Decision for A Johnstone Ltd (OM2052623)

Written decision of the Deputy Traffic Commissioners decision for A Johnstone Ltd, transport manager Ian McKnight Gibson, driver Alexander Johnstone and driver Keiran Hyslop

• From: Traffic Commissioners for Great Britain
• Published: 4 March 2026

• Subject: Driver conduct, HGV operator and Transport manager
• Region: Scotland
• Case type: Regulatory
• Regulatory decision: Licence holder disqualified, Licence revoked, Loss of repute and Transport manager disqualified
• Published: 26 February 2026

IN THE SCOTTISH TRAFFIC AREA

A JOHNSTONE LTD – OM2052623

IAN MCKNIGHT GIBSON – TRANSPORT MANAGER 

ALEXANDER JOHNSTONE – DRIVER

KEIRAN HYSLOP – DRIVER

DECISION OF THE DEPUTY TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER

Decision

A Johnstone Ltd is no longer of good repute in terms of 13A(2)(b) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 and accordingly the Operator’s Licence will be revoked in terms of section 27 of the 1995 Act with effect from 00:00 14th March 2026.

The Operator and Alexander Johnstone will be disqualified from holding an operator’s licence in terms of section 28(1) of the 1995 Act for an indefinite period. I also direct in terms of section 28(4) that should the Operator or Alexander Johnstone become the director of, or hold a controlling interest in a company that holds an operator’s licence, or of a company of which such a company is a subsidiary, or operates any goods vehicles in partnership with a person who holds such a licence, the licence of that company or that person shall be liable to revocation, curtailment or suspension under section 26 of the 1995 Act. The disqualifications will take effect from 00:00 14th March 2026

Ian McKnight Gibson has lost his repute as a transport manager in terms of paragraph 16 of Schedule 3 of the 1995 Act. Mr Gibson is disqualified from acting as a transport manager for an indefinite period from 00:00 14th March 2026.

Keiran Hyslop, driver, was issued with a warning.

Alexander Johnstone is not fit to hold a Large Goods Vehicle driver’s licence in terms of s.115(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. His LGV licence is revoked and he is disqualified from holding a LGV licence for three years in terms of s.117(2)(a). The revocation and disqualification will take effect from 00:00 4th April 2026.

Background

On 15 February 2022 the operator applied for Goods Vehicle Standard National licence OM2052623. On 06 May 2022 a time limited interim licence was granted with the following condition: “The Traffic Commissioner has considered your application for a Standard National Goods Vehicle Operator’s License and has determined to grant a time-limited interim of up to 3 months, subject to your agreement that your nominated transport manager, Ian McKnight Gibson attend a two-day transport manager CPC refresher course.”
Mr Gibson attended the course and on 06 July 2022 the licence was granted in full.

On 25 April 2025 Mr Johnstone removed Mr Gibson as Transport Manager from the licence. On 26 April 2025 a letter was issued to the Operator stating that a Transport Manager must be specified or a Period of Grace granted by 17 May 2025 or the Traffic Commissioner would consider revoking the licence. On 28 April 2025 a Surrender request was received from the Operator. On 22 May 2025 the surrender request was refused and the licence was suspended from 23:59 on 23 May 2025.

The call to public inquiry and conjoined driver conduct hearings

The Operator was called to public inquiry by letter dated 6 November 2025. The issues of concern identified in the call up letter included:-

• a vehicle had been issued with a prohibition notice by DVSA – s.26(1)(c)(iii) of the Goods Vehicle (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995.
• An unauthorised place may have been used as an operating centre - s.26(1)(ca)
• Statements made when applying for the licence appeared not to have been fulfilled – s.26(1)(e):-
• that  vehicles would be inspected at the 6 week intervals;
• that Mr Ian Gibson would be the Transport Manager responsible for vehicles on licence;
• that the operator had not notified the traffic commissioner within 28 days of any convictions incurred by the licence holder or its employees, of any changes to the maintenance arrangements, or of any changes in financial status that might affect the licence;
• that vehicles had not normally be kept (when not in use) at the operating centre(s) at A.G.Johnstone Ltd, Fountain Way, Blackparks Industrial Estate, Stranraer, DG9 7UD;
• that safety inspections and/or maintenance and repair work had not been carried out by Hamilton Motor Engineer, Workshop, Fountain Way, Stranraer;
• That the operator may not have honoured the undertakings it signed up to when it applied for the licence – s.26(1)(f), namely,
• that vehicles and trailers would be kept fit and serviceable;
• that it would operate vehicles within the speed limits;
• that it would observe the rules on drivers hours and tachographs and keep proper records;
• that it would keep records for 15 months of driver defect reports, safety inspections and routine maintenance and make them available on request;
• that drivers would report promptly any defects or symptoms of defects that could prevent the safe operation of vehicles and/or trailers, and that any defects would be promptly recorded in writing.
• That the operator appeared to no longer be of appropriate financial standing to hold an operator’s licence for the number of vehicles authorised – s.27(1)(a).
• That the operator did not have a transport manager – s.27(1)(b).

