Decision

Written decision for Mobile Crane Services Limited (OC2026487)

Published 25 November 2020

Redacted decision of the Traffic Commissioner for the North West of England.

In the matter of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (“the Act”).

Public Inquiry held at Golborne on 16 November 2020.

1. Decision

On findings in accordance with sections 26(1)(e), 26(1)(f), 26(1)(h), 27(1)(a) and section 28 of the Act.

1. The operator’s licence of Mobile Crane Services Limited OC2026487 is revoked with immediate effect.

2. The repute of Mobile Crane Services Limited and its sole director Jamie Shawcross is lost. Mobile Crane Services Limited and Jamie Shawcross are disqualified from holding or applying for a goods vehicle operator’s licence in Great Britain and Northern Ireland until 16 November 2022.

2. Introduction

Mobile Crane Services Limited holds a standard national goods vehicle licence authorising the use of one vehicle. Its sole director is Jamie Shawcross.

The operator requested a public inquiry after being served with a “propose to revoke” letter following apparent failures to fulfil undertakings and a statement of intent.

The hearing was originally listed on 13 October 2020 but was adjourned as Mr Shawcross did not attend in person due to [REDACTED]. I made a decision to suspend the licence pending the resumed hearing date to ensure that Mr Shawcross attended.

The hearing resumed on 16 November 2020. Mr Shawcross was present with David Stopford who was described as the operations director of Mobile Crane Services Limited. I heard evidence from both. I directed at the conclusion of the hearing that the suspension was to remain in force until further order and notification of this, my final decision.

3. Background

The licence was granted following a public inquiry on 6 January 2020 heard by Deputy Traffic Commissioner Mrs Salt.

The application had been called in for public inquiry as Mr Shawcross had previously been the sole director of Evalift Limited which previously held a standard operator’s licence OC2007729.

The Evalift licence was issued in November 2017 but in April 2018 its transport manager resigned. The operator failed to nominate a replacement and was notified of a proposal to revoke as it lacked professional competence.

Mr Shawcross on behalf of Evalift Limited requested a public inquiry which was heard on 7 November 2018. At that hearing Mr Shawcross gave undertakings to provide evidence of financial standing and to commission an audit report. Evidence of both undertakings was to be submitted to the office of the Traffic Commissioner by 15 May 2019. The operator did not fulfil either undertaking. A further propose to revoke letter was issued. There was no further response, and the Evalift Limited licence was revoked on 8 July 2019.

It later transpired that Evalift Limited had entered administration on 12 July 2019.

The Evalift business was sold to Mobile Crane Services Limited as part of a “pre-pack” arrangement. The price agreed was £[REDACTED]. The most recent administrators report dated 20 August 2020 noted that a balance of £[REDACTED] remained outstanding from Mobile Crane Services Limited in relation to this purchase.

Mobile Crane Services Limited had been incorporated on 28 June 2019 with Mr Shawcross as its sole director. The application for an operator’s licence was submitted in September 2019.

David Stopford was added as a director of the company on Companies House on 7 October 2019. This appointment was never recorded on the vehicle operator licencing system (VOL).

At the public inquiry on 6 January 2020, the Deputy Traffic Commissioner (DTC) decided that the licence could be granted having heard from both directors and their proposed transport manager Andrew Farrimond.

The DTC noted amongst her reasons:

1. “Mr Shawcross has learned lessons from his previous experience as a licensed operator which will help ensure future compliance.
2. The applicant is better placed than the predecessor company in terms of personnel by the addition of another director who will focus on compliance and the recruitment of an experienced transport manager.
3. The applicant has limited the application to 1 vehicle in recognition of the need to rebuild trust with the traffic commissioner.
4. The applicant’s likely future compliance is strengthened by the addition of Mr. Farrimond and his extensive experience and clean regulatory record.
5. The offer of undertakings to commission independent audits.
6. The systems proposed by Mr. Farrimond to ensure compliance with standard undertakings.”

A formal warning was recorded to reflect the concerns arising from the regulatory listing of the predecessor company (Evalift) of which Mr. Shawcross was sole director.

The operator also offered an undertaking to arrange independent audits as follows:

• For February, March, and April 2020 to be provided by 15 May 2020.
• For May, June, and July 2020 to be provided by 15 August 2020.
• For August 2020 to July 2021 to be provided by 15 August 2021.

