Decision for Adam James Boulton t/a AB Trans (OC2046407)
Written decision of the Traffic Commissioner of the North West of England for Adam James Boulton t/a AB Trans and Transport Manager Mr Adam James Boulton
IN THE NORTH WEST TRAFFIC AREA
ADAM JAMES BOULTON t/a AB TRANS – OC2046407 & MR ADAM JAMES BOULTON – TRANSPORT MANAGER
WRITTEN DECISION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER
PUBLIC INQUIRY HELD IN GOLBORNE ON 11 FEBRUARY 2026
DECISION
The Operator’s licence is revoked with immediate effect under the provision of Section 26(1)(b), 26(1)(h) & Section 27(1)(a) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (“The Act”)
Adam James Boulton has held a Standard National Goods Vehicle Operator’s licence, authorising four vehicles and four trailers, since 31 January 2022. Mr. Boulton is both the sole trader licence holder and the Transport Manager.
Background
This licence has not had a vehicle specified since grant in 2022. This is contrary to the requirement of a standard Operator’s licence to have an effective and stable establishment in Great Britain in accordance with paragraph A1 of Schedule 3 (including the need to have access to one or more goods vehicles that are authorised to be used). As a licence holder and a CPC-qualified Transport Manager Mr. Boulton should have been alive to this.
Additionally, Mr Boulton was Transport Manager on another licence, OC1092027 held in the name Lea Transport Ltd, which was subject of an unsatisfactory maintenance investigation and material changes which were seemingly not notified in line with licence conditions. Mr. Boulton was also subject of a refused Transport Manager application on another licence.
On account of the issues identified Mr. Boulton was called to a Public Inquiry to consider whether regulatory action was required in respect of the sole trader licence and his capacity as Transport Manager.
Pre-Hearing
Calling-in letters were issued by both post and email, to the given addresses, on 09 January 2026. Both letters set out case management directions to be followed in advance of the Hearing including the instruction to provide financial evidence and maintenance records along with any further evidence to be considered at the Inquiry.
On 15 January 2026 the calling-in letter was returned with a note advising “Adam Boulton no longer lives at [address]. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison last year”. An internet search indicates that Mr. Boulton was convicted after admitting: (i) causing death by dangerous driving, (ii) dangerous driving and (iii) driving with excess alcohol. Along with the ten year prison sentence Mr Boulton was also banned from driving for a period of seven years after his release.
Public Inquiry
As the information on Mr. Boulton’s conviction came to light following the calling-in letter, and with only a couple of weeks until the Inquiry, I had to consider whether it was more appropriate to proceed, or to vacate and commence the “Propose to Revoke” process which could take longer to conclude.
Whilst Mr. Boulton is in prison it is not the case that he cannot receive post, and it is for him to ensure that he either notifies this office of a change of address or has family members or colleagues ensure important communications – such as the calling letter – reach him. The absence of ‘administration’ is such I believe that it is in the public interest to ensure that an active licence cannot be misused or give the impression of legitimacy to any unlawful operations. I therefore continued with the Public Inquiry to address the issues at hand in a timely manner.
The Public Inquiry, therefore, took place on Wednesday 11 February 2026 at the Golborne Hearing Centre. The case management directions had not been complied with and, unsurprisingly, Mr. Boulton was not in attendance.
Summary of Evidence and findings
“Stable Establishment”
I have regard to the directions of the Senior Traffic Commissioner at paragraph 85 of Statutory Document 4
“The [stable establishment] requirement is not intended to impose a disproportionate burden. Where it is suggested that there may be no stable establishment, for instance where all specified vehicles are removed from the licence, it will be for the Office of the Traffic Commissioner to write to the operator in question seeking an explanation and to then make a submission to the traffic commissioner. If there is no response or other compliance issues arise then the case should be passed to the compliance team in the local Office of the Traffic Commissioner. Where it is established that the operator fails to meet the requirement this may amount to a breach of condition, but it is open to the traffic commissioner to allow the operator a period of up to six months to allow the operator to rectify the situation on the first occasion by demonstrating that the requirement for an effective and stable establishment is now met, but with a warning to prompt future compliance”
In this instance the question has been asked, but a response has not been forthcoming. Whilst it is open to me to consider whether a Period of Grace might be worthwhile (2014/008 Duncan McKee) the circumstances that have since been notified make it more probable than not that this shortcoming will not be remedied within the maximum six-month period allowed.
“Licence Conditions and Material Change”
The conviction, being an event that affects good repute, was not notified in line with licence conditions. As this is a sole trader licence, and it is not possible for any other party to make use of it whilst Mr. Boulton is in prison, a material change has occurred in that the licence is no longer being utilised.
“Finding”
The combination of the failure to have a stable and effective establishment and the material change are such that I do not consider any short-term remedy as being possible. Accordingly, I consider revocation of the Operator’s licence as proportionate. Although Mr. Boulton is in prison it is not the case that he is unable to receive and respond to communications. He failed to notify this office of his conviction, and he has not responded to the calling-in letter to explain his position – he was entirely at liberty, for example, to request to surrender his Operator’s licence.
DECISION
In conclusion I make adverse findings under the following legislation:
-
Section 26(1)(b) - that the licence holder has contravened any condition attached to the licence, namely the requirement to notify events, within 28 days of their occurrence, which affect good repute;
-
Section 26(1)(h) – that since the licence was issued there has been a material change in any of the circumstances of the licence holder that were relevant to the issue of the licence, namely that the sole trader and Transport Manager has been convicted of a serious offence and sentenced to a ten year prison sentence;
-
Section 27(1)(a) - that the Operator no longer meets the requirements to have an effective and stable establishment in Great Britain.
Whilst consideration of regulatory action under Section 26 is discretionary, the adverse findings under Section 27 are such that I am obliged to revoke the licence unless such a direction would be disproportionate in the circumstances. I note that the Operator has been put on notice, has failed to communicate with this office and has, therefore, not provided any mitigation which might lead me to conclude that revocation is not a proportionate outcome.
With greatest weight given to 27(1)(a) I order that this licence is revoked with immediate effect. As there are no vehicles authorised for use under this licence, I consider that immediate revocation is proportionate as it will not affect any person’s lawful business operations.
I have purposefully not made a direction on good repute as I am mindful that this Hearing was not convened to consider the conviction - certainly I have no information relating to that, other than what was made available to me online, the accuracy of which has not been fully explored. It is the case that Mr. Boulton will need to declare the conviction on any future application (Operator or Transport Manager) and a fuller analysis can be made at that time should the need arise. In the meantime, I direct that a case management note is recorded by the Office of the Traffic Commissioner to ensure that any such application is highlighted for consideration by a Traffic Commissioner.
David Mullan
Traffic Commissioner for the North West of England
12 February 2026