Ian Gibson, as a former transport manager was called to public inquiry by letter dated 6 November 2025. The issue of concern was whether or not Mr Gibson continued to meet the requirement to be of good repute – Schedule 3 of the 1995 Act.

Alexander Johnstone, the sole director and shareholder of the Operator, was called to a conjoined driver conduct hearing by letter dated 25 November 2025. The issues of concern were that he appeared to have driven without a card, to have used driver cards belonging to other drivers and to have committed numerous driver’s hours offences.

Keiran Hyslop, driver, was called to a conjoined driver conduct hearing by letter dated 25 November 2025. The issues of concern were (1) a speeding conviction in a car on 5 November 2024 and (2) Mr Hyslop had left his driver card in a vehicle which had allowed Mr Johnstone to take advantage of that error and to misuse Mr Hyslop’s card.

The Public Inquiry

Alexander Johnstone, sole director of, and sole shareholder of, the operator appeared on behalf of the operator and on his own behalf as a driver.

Keiran Hyslop, driver, attended, represented by Mr Neil Kelly, solicitor.

Traffic Examiner Barry Wardrop attended.

Ian Gibson, transport manager, did not attend the Public Inquiry. I am satisfied that Mr Gibson did have proper notice of the Public Inquiry. There is a proof of delivery of the call up letter dated 8 November 2025.  Mr Gibson confirmed to this office by email dated 9 December 2025 that he did intend attending the Public Inquiry. There has not been any communication from Mr Gibson since the email.

Keiran Hyslop’s Driver Conduct Hearing

Mr Hyslop admitted that he had been speeding in his car. He explained that he had not known that he had left his card in the vehicle. He did not know that Mr Johnstone had Mr Hyslop’s card. He had thought that he had lost his card and he applied for a replacement card.  I accepted Mr Hyslop’s evidence. I dealt with Mr Hyslop by issuing warnings at the conclusion of the DCH (first) that as a professional driver I trusted him to stick to speed limits even when driving his car, and (second) he needed to take better care to keep his driver card securely under his control.

The Public Inquiry and conjoined Driver Conduct Hearing for Alexander Johnstone

Mr Johnstone accepted that the Operator did not meet the requirement for financial standing. The Operator had stopped trading in May 2025 and Mr Johnstone had been working for other operators as a driver.
Mr Johnstone did not dispute the DVSA evidence as set out in TE Wardrop’s Public Inquiry Report and productions. He said that he had known from the moment that he had admitted using cards belonging to Mr Hyslop, Mr Shaun Garrett and Mr Callum Hastie that his operator’s licence was at an end. He had held up his hands to what he had done. The business had been sub-contracted haulage. He would collect loaded trailers from Cairnryan, take them to England and then get a backload back to Cairnryan. He had been under financial pressure to complete these journeys as quickly as possible so he could pick up new loads from Cairnryan. He explained that his vehicles had been inspected regularly and properly maintained, however he had a dispute with the maintenance provider so he did not have records of the inspections and maintenance. Mr Gibson, the nominated transport manager, had not been doing anything for him. The initial arrangement was that Mr Gibson would act as transport manager for free. He knew now that was unacceptable. He needed to get an office for Mr Gibson to use but that had not been possible and as a result Mr Gibson had not been able to fulfil his duties because he could not get access to records. Vehicle units and driver cards were being downloaded and sent off for analysis by a commercial provider but he was not getting proper reports back. Although he had been operating for 3 years without adequate systems in place this had been because of ignorance. Vehicles had been maintained in a safe and roadworthy condition. Mr Johnstone explained that to begin with business had been going OK but then things started to go downhill. The mileage rate for loads went down and the number of miles went down as well. Mr Johnstone had buried his head in the sand. Mr Johnstone said that Mr Gibson had resigned as transport manager December 2024. Mr Johnstone had removed Mr Gibson from the licence on 25 April 2025. A loss of transport manager letter had been issued on 26 April 2025. On 28 April 2025 Mr Johnstone had applied to surrender the licence. Mr Johnstone explained that he had done so because he knew that he was going to lose the operator’s licence. He knew that he was going to lose his large goods vehicle driver’s licence as well. He had not operated vehicles since the beginning of May 2025. He had been working as a LGV driver.