There was also an undertaking recorded to provided financial evidence for the months of April, May, and June 2020 by 15 July 2020.

Finally a statement of intent was recorded for both directors to attend Operator Licensing Awareness Training courses (OLAT); one in January 2020 and one in February 2020 with proof of attendance to be submitted to the Office of the Traffic Commissioner by 15 March 2020.

Mr Stopford subsequently provided evidence that he had attended a transport manager refresher course on 25 January 2020.

In April 2020, the transport manager Andrew Farrimond requested an extension of time for Mr Shawcross to attend his OLAT course. He also explained that the audit had been delayed by the pandemic and asked for an extension in that regard.

On 14 April 2020 at my direction the operator was sent a letter confirming that the undertaking to provide the first audit report by 15 May 20202 would be set aside but the next audit due by 15 August 2020 would still be required. The operator was asked to provide further details to explain why Mr Shawcross had not attended an OLAT course before a decision could be made in extending the period for that statement of intent to be fulfilled. The letter also reminded the operator of the need to record Mr Stopford as a director on VOL.

On 8 May 2020 Mr Stopford was removed as a director of the company on Companies House records. This change was not notified to my office.

Despite reminders, a response was not received to that request for further information. On 3 June 2020 a “propose to revoke” letter was sent in relation to the OLAT course issue. A further reminder was sent on 7 July 2020 which also highlighted the need to submit financial evidence by 15 July 2020.

On 7 July 2020 an email was received from David Stopford explaining he had just returned to work after being on furlough. He explained that Mr Shawcross had courses booked but they had not gone ahead because of the pandemic. He promised to address the outstanding matters.

On the same day, an email was received by my office from the transport manager Andrew Farrimond advising of his immediate resignation. He said this was due to the “continued lack of compliance from Jamie Shawcross”.

On 14 July 2020 Mr Stopford submitted Santander bank statements in the name of “Jamie Shawcross” for the period April to June 2020. This showed an average available amount of £[REDACTED].

Information was subsequently provided by Mr Stopford that Mr Shawcross was booked to attend an OLAT course in August 2020 but that was postponed by the course provider to September 2020. Mr Shawcross did not attend the September dates as [REDACTED].

The operator also nominated [REDACTED] as an alternative transport manager ([REDACTED] was invited to the hearing today but choose not to attend in person as he did not want to travel form his home in Lincolnshire due to the current restrictions. An offer was made for him to appear by video-link but that was not taken up).

The public inquiry was originally listed on 8 October 2020 but was postponed after Mr Stopford advised my office the previous day that Mr Shawcross had [REDACTED]. The case was re-listed for 13 October 2020. Mr Shawcross failed to attend but Mr Stopford was present. He explained that although [REDACTED]. Mr Stopford explained that the operator’s sole vehicle NG11 UGR was off road as its MoT certificate had expired on 31 August 2020. Mr Stopford said it had not been booked in for a MoT on 2 November 2020.

I therefore agreed to adjourn the public inquiry but decided that it was necessary to suspend the licence to ensure Mr Shawcross attended the resumed hearing. I directed that had immediate effect as the sole vehicle could not be operated in any event.

Prior to the hearing I received evidence of Automatic Numberplate Recording (ANPR) from the DVSA. This confirmed that the vehicle [REDACTED] was seen on 45 occasions on 7 separate days between 1 September 2020 and 6 October 2020. This evidence was served on the operator on 3 November 2020.

I subsequently also received evidence of ANPR checks for the period since 6 October 2020. This confirmed that the only sightings were on dates which correspond with the dates of the Mot Tests.

4. Evidence

At the outset of the hearing, Mr Shawcross volunteered that he had no involvement in the management of the transport operation. Although he accepted he was the owner of the company and its sole director, he said he entrusted responsibility for all matters relating to the licence to Mr Stopford although he accepted the latter was not a qualified Transport Manager. Mr Shawcross said explicitly that he took no role whatsoever in the management of the licence.

I asked why Mr Stopford had briefly been appointed as a director. Mr Shawcross said this was intended as a development of the business. Mr Stopford had then been removed from Companies House after a new lender required all directors to provide personal guarantees which Mr Stopford was not willing to give. Mr Shawcross denied that Mr Stopford had been appointed solely to bolster the application for a licence and removed when that purpose was achieved.

