Decision

Decision for Wayne Wood t/a Woodys Haulage

Published 31 March 2022

1. DECISION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER

1.1 Written (and expanded) version of oral decision given at the public inquiry in Birmingham, 17 March 2022

2. Wayne Wood t/a Woodys Haulage OD2013744

3. Decision

Standard national licence OD2013744 held by Wayne Wood t/a Woodys Haulage is revoked with effect from 0001 hours on 18 April 2022, pursuant to Sections 26(1)(a) and (h) and 27(1)(a) and (b) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995.

Wayne Wood has lost his good repute. He is disqualified for three years, from 16 April 2022 to 16 April 2025, from holding or obtaining any type of operator’s licence in any traffic area and from being the director of any company holding or obtaining such a licence, pursuant to Section 28 (1), (4) and (5) of the 1995 Act.

Wayne Wood has lost his good repute as a transport manager, pursuant to Schedule 3 paragraph 1 of the 1995 Act. Under paragraph 16(2) of that Schedule, he is disqualified, from 16 April 2022 for a period of three years until 16 April 2025, from acting as a transport manager on any operator’s licence

4. Reasons

The principal reason for the revocation of the licence is that Wayne Wood has essentially been lending his operator licence to Slumberdreams (UK) Ltd, a company controlled by Sharez Hussain which does not have an operator’s licence. Mr Hussain has been associated with multiple revoked licences, held by Slumberdream Ltd, Slumberzone Beds Ltd, Health Therapy Ltd and Midlands Logistics UK Ltd amongst others. He has impersonated another director in an interview under caution with DVSA. He has an utter disregard for the laws pertaining to operator licensing or the roadworthiness of vehicles. Originally disqualified from holding a licence in 2012 as a result of serious non-compliance, Sharez Hussain has since sought to operate through a number of other companies and useful idiots.

DVSA traffic examiner Robert Lees reported to me in February 2022 the outcome of an investigation which he believed showed that Wayne Wood had been lending his licence OD2013744 to Slumberdream (UK) Ltd from August 2019 to April 2021. Three vehicles owned and kept by Slumberdream or other companies associated with Mr Hussain had been specified on Mr Wood’s licence during this period. The vehicles were supposedly subject to a hire agreement whereby Mr Wood rented them (with drivers) from Slumberdream and then carried out transport work for that company. TE Lees reported that the vehicles were kept at Slumberdream’s premises when not in use (rather than at Mr Wood’s operating centre), the vehicles were insured and maintained by Slumberdream and were driven by drivers employed by Slumberdream and wearing Slumberdream uniform. Driver defect books in the vehicles were branded as Slumberdream.

At the public inquiry today I pressed Mr Wood on these arrangements. I reminded him that in his capacity as the most recent transport manager he had attended the public inquiry into Midlands Logistics UK Ltd in July 2018 where I found that that company was lending its licence to Sleeptherapy Beds Ltd and revoked its licence. Mr Wood should therefore have been aware of the risks and dangers of any association with Sleeptherapy Ltd, Slumberdream Ltd or any other company controlled by Sharez Hussain.

Mr Wood accepted that the three vehicles which had been on his licence between August 2019 and April 2021 had been owned, maintained and insured by Slumberdream. The drivers had been employed by Slumberdream. He stated that he had hired the vehicles from Slumberdream and had in turn invoiced Slumberdream for the work the vehicles carried out.

I noted that the invoices from Mr Wood to Slumberdream referred merely to “work carried out” and did not contain any further detail. The invoice amounts were always the same figure, £425 per week. Surely the amount invoiced would depend on mileage driven etc?