So far as the DVSA investigation was concerned, Mr Johnstone accepted that on Tuesday 4th March 2025 a vehicle driven by Mr Johnstone was brought into the DVSA check site at Beattock. The tachograph was downloaded and the data revealed that he had been the main driver, however there appeared to be other drivers as well. The recordings showed some quick driver card changeovers which suggested to TE Wardrop that a driver had been using 2 driver cards. Mr Johnstone admitted to the police, in TE Wardrop’s presence, that he had used the driver cards of 2 individual’s, their names being Mr Kieran Hyslop and Mr Shaun Garrett.

TE Wardrop interviewed Mr Johnstone, as the sole director and a driver, on 4 August 2024. Mr Johnstone admitted using the 2 cards belonging to Mr Hyslop and Mr Garrett on a number of occasions and he also admitted using a third card belonging to a driver called Callum Hastie. Mr Johnstone also admitted that he had deliberately removed his card and had driven without a card. Mr Johnstone had obtained the cards when they had been left in the vehicle.

TE Wardrop prepared a table setting out the various offences at p. 21 and 22 of his report which I have summarised:-

	1.	8 Dec 2024	Knowingly make a false record (driving with no card both at the start and end of the day)
	2.	8 Dec 2024	Insufficient daily rest – 6 hours 22 minutes
	3.	8 Dec 2024	Exceed daily driving – 19 hours 34 minutes
	4.	8 Dec 2024	Exceed 4 ½ hours driving without taking the required break or breaks – 5 hours 03 minutes
	5.	8 Dec 2024	Insufficient weekly rest – 22 hours 29 minutes
	6.	10 Dec 2024	Knowingly make a false record (use driver card in the name of CALLUM HASTIE)
	7.	10 Dec 2024	Insufficient daily rest - 5 hours 36 minutes
	8.	10 Dec 2024	Exceed daily driving – 18 hours 32 minutes
	9.	10 Dec 2024	Exceed 90-hour fortnightly driving – 94 hours 20 minutes
	10.	11 Dec 2024	Exceed 90-hour fortnightly driving – 94 hours 20 minutes
	11.	16 Dec 2024	Knowingly make a false record (driving with no card)
	12.	16 Dec 2024	Exceed daily driving – 15 hours 57 minutes
	13.	16 Dec 2024	Insufficient daily rest – 6 hours 51 minutes
	14.	17 Dec 2024	Knowingly make a false record (driving with no card both at the start and during the day)
	15.	17 Dec 2024	Exceed 4 ½ hours driving without taking the required break or breaks – 9 hours 09 minutes
	16	19 Dec 2024	Knowingly make a false record (driving with no card both at the start and during the day)
	17.	19 Dec 2024	Insufficient daily rest – 7 hours 36 minutes
	18.	20 Dec 2024	Knowingly make a false record (driving with no card)
	19.	19 Dec 2024	Exceed daily driving – 16 hours 16 minutes
	20.	19 Dec 2024	Insufficient daily rest – 9 hours 58 minutes
	21.	22 Dec 2024	Exceed 90-hour fortnightly driving – 94 hours 35 minutes
	22.	22 Dec 2024	Insufficient weekly rest – 23 hours 16 minutes
	23.	23-24 Dec 2024	Knowingly make a false record (X 2) (driving with no card and use driver card in the name of SHAUN GARRETT)
	24.	23 Dec 2024	Insufficient daily rest – 5 hours 20 minutes
	25.	23 Dec 2024	Exceed daily driving – 15 hours 32 minutes
	26.	23 Dec 2024	Exceed 4 ½ hours driving without taking the required break or breaks – 8 hours 10 minutes
	27.	24 Dec 2024	Exceed 4 ½ hours driving without taking the required break or breaks – 5 hours 06 minutes
	28.	26 Dec 2024	Knowingly make a false record (driving with no card)
	29.	25 Dec 2024	Insufficient daily rest – 8 hours 16 minutes
	30.	3 Jan 2025	Knowingly make a false record (driving with no card)
	31.	2 Jan 2025	Insufficient daily rest – 5 hours 36 minutes
	32.	2 Jan 2025	Exceed daily driving – 11 hours 47 minutes
	33.	8 Jan 2025	Knowingly make a false record (driving with no card)
	34.	8 Jan 2025	Exceed 4 ½ hours driving without taking the required break or breaks – 7 hours 08 minutes
	35.	12 Jan 2025	Knowingly make a false record (use driver card in the name of SHAUN GARRETT)
	36.	12 Jan 2025	Insufficient daily rest – 7 hours 51 minutes
	37.	17 Jan 2025	Knowingly make a false record (use driver card in the name of KIERAN HYSLOP)
	38.	17 Jan 2025	Insufficient daily rest – 7 hours 44 minutes
	39.	21 Jan 2025	Knowingly make a false record (use driver card in the name of KIERAN HYSLOP)
	40.	21 Jan 2025	Insufficient daily rest – 5 hours 37 minutes
	41.	21 Jan 2025	Exceed daily driving – 15 hours 42 minutes
	42.	21 Jan 2025	Exceed 4 ½ hours driving without taking the required break or breaks – 6 hours 13 minutes
	43.	23 Jan 2025	Knowingly make a false record (use driver card in the name of SHAUN GARRETT)
	44.	23 Jan 2025	Insufficient daily rest – 5 hours 33 minutes
	45.	23 Jan 2025	Exceed daily driving – 18 hours 22 minutes
	46.	23 Jan 2025	Exceed 4 ½ hours driving without taking the required break or breaks – 8 hours 21 minutes
	47.	3 Feb 2025	Knowingly make a false record (driving with no card)
	48.	3 Feb 2025	Insufficient daily rest – 6 hours 39 minutes
	49.	3 Feb 2025	Exceed daily driving – 18 hours 03 minutes
	50.	11 Feb 2025	Knowingly make a false record (use driver card in the name of SHAUN GARRETT)
	51.	11 Feb 2025	Exceed 4 ½ hours driving without taking the required break or breaks – 6 hours 13 minutes
	52.	17 Feb 2025	Knowingly make a false record (use driver card in the name of SHAUN GARRETT)
	53.	11 Feb 2025	Insufficient daily rest – 8 hours 04 minutes
	54.	16 Feb 2025	Exceed 4 ½ hours driving without taking the required break or breaks – 5 hours 53 minutes
	55.	26 Feb 2025	Knowingly make a false record (driving with no card)
	56.	26 Feb 2025	Insufficient daily rest – 5 hours 33 minutes
	57.	25 Feb 2025	Exceed daily driving – 16 hours 19 minutes
	58.	28 Feb 2025	Knowingly make a false record (use driver card in the name of KIERAN HYSLOP)

