Decision

Decision for World of Solar Ltd

Published 4 July 2024

0.1 IN THE SOUTH EASTERN & METROPOLITAN TRAFFIC AREA

1. WORLD OF SOLAR LTD (OK2066241)

1.1 GOODS VEHICLES (LICENSING OF OPERATORS) ACT 1995

2. TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER’S WRITTEN CONFIRMATION OF AN ORAL DECISION ON 18 JUNE 2024

3. Preliminary points.

There is clear and consistent case law from the Upper Tribunal that a Traffic Commissioner is entitled to treat the conduct of the Sole Director effectively as the conduct of the Limited Company and repute or fitness is determined accordingly. Such an approach has received approval from the appellate tribunal on a number of occasions, such as 2013/008 Vision Travel International Limited and T2013/61 Alan Michael Knight. Further every director has a statutory duty under sections 173 and 174 of Companies Act 2006 to exercise independent judgement, reasonable skill, care and diligence.

Mr Daniel John Grant, the sole director, is aware that in the absence of a formal adjournment request in advance or his attendance before the Tribunal, the case would proceed in absence I proceeded to hear the case without the Operator present on 18 June 2024. I heard oral evidence from Vehicle Examiner Collins and Traffic Examiner Rowlands and then gave an ex-tempore decision. Below is a written confirmation of that decision.

4. Reasons

My overarching concern is that World of Solar Ltd obtained an Operator Licence on the 27 July 2023 without ensuring that the sole director Mr Grant (and those assisting him) had sufficient knowledge and suitable systems in place. It could therefore be said that what followed was not surprising, but it is unacceptable and disappointing. The full failings are clearly set out in the cogent and detailed reports of the Vehicle Examiner and Traffic Examiner. In particular, I list several areas of concern which are by way of example:

• A failure to cooperate with the DVSA Traffic Examiner over a sustained period.

• A failure to attend 4 New Operator Seminars, despite specifically confirming on one occasion to the Traffic Examiner that both Mr Grant and Mr Crossland would attend.

• A blurring of lines between World of Solar Ltd and No.1 Scaffolding Solutions Ltd (‘No.1’), as evidenced by the encounter on the 6 December 2023 where I find that the driver and vehicle were engaged by No.1 because I prefer the evidence of the driver in the interview under caution than the vague and conflicting accounts by the Operator. This arrangement was not capable of being resolved in terms of any cross accounting in the background because this is a Restricted Operator Licence. I conclude that there was licence lending and that is unlawful operation.

• The vehicle on the 6 December 2023 was overloaded, had no vehicle excise duty paid, no MOT and no valid insurance and where the vehicle was significantly unroadworthy with several prohibitions issued. That should not happen with any company vehicle whether it is a car, a small van or a large van let alone an in-scope vehicle. This Operator should have had rigorous systems in place, even for their small vehicles. This did not need any knowledge of Operator Licensing and it is not new. There must always be a safe systems of work - the Health and Safety at Work Act is enjoying its 50th Anniversary this year.

There is a further failure to co-operate with DVSA in terms of ignoring two requests for desk-based assessments and therefore requiring ‘in person’ follow up Examiner resource. The Vehicle Examiner’s report speaks for itself - no effective safety systems in place. We also have unauthorised use of an operating centre which is not only a breach of a condition on the Licence but also a criminal offence, as per section 7(2) of the 1995 Act.

In terms of positives, there are few. Mr Grant did attend an interview with the Traffic Examiner but sought time to answer most questions subsequently. The written replies under caution had to be chased and were vague. There was a detailed response to the Vehicle Examiner’s MIVR but it has failed to submit any records or information for this Inquiry as set out in the Case Management Directions to see whether those assurances were followed through. No.1 Scaffolding Solutions Ltd did make an application for an Operator Licence but then failed to submit any supporting documents, not even an advert or finances. Then the two follow up letters setting out in detail what else was needed were ignored. It follows that application was refused.

A surrender application was received after the Operator received the call-in letter and hearing bundle.  At face value might suggest some engagement with this Inquiry process but it was not signed by the Director. Even if it had been signed by the Director, I would have refused it until all the evidence is heard because of the seriousness of the issues. After hearing and reading the evidence, on balance I find that the surrender request is an attempt to avoid regulatory action (in line with STC Statutory Document No. 10 Annex 4) after a long list of failures. Accordingly, I have reached the decision set out in paragraph 1.

This Operator obtained a Licence based on a false declaration. An Operator signs the GV79 to say that they know what they are doing at that point that signature is added, whether it is a wet signature or a digital signature. The Director promises they will ensure that all of the laws relating to the driving and operating of vehicles will be observed. What DVSA found on the 6 December 2023 and in follow up (to the extent that there was any cooperation from the Operator) was that each and every undertaking on the Licence had been breached. This Operator has posed a significant risk to road safety and undermined the important principle of fair competition. Operator Licensing is to ensure level playing field whereby other Operators are not tempted to put commercial need ahead of safety. Regrettably what this Operator has done is put commercial need first. Whilst this is the Operator’s first Public Inquiry that is not a barrier to revocation in a serious case and this is such a case. In my judgment revocation is the only fair and appropriate outcome. Accordingly, I have reached the decision set out in paragraph 2 above.

I have stopped short of a Section 28 disqualification direction in terms of the Operator, Daniel Grant and indeed Mr Crossland who might be deemed as a ‘de facto’ director in terms of his engagement. If Mr Grant or Mr Crossland apply in any guise to be involved in Operator Licensing, whether to hold or obtain a licence or to be involved in the management, administration or control of a licence, that must be referred to a Traffic Commissioner or Deputy Traffic Commissioner. There is no purported delegated authority for dealing with either gentlemen, World of Solar Ltd or No.1 Scaffolding Solutions Ltd. The warning here is that if Mr Grant wants to be involved in a business that holds or needs an Operator Licence again, he will personally have to become engaged; he cannot simply leave this to others. The commercial vehicle industry is highly regulated, and the conditions and undertakings are the same whether a Standard or Restricted Licence.

Miss Sarah Bell

Traffic Commissioner

Written confirmation: 20 June 2024