Written decision for Jays Transport Limited (OK1143792)
Published 20 November 2020
© Crown copyright 2020
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/written-decision-for-jays-transport-limited-ok1143792/written-decision-for-jays-transport-limited-ok1143792
In the South Eastern and Metropolitan Traffic Area.
Decision of the Deputy Traffic Commissioner.
Public Inquiry heard at Ivy House, Ivy Terrace, Eastbourne on 2 November 2020
1. Decision
Breach of Section 26(1) (c) (ca) and (f) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 found
Licence revoked with immediate effect pursuant to Section 26 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 on grounds of loss of repute
Jay Sandhu is disqualified from holding or obtaining an operator licence for a period of two years from the 2 November 2020 pursuant to Section 28 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995
Order made under Section 28(4) that if Jay Sandhu is a director of a company or a partner in a business that holds a licence, that licence shall be subject to revocation, suspension or curtailment.
Jay Sandhu’s repute as a transport manager is lost and he is disqualified for holding a post as a transport manager for an indefinite period.
2. Background
The operator Jays Transport Limited is the holder of a standard national licence authorising six vehicles granted on the 4 April 2016. The director of the company and transport manager is Jay Sandhu.
An investigation which was being carried out by the DVSA in relation to an operator Entyre Transport Limited identified links with this operator as an invalid tachograph driver’s card in the name Jay Sandhu had been used in one of their vehicles.
A request was sent to this operator for data on the 21 June 2019 and whilst not all the requested was sent, what was received identified an absence of downloading and analysis of drivers’ cards and vehicle unit data. Once the data was analysed a high number of offences being committed by drivers were revealed including the creation of false records by using cards belonging to others. One of the drivers Ramesh Kumar was prosecuted in the criminal courts for the offences he had committed and was also dealt with by me at a concurrent driver conduct hearing.
As a result of all these issues the operator was called to public inquiry. Prior to the inquiry the operator contacted the Office of the Traffic Commissioner to say that he wished to surrender the licence but was told that this would not be allowed in advance of the hearing and that he should attend.
3. The Public Inquiry
Mr Sandhu attended the inquiry and was unrepresented.
3.1 Evidence
Traffic Examiner Clarke had submitted a report for the inquiry, and this provided the full details of the failings of the operator and of Mr Sandhu as transport manager.
Mr Sandhu told me that he no longer had any vehicles and had given up his business. He claimed this was a result of pressure from the operator Entyre Transport who had persuaded his drivers to leave him and had caused damage to his vehicles. He said that Gurdial Athwal from that company had taken his driver card and used it and this was not to his knowledge, He said that he had struggled to obtain his CPS qualification as a transport manager and he asked to be able to retain this as an option going forward.
4. Findings and Decision
As Mr Sandhu wishes to surrender his licence my decision is limited to whether a revocation is the more appropriate course and whether he has lost his repute as a transport manager. I have no hesitation in deciding that this is case where revocation of the licence is the appropriate course of action on grounds that the operator has lost repute. There have been breaches of Sections 26 (1) (c) (ca) and (f) of the Goods Vehicles Act, 1995 and if this licence were to continue I would not be able to trust Mr Sandhu to be compliant in the future. He has shown almost complete disregard for the compliance requirements and there are no redeeming features that can be found.
I have concluded as a result of the above findings that this operator deserves to be put out of business and I order revocation of the licence under Section 26 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 with immediate effect on grounds of loss of repute I also order a disqualification against Mr Sandhu from holding or obtaining a licence for a period of two years. If he were to be a director of a company that holds an operator licence that licence would be subject to revocation, suspension, or curtailment.
In relation to his transport manager qualification I find loss of repute and order disqualification for an indefinite period. If Mr Sandhu ever considers applying for the disqualification to be lifted, he will need to demonstrate improvements in knowledge, maturity.
John Baker
Deputy Traffic Commissioner
5 November 2020