Findings in fact

I accepted that Mr Johnstone was telling the truth in his evidence at the Public Inquiry. As Mr Johnstone accepted the evidence in TE Wardrop’s report I do not need to make detailed findings in fact. Concentrating on the important issues I find that the following facts were proved:-

• Mr Gibson was a transport manager in name only.
• Tachograph data was being downloaded from vehicle units and driver cards and analysed. The results of the analysis were inadequate and did not highlight infringements. Mr Johnstone was not aware that he was not getting a proper analysis of the data. The system for ensuring compliance with driver’s hours was inadequate. Proper records were not kept.
• The Operator’s vehicles were being maintained, however the Operator did not have adequate records of the maintenance work that was being carried out, and the work was not being carried out by the declared maintenance provider but by P & J MacDonald.
• In the period from 1 December 2024 until 4 March 2025 Mr Johnstone committed 59 driver’s hours offences. Mr Johnstone admitted to TE Wardrop that he had committed these offences.
• Mr Johnstone had used the driver cards of Mr Hyslop and Mr Garrett on 8 occasions. He had used the driver card of Mr Hastie on another occasion making a total of 9 occasions.
• Mr Johnstone had driven without a driver card on 11 occasions. He had done this in order to conceal driver’s hours offences.
• Mr Johnstone had exceeding 4 ½ hours driving on 9 occasions.
• Mr Johnstone had taken insufficient daily rest on 16 occasions.
• Mr Johnstone had exceeded the limit on daily driving on 10 occasions.
• Mr Johnstone had exceeded 90- hour fortnightly driving on 2 occasions.
• Mr Johnstone had taken insufficient weekly rest on 2 occasions.

Breaches of legislation

The Operator breached the following statutory provisions:-

• a vehicle had been issued with a prohibition notice by DVSA – s.26(1)(c)(iii) of the Goods Vehicle (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995.
• statements made when applying for the licence had not been fulfilled – s.26(1)(e):-
• that Mr Ian Gibson would be the Transport Manager responsible for vehicles on licence;
• that safety inspections and/or maintenance and repair work would carried out by Hamilton Motor Engineer, Workshop, Fountain Way, Stranraer – this work was done by P & J MacDonald.