Turning to the financial evidence, Mr Shawcross said the bank statements related to the company’s bank account but he could not explain why the bank persisted in sending them bearing only his name, or that of “Contract Lift” a trading name.

I indicated I was willing to give the company the benefit of the doubt to accept the statements as evidence as there had been some correspondence at the application stage which confirmed the account was held by Mobile Crane Services Limited. However the average available amount shown by the statements over 3 months was only £[REDACTED].

Mr Shawcross was asked about transactions in the statements with “Mobile Crane Services Limited” and he said the company had a second savings account. He checked the current balance of that on his mobile phone during the hearing and said it stood at 6 pence today.

Mr Shawcross admitted the operator fell well short of the financial standing amount required of £8,000. He referred repeatedly to the difficult trading conditions in 2020 and uttered his hope that matters would improve. I was not asked to consider any other financial evidence.

I then asked about the resignation of Mr Farrimond as transport manager. Mr Shawcross accepted that Mr Farrimond’s reference to a “continued lack of compliance” by him was correct. He explained he had little or no contact with Mr Farrimond as he left the management of the licence to Mr Stopford.

Mr Stopford said he had contact with Mr Farrimond 3 or 4 times since the licence was granted and he was surprised to learn of his resignation on returning from furlough. Mr Stopford believed that he had always tried to cooperate with Mr Farrimond.

I then raised the failure to fulfil the audit undertakings. Mr Shawcross claimed to be unaware of that requirement despite it having been agreed by the operator at the public inquiry which he attended in January 2020. Mr Stopford also claimed to be unaware, but I pointed out that the operator had requested an extension in April 2020, so they clearly had some awareness of the requirement.

Mr Shawcross said the requirement must Have been missed and repeated that his priority was getting surveys and other work completed to “get the business in”.

In relation to the statement of intent to attend an OLAT, Mr Shawcross initially claimed that the pandemic had prevented him attending. I pointed out the initial date for attendance was in February 2020 which was well before the pandemic restrictions. I also asked him to explain why he had failed to arrange a course in the intervening 9 months. Mr Shawcross said he did have courses booked but important business meetings would have to take priority. He also believed that Mr Stopford was responsible running the operator’s licence, implying he did not consider attendance at an OLAT was necessary for himself.

Asked about the ANPR evidence, the operator claimed not to have received the evidence in advance with Mr Stopford explaining he had been away for the last 2 weeks so could not say if post had arrived which he had not seen. Both Mr Stopford and Mr Shawcross claimed to be entirely unaware of the vehicle being used in September 2020. When I asked where the keys were kept, Mr Shawcross said they were kept in the vehicle but only 2 or 3 people knew that.

I invited Mr Shawcross to comment on similarities between the issues with the Mobile Crane Services Limited and the issue which led to the revocation of the Evalift licence. Mr Shawcross claimed that the Evalift licence was revoked as the company had gone into administration and had ceased to trade sometime prior to that. I explained that was not the reason for the revocation; that was due to the failure to fulfil undertakings. Mr Shawcross could not explain why that had not happened.

At the conclusion of the hearing, I invited Mr Shawcross to make representations why the licence should not be revoked and why the operator and Mr Shawcross should not be disqualified from holding an operator’s licence.

Mr Shawcross referred to the challenging trading conditions encountered in 2020 which had put the operator’s survival at risk. He confirmed the company employed 11 people. They had continued to trade since the suspension of the licence by sub-contracting to external operators but that was not a viable business proposition in the long term.

Mr Shawcross promised that if the licence was allowed to continue he would book an audit immediately and would arrange to go on an OLAT course. He argued he now had a decent transport manager behind him and wanted to do better. He asked for 3 months to prove he could comply.

5. Consideration

I find the operator lacks financial standing. The average amount over the most recent three months evidence provided is £[REDACTED]. This figure represents a small change on the figures provided earlier in the year. The operator has not provided me with any tangible evidence or detailed plans on how and by when it expects to achieve the financial standing required beyond mere aspiration.

Although an express request for a period of grace has not been submitted, I have applied the guidance of the Upper Tribunal in Duncan McKee 2014/018. In the absence of any supporting evidence, I do not consider there are reasonable prospects of a good outcome were I to grant a period of grace.

The lack of financial standing therefore engages the ground for revocation in section 27(1)(a) of the Act.