It then emerged that all the operational costs of the vehicles were being born by Slumberdream. For a period Mr Wood had paid for fuel with his fuel card, passing that expense directly through to Slumberdream. After Slumberdream had failed to pay some of those invoices, Mr Wood had insisted that it pay for fuel directly. This arrangement left Mr Wood with no operating costs at all. I asked what in that case he was invoicing Slumberdream for, and Mr Wood stated that it was for the management of the licence. My further inquiries elicited the information that this “management” consisted of speaking on the phone to “Geoff” at Slumberdream from time to time, at least until Geoff had died in January 2021. This was not management, either by operator or transport manager, as the world generally understands it.

Mr Wood provided the inquiry with hire agreements covering two of the vehicles. I noted that they were copies of standard vehicle rental agreements and bore no relation to the actual arrangements between Mr Wood and Slumberdream. For example, the agreements stated that insurance was the responsibility of the hirer (in this case, Mr Wood), whereas it was not in dispute that the vehicles had been operating under cover of Slumberdream’s insurance policy. Mr Wood accepted that he had not read the hire agreements. He also accepted that the arrangement with Slumberdream had gone on for “far too long”.

5. Findings

I find that there was no sense in which Mr Wood was the operator of the three vehicles in question (though I accept that he did control the other two vehicles which were on his licence). The work of the three vehicles (bed delivery) was assigned by Slumberdream, the operating cost of the vehicles was borne entirely by Slumberdream and the drivers were instructed and paid by Slumberdream. Mr Wood bore no financial risk from the operation of the vehicles: he simply collected £425 per week (less the supposed hire fee) for each vehicle for the “management” of the licence. I find that he has lent his licence to Slumberdream and thereby enabled that company and Sharez Hussain to continue their time-honoured practice of operating without a licence.

Lending a licence to a company whose licence has been revoked, thereby enabling that company to evade the consequences of the regulatory action taken by the traffic commissioner, is an extremely serious matter. Mr Wood, through his previous association with Midlands Logistics UK Ltd, should have known of the risks of being associated with any company with which Sharez Hussain was involved. Whether Mr Wood entered into an arrangement which he knew was illegal, or whether he was so naïve and incompetent that he failed to realise that the arrangements amounted to lending his licence, scarcely matters. Neither possibility reflects any credit on Mr Wood. I find that either through deliberate illegal action or through an unconscionable degree of ignorance and negligence, he has lost his good repute. His actions have enabled a long-standing rogue operator to continue to operate HGVs over a significant period of time.

6. Licence revocation

Having found that Mr Wood, as both operator and transport manager, has lost his good repute, revocation of the licence is mandatory under Section 27(1)(a) and (b) of the 1995 Act. Before I reached this conclusion I carried out a balancing act. On the positive side of the equation is the fact that Mr Wood has operated his own vehicles to a level of compliance which, while not perfect, would not otherwise have brought him to my attention. But the lending of a licence over a 20 month period to a known rogue operator far outweighs that positive element. Mr Wood deserves to go out of business.

7. Disqualifications

For the reasons outlined above, and having performed the same balancing act, I conclude that Mr Wood should be disqualified under Section 28 from holding a licence in the future. 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 (which this is). I have determined upon a disqualification period at the top end of this range - three years - to reflect the seriousness of Mr Wood’s conduct.

Having concluded that Mr Wood’s good repute is lost I must also disqualify him under paragraph 16 of Schedule 3 to the 1995 Act from being a transport manager on any licence. I am also disqualifying him from acting as a transport manager for a three year period.

8. Consequences for the application by Woody1991 Ltd

My disqualification of Mr Wood as transport manager means that he can no longer be nominated as such on the application for an operator’s licence made in December 2021 by Woody1991 Ltd. Mr Wood’s son is the director of this company and Wayne Wood was nominated as transport manager on the application. I am giving Woody1991 Ltd until 1 May 2022 to nominate a different transport manager. If an acceptable nomination has not been received by this date, the application will be refused under Section 13A(3)(a) of the 1995 Act – lack of transport manager with good repute. Whatever transpires, I reserve the right to call that application in to a public inquiry.

Nick Denton

Traffic Commissioner

18 March 2022