The Operator did not honour the undertakings it signed up to when it applied for the licence – s.26(1)(f), namely,

• that it would observe the rules on driver’s hours and tachographs and keep proper records;
• that it would keep records for 15 months of driver defect reports, safety inspections and routine maintenance and make them available on request;
• that drivers would report promptly any defects or symptoms of defects that could prevent the safe operation of vehicles and/or trailers, and that any defects would be promptly recorded in writing.

The Operator was no longer of appropriate financial standing to hold an operator’s licence for the number of vehicles authorised – s.27(1)(a).

The operator did not have a transport manager – s.27(1)(b).

Relevant considerations

At the Public Inquiry Mr Johnstone was realistic in thinking that the operator’s licence was likely to be revoked and that the only real issue was how long the operator and Mr Johnstone would be disqualified from holding an operator’s licence.

So far as the preliminary question, can this operator be trusted to be compliant in the future, is concerned, it is a point in Mr Johnstone’s favour that  he admitted his offending. However, he had no real choice. He had been caught red-handed. There was no arguing with the evidence provided by the tachograph data. Mr Johnstone expressed remorse and I accept that he has learned his lesson and, if the licence was allowed to continue, the Operator would be compliant.

However, the gravity of the breaches in this case are such that I consider that this is an operator that, nonetheless, should be put out of business. In reaching this conclusion I have considered the proportionality of finding that the Operator has lost its repute. The positives in this case, such as the fact that the vehicles were being maintained in a fit and serviceable condition, Mr Johnstone’s co-operation with the DVSA and his candour at the Public Inquiry, the lack of any previous issues etc. are outweighed by the negatives, in particular the misuse of driver cards and driving without a card in order to conceal driving offences. Mr Johnstone’s dishonest conduct attacked what has been described as one of the foundation stones of operating licensing – trust see “Michael James Fenlon t/a County Skips 2006/277”:-

“17…It has been said on many occasions that trust is one of the foundation stones of operating licensing. Traffic Commissioners must be able to trust operators to comply with all the relevant laws, rules and regulations because it would be a physical and financial impossibility to police every aspect of the licensing system all day and every day. In addition operators must be able to trust other operators to observe the relevant laws, rules and regulations. If trust between operators breaks down and some operators believe that others are obtaining an unfair commercial advantage by ignoring laws, rules or regulations then standards will inevitably slip and the public will suffer…”

The importance of compliance with the regulatory regime and fair competition was Upper Tribunal in T/2014/72 Ian Russell Nicholas t/a Wigan Container Services v Secretary of State for Transport para.5:-
“…We are satisfied that the Traffic Commissioner was entitled to have regard to the message sent to other operators by a decision…The primary purpose of the regulatory regime is to ensure that potentially dangerous vehicles are operated safely.  That purpose is not confined to keeping vehicles in a fit and serviceable condition.  Instead it extends to ensuring, amongst other things, that drivers are properly qualified, that they are not required, or permitted, to work excessive hours and that operators comply with all the obligations of the regulatory regime and compete fairly with each other. In T/2013/47 Dundee Plant Company Ltd the Tribunal quoted with approval the following passage from a decision on an application for a stay:

“Other operators with knowledge of this case may be tempted to say to themselves – ‘this operator seems to be getting away with it so why should we bother to incur expenditure of time, trouble and money to run a complaint operation?’ In my view, it only needs one or two other operators to adopt this approach in response to this case to lead to greater and greater numbers doing so in future. If that happens there is a real risk that the operator’s licensing system, which has made a significant contribution to road safety, will be fatally undermined.”
We would simply add that there is a real risk that if non-compliant operators appear to be allowed to thrive it will be compliant operators, who most deserve to remain in the industry, who are likely to be amongst the first to be driven out of it. We are satisfied that that is not in the public interest and that the public interest requires that Traffic Commissioners are seen to be firm and even-handed in requiring compliance with the regulatory regime and that they are seen to send out a consistent message that compliance is a requirement of continuing to hold a licence; not something to be observed as and when the operator finds it convenient to do so”.

