason why this hearing is being called. There is no further evidence to hear because the decision to disqualify or not will be based on the facts, as I have found them to be, made in my written decision and not on any further evidence.

As a result this is a matter that can be fairly dealt with by submissions made by the operator’s and Mr Sockett’s Solicitor with or without Mr Sockett’s attendance by video link.

Traffic Commissioner Mr M Dorrington
23 October 2024

At 0941 hours today my clerk received an email from the operator’s Solicitor confirming that they were no longer instructed, had no further representations to make and that they would not be attending the virtual hearing. As at 1017 hours my clerk confirmed that no-one had tried to join the virtual hearing. At that point in time I was satisfied that no-one was going to.

There was no persuasive reason before me to adjourn the hearing on my own volition. It was a matter for the operator/Mr Sockett if they wanted to carry on being represented or not. A failure to be represented is not a persuasive reason to adjourn; there is no right to representation in this jurisdiction and the issues to be determined today were not complex. It was quite clear from all of the correspondence received via email that both Mr Sockett and his Solicitor were aware of the hearing today, and had been for some time, and what the hearing was going to consider. It was both fair and in the interests of justice for me to make a decision in the absence of the operator, Mr Sockett and any representative from the papers that were before me.

5. THE LAW

Section 28 of the Act states:

5.1 “28. Disqualification.

(1) Where, under section 26(1) or 27(1), a traffic commissioner directs that an operator’s licence be revoked, the commissioner may order the person who was the holder of the licence to be disqualified (either indefinitely or for such period as the commissioner thinks fit) from holding or obtaining an operator’s licence; and so long as the disqualification is in force—

(a)any operator’s licence held by him at the date of the making of the order (other than the licence revoked) shall be suspended, and

(b)notwithstanding anything in section 13 or 24, no operator’s licence may be issued to him.

(2) If a person applies for or obtains an operator’s licence while he is disqualified under subsection (1)—

(a)he is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale, and

(b)any operator’s licence issued to him on the application, or (as the case may be) the operator’s licence obtained by him, shall be void.

(3) An order under subsection (1) may be limited so as to apply only to the holding or obtaining of an operator’s licence in respect of one or more specified traffic areas and, if the order is so limited—

(a)paragraphs (a) and (b) of that subsection and subsection (2) shall apply only to any operator’s licence to which the order applies, but

(b)notwithstanding section 5(4)(b), no other operator’s licence held by the person in question shall authorise the use by him of any vehicle at a time when its operating centre is in a traffic area in respect of which he is disqualified by virtue of the order.

(4) Where a traffic commissioner makes an order under subsection (1) in respect of any person, the commissioner may direct that if that person, at any time or during such period as the commissioner may specify—

(a)is a director of, or holds a controlling interest in—

(i)a company which holds a licence of the kind to which the order in question applies, or

(ii)a company of which such a company is a subsidiary, or

(b)operates any goods vehicles in partnership with a person who holds such a licence, that licence of that company or, as the case may be, of that person, shall be liable to revocation, suspension or curtailment under section 26.”

6. DECISION AND REASONS

In order to consider whether an order under section 28 should be made I have re-read my written decision several times. I repeat all of the findings of fact made in that written decision.

In the absence of any submissions being before me that relate to section 28 of the Act, and to be as fair as possible to the operator and to Mr Sockett, I have re-read the notes I made of the submissions made by their Solicitor at the end of the public inquiry and have used my memory of what was said in those submissions as well. I have taken the representations made about the effect of revocation to include disqualification as well. I have reminded myself that disqualification does not have to flow from a revocation of the operator’s licence.

I have considered the Transport Tribunal (as it was before the Upper Tribunal) appeal case of 2006/27 Fenlon where it was held that:

‘trust is one of the foundation stones of operator licensing. Traffic, commissioners must be able to trust operators to comply with all the relevant laws, rules and regulations because it would be a physical and financial impossibility to police every aspect of the licensing system all day and every day. In addition, operators must be able to trust other operators to observe the relevant laws, rules and regulations. If trust between operators breaks down and some operators believe that others are obtaining an unfair commercial advantage by ignoring laws, rules or regulations then standards will inevitably slip and the public will suffer.”

I have also considered the appeal cases on the subject of disqualification including 2018/072 St Mickalos Company Ltd & M Timinis and 2010/29 David Finch Haulage.

There were two principle reasons for the revocation of this operator’s operator licence; deliberate untruths being told in the public inquiry and the failure to keep any maintenance records for the two vehicles that were being operated.

There was mitigation put forward in the public inquiry which I detailed at paragraph 45 of my written decision. I again give credit for all of those positive things.

In and of itself the failure to keep any maintenance records, when balanced against the credit I give for the positives in this case, is not enough for me to determine that disqualification under section 28 is a proportionate regulatory outcome.

However, deliberately telling untruths in a public inquiry cannot be balanced in the same way because it was being deliberately untruthful that led me to determine what I did at paragraphs 47 onwards in my written decision. My trust in Mr Sockett, and as a result in this operator, was (and remains) totally lost. For those reasons this a bad case. Despite the credit that I have given it is not enough to persuade me that I should step back from making an order under section 28 of the Act. Such an order, from the facts of this case, is proportionate and it is also necessary to send out the right message by way of a deterrent to any other operator who may be tempted to think that being deliberately untruthful in a public inquiry will go without a robust regulatory consequence if they are caught.

Mr Sockett is the sole director of The Pipe Corporation Ltd. He is its heart and mind. It is therefore proportionate that my order under section 28 of the Act applies equally to that company. There is no persuasive reason before me to find otherwise.

Annex 4 to Statutory Document number 10 issued by the Senior Traffic Commissioner sets out guidance, where it is a first public inquiry, for a period of one to three years being an appropriate range where an order of disqualification is to be made.

In determining the length of disqualification in this case I have taken into account the submissions made at the end of the public inquiry and I have taken into account the credit that I have given for all of the positives that were before me. It understand that disqualification is a step further than revocation of the operator’s licence. I understand that disqualification will put addition pressures, not least financial, upon this operator. I take those things into account. Balanced against those considerations is the need to take robust action, by way of disqualification, for the reasons I have already given.

There are no exceptional circumstances present in this case that would allow me, per se, to depart from the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s guidance. However, when looking at this case in the rounds I have determined that this case falls towards the bottom of the scale given by the Senior Traffic Commissioner. Giving Mr Sockett, and the operator, as much credit as I possibly can I consider a period of 6 months disqualification to be proportionate.

My orders under section 28 of the Act, for all of the above reasons, are therefore as follows.

The Pipe Corporation Ltd is disqualified from holding or obtaining any type of operator’s licence in any traffic area under sections 28(1), 28(3) and 28(4) of the Act and the period of disqualification starts at 2359 hours on 01 November 2024 and ends at 2359 hours on 01 May 2025 (a 6-month period of disqualification).

Mr Sockett is disqualified from holding or obtaining any type of operator’s licence in any traffic area under sections 28(1), 28(3) and 28(4) of the Act and the period of disqualification starts at 2359 hours on 01 November 2024 and ends at 2359 hours on 01 May 2025 (a 6-month period of disqualification).

Traffic Commissioner Mr M Dorrington
24 October 2024