Decision

Decision for VRS Logistics Ltd

Published 9 October 2020

In the West Midlands Traffic Area.

Decision of the Traffic Commissioner.

Virtual Public Inquiry held in Birmingham on 1 October 2020.

Applicant: VRS Logistics Ltd.

1. Decision

The application for a standard international goods vehicle operator’s licence made by VRS Logistics Ltd is refused, pursuant to Section 13A(2) and 13C of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (“the 1995 Act”).

2. Background

2.1 Application

On 21 January 2020 VRS Logistics Ltd (“VRS”) applied for a standard international goods vehicles operator’s licence for ten vehicles. The director of the company on the date of application was David Peter Hall. The contact name given for correspondence was Ben Shepherd, who had recently resigned as a director of the company on 11 January 2020. Mr Shepherd was also the director of Envirotrans (UK) Ltd (“Envirotrans”), a company which held an operator’s licence for ten vehicles at the same operating centres which VRS Logistics Ltd proposed to use.

Around the same time, we received a communication from the nominated transport manager of Envirotrans, saying that he had never taken up his position there and had ceased his involvement with the company as it was going into liquidation and would be surrendering its licence. The licence was eventually surrendered (after prompting by the central licensing office in Leeds (CLO)) on 30 May 2020.

The bank statement provided by VRS in support of its application showed that the entirety of its funds had come from Envirotrans. Questioned by CLO, VRS produced an undated loan agreement under which Envirotrans had loaned VRS the sum of £50,000. Email correspondence relating to this issue was received from the email address of Ben Shepherd.

I was concerned that the application by VRS might be a phoenix, carrying on exactly the same business as Envirotrans but free from the latter’s creditors. I was also concerned how Envirotrans, which by now was the subject of a winding up order initiated by its creditors, had been able to make a large loan to another company. I therefore decided to consider the application at a public inquiry.

2.2 Public inquiry

The inquiry was delayed by the Covid-19 crisis. The call-up letter was eventually issued on 20 August 2020, with the inquiry to take place by video conference on 1 October. The call-up letter asked for up-to-date evidence of finances, evidence as to how the VRS’s transport requirements had been met until now, and details of the proposed maintenance arrangements and drivers’ hours monitoring system.

Nothing was received from the company, nor did anyone attend the inquiry. Attempts by my clerk in the days preceding the inquiry to reach the company on the phone number provided on the application form proved fruitless. Calls were answered by an automatic message saying that the phone was switched off.

In preparing for the inquiry, I noted that Companies House records showed that it had been notified on 15 September 2020 that David Peter Hall had been replaced as director by Brenton Miller on 14 February 2020, more than seven months previously.

2.3 Findings

In the absence of the applicant I proceeded to reach findings and make a determination on the basis of the evidence available.

There is clear evidence that this is a phoenix application, intended to sidestep the creditors of Envirotrans (UK) Ltd. The operating centres, maintenance provider and number of vehicles applied for by VRS are the same as those on the Envirotrans (UK) Ltd licence. The two companies had the same registered address. Envirotrans director Ben Shepherd was the only correspondent named on the VRS application.

The conduct of Mr Shepherd, in making a large loan from one of his companies (which he must have known was about to enter liquidation) to another, is highly questionable, not to say bordering on the illegal and immoral. It is not that of a person of good repute.

There is no evidence that, today, VRS has the financial standing necessary to obtain a standard licence for ten vehicles.

I have serious doubts that VRS is of good repute. It failed to inform Companies House of a change of director for seven months. It has completely failed to engage with the public inquiry process. It has not provided any information about how it intends to oversee drivers’ hours or vehicle maintenance.

3. Conclusion

Given the above findings, I have no option but to refuse the application on grounds of lack of financial standing and good repute (Section 13A(2) of the 1995 Act refers). I am also refusing it under Section 13C, as I cannot be satisfied that suitable arrangements exist to ensure the observance of drivers’ hours rules, to ensure that vehicles are fit and serviceable and to prevent overloading.

Nicholas Denton

Traffic Commissioner

1 October 2020