The importance of deterring others was emphasised by the Transport Tribunal in KDL European Ltd and Kevin Lumsden 2007/459:-

“14. Adopting Counsel’s words, we are satisfied of the need “to make an example of the operator so as to send a warning to the industry as a whole”. This is consistent with the approach by the five-judge Court of Session in the Thomas Muir case (see paragraph 2(xiii) above) where deterrence is expressly mentioned (“in particular for the purpose of deterring the operator or other persons from failing to carry out their responsibilities under the legislation”). This is not by way of punishment per se but, as Lord Cullen said, is “in order to assist in the achievement of the purpose of the legislation”. We answer the question posed in 2002/17 Bryan Haulage (No.2) “is the conduct such that the operator ought to be put out of business” in the affirmative. And we judge this at the date not only of the public inquiry but also of the appeal. This is a bad case and we hope that the message sent out will be clear to all.”

I am of opinion that Mr Johnstone’s conduct in using driver cards belonging to 3 other drivers and driving without a card, in order to conceal driver’s hours offences, means that this is a bad case. Looking at the detail of the offences as set out by TE Wardrop at pages 24 to 42 of his report there are numerous cases of driving for dangerously long periods e.g. 10 December 2024 exceeding daily driving of 10 hours by driving for 19 hours 34 minutes (p.24),  11 December 2024 exceeding daily driving of 10 hours by driving for 18 hours 32 minutes (p.25), 3 February 2025 exceeding daily driving of 10 hours by driving for 18 hours 3 minutes (p.38).

This is not a case of a driver failing to comply by small margins. The picture created by the offences is of a driver who was willing to risk the safety of others, by driving long distances when he must have been fatigued, for financial gain. This is made worse by having a transport manager who was a transport manager in name only, and by failing to have proper systems in place.

I have had regard to the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document 10 “The Principles of Decision Making and the Concept of Proportionality”, in particular paras, 28, 29, 40-58. I note that the purposes of the regulatory regime include public safety, fair competition and ensuring compliance with the regulatory regime. In this case Mr Johnstone’s actions put public safety at risk and enabled him to obtain an unfair competitive advantage. I consider that this is a case in which I should make an example of the Operator to send a message to the industry as a whole to deter others and to ensure compliance with the regulatory regime.

I have considered the effects of regulatory action on the Operator. I note that the Operator has not been trading since May 2025. There is, therefore, no immediate effect on the Operator if its licence is revoked.

Decision for the Operator

For the reasons set out above, I find that it is a proportionate response to find that the Operator no longer meets the requirements to be of good repute in terms of s.13A(2)(b) of the 1995 Act. I also find that the Operator no longer has appropriate financial standing, in terms of s.13A(2)(c) of the 1995 Act.

I have had regard to Annex 4 – Suggested Starting Points for Consideration of Regulatory Action. I note that the suggested starting point for deliberate acts that compromised road safety and gave the operator a clear commercial advantage is “SEVERE”. This suggests a range from significant indefinite curtailment to revocation with detailed consideration of disqualification. For the reasons set out above I have decided that revocation is appropriate in this case. I am satisfied, for the same reasons, that disqualification of the Operator, and Mr Johnstone as director is appropriate. It would undermine the regulatory regime if the Operator or Mr Johnstone were able to apply for a new operator’s licence without having been kept out of the industry for a considerable period of time.

In considering disqualification under s.28 of the Transport Act 1985, I have had regard to paras 107- 109. I note that it is suggested that severe cases may merit disqualification for an indefinite period (which is tempered by the fact that a disqualified person may make an application to vary or cancel an order for disqualification). I consider that an indefinite disqualification is appropriate in this case as it will deter others from being tempted to repeat Mr Johnstone’s behaviour. In this case Mr Johnstone is, in effect, the operator. It is, therefore, appropriate that both the Operator and Mr Johnstone should be disqualified for an indefinite period.

I also direct that in terms of s.28(4) that should the Operator or Mr Johnstone become the director of, or hold a controlling interest in a company that holds an operator’s licence, or of a company of which such a company is a subsidiary, or operates any goods vehicles in partnership with a person who holds such a licence of that company, or partnership, or person shall be liable to revocation, curtailment or suspension under s.26. This order is necessary to prevent the Operator and Mr Johnstone from circumventing the regulatory action that I have taken against them.

Decision for Ian McKnight Gibson, transport manager

Mr Gibson did not attend the Public Inquiry. I am satisfied that he had proper notice of the Public Inquiry. Although Mr Gibson was removed from this licence by Mr Johnstone, Mr Gibson remains a transport manager on an unrelated licence.