The departure of Mr Farrimond as transport manager gives rise to considerable concern about the operator’s good repute. It is clear that Mr Farrimond’s appointment was a central finding in the DTC’s decision to grant the operator with a licence. Mr Shawcross conceded that Mr Farrimond correctly described his resignation as a result of a continued lack of compliance by Mr Shawcross. It is very troubling that Mr Shawcross was not able to retain the services of Mr Farrimond who appears to have acted conscientiously and responsibly by resigning.

I make no finding in relation to the proposed transport manager [REDACTED] in view of my decision on other aspects of the licence.

The statement of expectation made at the public inquiry that Mr Shawcross would attend an OLAT course has not been fulfilled. Although there was a partial fulfilment in that the other director at grant (Mr Stopford did attend as required), its value is diminished by his removal as director so soon thereafter. Mr Shawcross is clearly the person who would have benefited most from attending and he has not done so. I accept the challenges posed by the pandemic, but the original deadline was well before any Covid restrictions. If Mr Shawcross had the will to attend an OLAT he could easily have done so before the public inquiry. His failure to do so indicates his lack of responsibility towards his obligations as director of a licence holder. I find this failure engages the ground for revocation in Section 26(1)(e).

The audit undertaking has not been fulfilled. Although a request was made to extend the initial deadline, no further attempt was made to manage that requirement. Indeed from Mr Shawcross’ evidence today, it appeared he was unsure as to what an audit actually involved. I find this failure engages the ground for revocation in Section 26(1)(f).

No explanation was forthcoming for the failure to record Mr Stopford’s appointment as director on VOL or to inform the Traffic Commissioner of Mr Stopford’s removal as a director. This is a failure to notify a material change in the circumstances of the licence holder and engages the ground for revocation in Section 26(1)(h).

Whilst I am satisfied that a vehicle was not operated after I made the direction to suspend the licence, on the balance of probabilities I find that the vehicle was operated and used on public roads on several occasions during September 2020 when it did not have a valid MoT in force. At worst this was with the knowledge of Mr Shawcross and Mr Stopford. At best, even if that use was without their knowledge, it raises significant concerns about their competent management of the vehicle and its security. This is a further matter that goes to repute.

The maters above all culminate in an irresistible finding that the operator and Mr Shawcross have lost their good repute for the purposes of section 27(1)(a) of the Act. As the sole director and owner of the company, it is wholly unacceptable for Mr Shawcross to not only assert that he has no involvement whatsoever in the management of its operator’s licence but also to compound that by giving every indication that he did not know that assertion was unacceptable.

I have considered the guidance in the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document Number 10 and consider the failings of this operator to fall into the category of “severe”.

There is little evidence of any positive features. On the other hand there are several negative features in particular the lack of effective management control as evidence by the use of the vehicle on a road whilst untested. This can only be seen as a tangible consequence of Mr Shawcross failing to take proper responsibility for the licence; an issue that he may well have avoided had he fulfilled the statement of intent to attend the OLAT.

The operator has also derived a commercial advantage by being allowed to continue operating when it clearly lacks the financial standing required.

All of these matters are compounded by the fact that the issue mirror closely the issues which arose in relation to the Evalift licence which was also solely controlled by Mr Shawcross. This is the third public inquiry that he has attended in two years and I do not accept that he has learnt any lessons from his previous experience.

I have asked myself the question posed in Priority Freight 2009/225 namely, how likely is it that this operator will, in future, operate in compliance with the operator’s licensing regime?”. The matters detailed above can only lead to the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely.

I have then gone on to consider the question posed in Bryan Haulage (No. 2) (2002/217), “is the conduct such that the operator ought to be put out of business?”. I answer that question in the affirmative.

This is a licence which was only granted because of assurances that the issues which arose on the Evalift licence would not be repeated in Mr Shawcross’s new company. However within the weeks the promises he made at the public inquiry proved to be hollow and the similar issues with failing to fulfil undertakings and comply more widely have arisen yet again.

For that reason I determine that the licence must be revoked. I direct that this is with immediate effect as the licence has been suspended in any event since 16 October 2020.

I also consider it is proportionate to disqualify both Mobile Crane Services Limited and Jamie Shawcross in person from holding or obtaining an operator’s licence for a period of two years.

Gerallt Evans

Traffic Commissioner for the North West of England

17 November 2020