Decision

Decision for V M Scaffold Ltd

Published 11 May 2022

© Crown copyright 2022

This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.

Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.

This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/decision-for-v-m-scaffold-ltd/decision-for-v-m-scaffold-ltd

0.1 WEST MIDLANDS TRAFFIC AREA

1. DECISION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER

2. PUBLIC INQUIRY HELD ON 4 MAY 2022

2.1 OPERATOR: V M SCAFFOLD LTD LICENCE OD1144081

3. Background

V M Scaffold Ltd holds a restricted goods vehicle operator licence, granted in April 2016, for one vehicle. The sole director of the company is Jason Morrall. The authorised operating centre is at Kingsbury Road, Sutton Coldfield B76 9DD.

4. DVSA report

In October 2021 DVSA vehicle examiner Matthew Williscroft spotted the operator’s specified vehicle, YK03 HLN, parked in a pub car park over several days, together with a 3.5 tonne flatbed scaffold vehicle NX58 DDY. The staff at the pub confirmed that the vehicles had been parked there for a long time.

VE Williscroft carried out a maintenance investigation into the operator and found:

  • only one preventative maintenance sheet for the entire 15 month record-keeping period;

  • no brake tests recorded;

  • three failures from four MOT presentations;

  • no contact could be made with director Jason Morrall. The contact point was Mr Morrall’s mother and Mr Morrall ignored VE Williscroft’s requests to get in touch direct.

  • NX58 DDY had been registered as “transferred to the motor trade” since 28 July 2021, but there had been 15 sightings of it on the public road network during August and September 2021.

5. Public inquiry

Concerned by this report, I called the company to a public inquiry. The call-up letter was sent to the company’s registered and correspondence address on 15 March 2022, and the inquiry took place in Birmingham on 4 May 2022.

No documents or evidence of finances were received in advance of the inquiry, despite my request that they be submitted seven days beforehand. Nobody from the company attended the inquiry on 4 May, so I proceeded to determine the matter on the basis of the written evidence before me.

6. Considerations

It is quite clear that the company and its director Jason Morrall have managed the HGV without much regard for the undertakings given when the licence was applied for. The vehicle was supposed to have been given preventative maintenance inspections every six weeks: only one such inspection over a 15 month period could be shown. The vehicle has clearly been parked at an unauthorised (and entirely unsuitable) operating centre. With three failures form four MOT presentations it is clearly frequently in an unroadworthy condition. A 3.5 tonne vehicle which appears to be in possession of the company has been operated while untaxed. The director Jason Morrall refuses to engage both with DVSA and my office.

Looking at the most recent set of accounts available at Companies House (accounts for the year ended 31 August 2020), I note that the company appears to be in a parlous financial position: it has almost no fixed assets and significant net liabilities. As the operator has failed to send in the requested evidence of funds, I have no alternative but to find that it lacks the funds necessary to support an operator licence.

7. Balancing act and conclusion

On the negative side of the balance is the fact the company lacks the necessary financial resources to sustain a licence and has operated its vehicle in complete disregard of the need for regular maintenance. It has parked its vehicle in an unauthorised location. The company director has refused to engage with the regulatory authorities.

There is nothing on the positive side of the balance. The company’s failure to attend the inquiry or make any written submission prevented it form presenting any mitigating arguments.

There thus exists no basis on which I could be confident that the company will comply in future (the Priority Freight question). The company therefore deserves to go out of business (the Bryan Haulage question).

8. Decisions

8.1 Revocation of the licence

In the light of the above considerations, I am revoking the company’s operator licence with immediate effect, pursuant to Section 26(1)(a), (e), (f) and (h) of the 1995 Act.

8.2 Disqualification

I have considered whether to disqualify, under Section 28 of the 1995 Act, the company and director Jason Morrall from holding an operator licence in the future. Having performed the same balancing act as described above, I have decided to do so. In deciding upon the length of the disqualification, I have taken account of paragraph 103 of the senior traffic commissioner’s Statutory Guidance Document 10. This posits a starting point of between one and three years for a first public inquiry. Because the company has operated an unroadworthy vehicle and has wholly ignored its responsibility to have the vehicle inspected every six weeks, and because it clearly has no respect for the regulatory authorities, I have fixed upon a disqualification period – three years - at the upper end of this scale.

8.3 Enforcement of this decision

I am asking DVSA and the Police to employ their ANPR and on-road resources to identify and stop vehicles operated by V M Scaffold Ltd. Any such vehicle they find carrying goods on the public road on or after 9 May (the short delay is to give time for this decision to reach the company) will be liable to be impounded.

Nicholas Denton

Traffic Commissioner

4 May 2022

Back to top