I have not had the benefit of hearing from Mr Gibson. According to Mr Johnstone, Mr Gibson was a transport manager in name only. This is supported by the evidence of TE Wardrop, as set out in his report at pages 47-48, that he visited various addresses in an attempt to speak to Mr Gibson, that he left his mobile number with the other operator so that Mr Gibson could contact him, that he emailed the address listed on VOL, and that he sent letters to Mr Gibson requesting that he attend a formal interview. TE Wardrop has not heard from Mr Gibson.

I am satisfied that Mr Gibson was a transport manager in name only. I accept that he was probably unaware of the extent to which the Operator was non-compliant, and in particular, that Mr Johnstone was using other drivers’ cards and was driving without a card to conceal driver’s hours offences.

I note the observations of the Upper Tribunal in Raymond Leonard Sheaf T/2021/30

“11. As was explained by the Upper Tribunal in T/2014/25/26 H. Sivyer (Transport) Ltd. and Simon Sivyer [2014] UKUT 0404 (AAC), where a transport manager has substantially failed in his or her duty to maintain continuous and effective control of an operators fleet of vehicles the remedy is to consider and where appropriate find loss of good repute as a transport manager. Once good repute has been lost, disqualification from acting as a transport manager is a mandatory consequence (see paragraph 16(2) of Schedule 3 to the 1995 Act. There is no opportunity, after a finding of loss of good repute, to consider whether or not disqualification is a proportionate response. Instead, proportionality is to be considered when deciding whether or not to make a finding of loss of repute. To justify a finding of loss of repute the matters proved must be such that disqualification represents a proportionate response.

12… We accept the TC was right in saying that his inaction “gave the operator the outward sign of professional competence and compliance”.”

In this case Mr Gibson “gave the operator the outward sign of professional competence and compliance.” This enabled the Operator to continue to operate without having a person who would effectively and continuously manage the transport activities of the undertaking. If the Operator had a “proper” transport manager who was exercising effective and continuous management then it is reasonable to assume that the non-compliance identified by TE Wardrop, and in particular the misuse of cards and driving without a card, would not have occurred. Mr Gibson must bear significant responsibility for the risk to public safety and unfair competition that was created by Mr Johnstone’s behaviour.

I conclude that it is proportionate for me to find that Mr Gibson is no longer of good repute in terms of paragraph 16 of Schedule 3 of the 1995 Act.

I must, in terms of paragraph 16, order Mr Gibson to be disqualified from acting as a transport manager either indefinitely or for such period as I think fit. Because I have not had the benefit of hearing from Mr Gibson, I do not have any information about what disqualification period might be appropriate nor what rehabilitative measures might be appropriate at the end of a disqualification period.

I have had regard to the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document No. 3 – Transport Managers, and in particular paras 23-25 and para. 53. I consider that para. 53 is particularly apt:-

“53. Under paragraph 17 of Schedule 3, where a transport manager is disqualified the traffic commissioner who made the order may cancel the order no earlier than one year, beginning with the day on which the order was made…

…However, where the Transport Manager has deliberately acted in a way which results in a risk to life and/or the operation of unsafe vehicles or drivers to falsify records, it may be difficult to set a specific rehabilitative measure beyond a long or indefinite period of disqualification.”

As I have not heard from Mr Gibson I consider that it is appropriate to impose an indefinite period of disqualification. An indefinite disqualification is merited by the seriousness of his breach of the trust put in him when he was appointed by the OTC by his failure to fulfil to the role of transport manager. An indefinite disqualification also has the advantage that if Mr Gibson considers that it is excessive, he will be able, if he so chooses, to seek to have the period of disqualification cancelled once an appropriate period has passed – paragraph 17 Schedule 3 of the 1995 Act.

Alexander Johnstone, driver

Mr Johnstone’s misuse of driver cards and driving without a card, in order to conceal driver’s hours offences, gives rise to the question of whether Alexander Johnstone, is fit to hold a Large Goods Vehicle driver’s licence in terms of s.115 and 117 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. If I find that Mr Johnstone is not fit to hold a LGV driver’s licence I need to consider if his licence should be suspended or revoked in terms of s.116(2) of the 1988 Act.

I have had regard to Statutory Document no. 6 Vocational Driver Conduct and in particular Annex A.

Annex A recommends as an entry point for deliberately driving without a card “4 -week suspension per offence up to 6 offences & revoke and disqualify for 12 months for more than 6 offences”. It refers to Case Example 20. Where driving without a card was without intent to deceive it suggests “1 week suspension per offence up to 6 offences & revoke and disqualify for 12 months for more than 6 offences.”

Annex A recommends as an entry point for use of a digicard belonging to another “Revoke and disqualify for 12 months for a single offence – longer for 2 or more offences”. It refers to Case Examples 21, 22 and 23. Although Case Examples 21 and 22 involve the use of a magnet, the use of another person’s driver card is regarded as being as serious as the use of a magnet (see Case Example 23).

I have considered Annex C: Examples of Aggravating and Mitigating Features. In this case the aggravating features are: (1) offending resulted in actual and potential fatigue resulting in undue risk to road safety; (2) the offences were numerous, (3) there was deliberate falsification of tachograph records; (4) the offences were committed over a sustained period of time; and (5) the offences were carried out in order to benefit his business.

The mitigating factors are: (1) Mr Johnstone does not have any previous disciplinary record; (2) there has been no repetition since.

I have to consider the weight that I attach to each factor. I have to make a judgement embracing the whole of Mr Johnstone’s conduct as a driver (see paras 60-61). I have to consider whether the conduct should result in revocation and disqualification, or if a lesser sanction might be a more proportionate response (para. 64).  I am entitled to consider a longer period of disqualification where there has been the use of another driver’s digicard (para. 65). I am entitled to set down a marker regarding deterrence (para. 66)

I have had regard to paras 94-96:-

“Drivers’ hours (EC & domestic) / working time and tachograph offences”

1. The drivers’ hours, working time and tachograph rules assist in keeping the public safe when using public roads and it is always serious when a deliberate false record is made by a vocational driver.

2. The Court of Appeal has confirmed that it is appropriate in principle to pass a custodial sentence of significant length for offences related to falsifying records which involve the use of commercial vehicles on the roads in a way that concerns public safety and has potentially serious consequences. The concealment of evidence required for effective regulation of drivers’ hours should therefore result in a traffic commissioner taking a very serious view.

3. Traffic commissioners are likely to regard the falsification as more serious than the offence that it may be designed to conceal. Those who commit offences of this kind must understand that there will be serious consequences if and when the matter comes to light. A cumulative and significant period of disqualification which reflects the offence that has been subject to concealment, the falsification of records and/or use of a manipulation device, is the likely outcome. Subsequent conduct is also likely to be of limited weight.

I agree with the guidance provided in paras 95 and 96. Although Mr Johnstone has no prior record of driver’s hours offences, these are serious matters. I attach some weight to the fact that there has been no subsequent offending as I got the impression that Mr Johnstone had learned his lesson and he was remorseful for what he had done.

I note that Annex A suggests a starting point for 2 or more offences of using a digicard belonging to another of revocation and disqualification for 12 months. Mr Johnstone used 3 other driver’s cards on a total of 9 occasions.

Annex A suggests a starting point for deliberate driving without a card of revocation and disqualification for 12 months for more than 6 offences. Where the driving without a card was without intent to deceive it suggests the same - revocation and disqualification for 12 months for more than 6 offences. Mr Johnstone deliberately drove without a card on 11 occasions.

The misuse of driver cards and driving without a card concealed 39 driver’s hours offences. As I discussed above at paras 24-26 above, these are serious matters. Mr Johnstone’s behaviour concealed a pattern of driving long distances when he would have been fatigued, enabling him to obtain a commercial advantage.

I am entitled to send out a message that Mr Johnstone’s behaviour cannot be tolerated. I am entitled to deter others from thinking that they might behave in a similar way. I find that Mr Johnstone’s licence should be revoked in terms of s.116(2) of the 1988 Act.

So far as an appropriate period of disqualification from holding a large goods vehicle licence is concerned, I have taken into account of Mr Johnstone’s personal circumstances. All he has done since leaving school is drive. There are limited opportunities for work that does not involve driving LGVs in Stranraer.

I am satisfied that to deter others a lengthy disqualification is appropriate. The combination of misuse of driver cards, driving without a card and rest offences suggest a five-year disqualification would be appropriate. However, I have stood back and taken account of the fact that Mr Johnstone has lost his operator’s business because of the same behaviour. Looking at the effect on Mr Johnstone of losing both his business and his LGV licence, and considering Mr Johnstone’s personal circumstances and his genuine remorse, I consider that a three-year period of disqualification is appropriate. The effect is that Mr Johnstone must serve at least two years disqualification before he can apply for the removal of the disqualification in terms of Regulation 57(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) Regulations 1999/2864.

Hugh J. Olson

Deputy Traffic Commissioner

15 February 2026

Published 4 March 2026