Decision for AL Campbell (Haulage) OM0031157, Pauline Campbell and Allan Campbell Jnr (Transport Managers)
Confirmation of the Traffic Commissioner's decision in the Scottish Traffic Area.
IN THE SCOTTISH TRAFFIC AREA
ALLAN CAMPBELL SNR AND PAULINE CAMPBELL
Trading As A L CAMPBELL (HAULAGE) – OM0031157
AND
PAULINE CAMPBELL – TRANSPORT MANAGER
AND
ALLAN CAMPBELL JNR – TRANSPORT MANAGER
CONFIRMATION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER’S DECISION
Decision
This licence will be revoked from 23:45 on 14 July 2026.
I regret that my assessment of Transport Manager Allan Campbell Jnr led me to conclude that he was not capable of meeting paragraph 14A(1)(d) of Schedule 3 and that he should be prevented from relying on his Certificate of Professional Competence pursuant to a finding under section 27(1)(b). I imposed the minimum disqualification period on Mr Campbell Jnr to allow him opportunity to work with an experienced CPC holder to learn how to exercise effective and continuous management of a transport undertaking before he might apply to rely on his Certificate again.
I accept the resignation of Pauline Campbell as Transport Manager. She gave a personal undertaking not to seek to rely on her Certificate in future.
Background
Allan Campbell and Pauline Campbell hold a Standard National Goods Vehicle Operator’s Licence authorising 17 vehicles and 17 trailers. There are two Transport Managers on this licence (see below). Representations confirmed that the partners are married and referred to Mr Campbell Snr’s work as an agricultural contractor. The business was said to have grown organically. All trailers are bulk tippers (44 tonnes) carrying food grade produce (mainly animal feed). That was confirmed and developed in evidence, with work across England and Scotland.
There is one Operating Centre at 1 Strawfrank Farm, Pettinain Road, Carstairs Junction, Lanark ML11 8RF. Preventative Maintenance Inspections appear to be carried out in-house (although the following are named: Ian Wilson, James Dodds, Scott Bain, and Ross Brady) at 6-weekly intervals.
Mrs Campbell has acted since grant on 24 July 1992 with Mr Cambell being added on 25 June 2020. That followed a Public Inquiry held on 14 August and 13 September 2019 resulting in adverse findings under sections 26(1)(ca) - historic fixed penalty notices for overloading, and 26(1)(f). I am unclear of the reasons for the delay. She concluded that there were insufficient grounds to find that Mr Campbell actively conspired with a technician who had deliberately calibrated tachograph equipment incorrectly. The Traffic Commissioner nevertheless expressed concern and identified where Mrs Campbell should have exercised better management but noted a lengthy period of ill health. The licence was curtailed from 17 vehicles to 14 vehicles for a period of eight weeks. The operator’s repute was found to be severely tarnished. Mrs Campbell was similarly tarnished but not lost. The application to downgrade to standard national was granted and the application to appoint Allan Campbell Junior as Transport Manager proceeded.
The operator previously attended Public Inquiries in 2003, 2006 and 2012, all relating to alleged tachograph offences and all resulting in a warning. A further warning was issued in 2014 following notification that unsatisfactory findings from a maintenance investigation by DVSA. That history was acknowledged by Mr Campbell Snr in his evidence.
Hearing
The Public Inquiry was listed for today, 14 April 2026, in Tribunal Room 1 of the Office of the Traffic Commissioner in Edinburgh. Both partners were present, with Mr Campbell Jnr, all represented by Neil Kelly, solicitor.
Issues
The public inquiry was called following notice that I was considering grounds to intervene in respect of this licence and specifically by reference to the following sections of the Goods Vehicle (Licensing of Operators) Act:
- 26(1)(b) – conditions on licence to notify changes, in this case relating to the ability of named Transport Managers to meet Schedule 3.
- 26(1)(c)(iii) – Prohibition Notices.
- 26(1)(e) – statements relating to inspection intervals, and to abide by conditions on the licence.
- 26(1)(f) – undertakings (vehicles to be kept fit and serviceable, effective driver defect reporting, complete maintenance records).
- 26(1)(h) – material change:
- 27(1)(a) – repute, financial standing, Transport Manager meeting Schedule 3.
- 28 – Disqualification.
Mrs Campbell was also called to consider whether she had exercised effective and continuous management and therefore whether I should make a finding under section 27(1)(b) preventing her from relying on her Certificate of Professional Competence.
Mr Campbell Jnr was also called to consider whether he had exercised effective and continuous management and therefore whether I should make a finding under section 27(1)(b) preventing him from relying on his Certificate of Professional Competence.
The operator was directed to lodge evidence in support including financial, maintenance and other compliance documentation. Compliance documentation was to be submitted to DVSA by no later than 24 March 2026 with finance and any representations to be sent to my office by 31 March 2026. Proof of the overdraft was supplied the day before the hearing, to satisfy financial standing.
Summary of Evidence
The operator had been the subject of an earlier Vehicle Examiner visit by DVSA’s Malcolm Brown on 19 November 2024. His report referred to shortcomings in the transport operation including record keeping, Ad Blue monitoring, wheel and tyre management, load security arrangements and the level of control exercised by the Transport Managers. Noting the response from the partnership, he recommended that there be a follow up by DVSA’s Remote Enforcement Office.
That led to the desk-based assessment commenced by Vehicle Examiner Neil Ridge on 21 August 2025. From the operator’s responses and documentation, he identified the following areas of concern:
- Inspection and maintenance records not fully completed, with missing laden brake performance tests.
- Ineffective planning for Vehicles Off-Road and for safety defect and recalls.
- Ineffective wheel and tyre management.
My office wrote on 10 September 2025, seeking an explanation for the matters identified in that assessment and giving opportunity to make representations. Two emails were received from the Transport Manager and another Mr Campbell (a consultant) on 19 September 2025. Correspondence sent to a PO Box in Edinburgh sought to provide an explanation against each of the sections marked as unsatisfactory by DVSA. Based on the content, Mr Ridge prepared a supplementary analysis on 6 October 2025. He suggested that:
“the operator has failed to implement assurances given in response to the maintenance visit of the 19/11/2024 and additional shortcomings have also been identified.”
Mr Campbell Snr was described as overseeing the workshop, often being involved with the work on Saturdays after any defects are reported on the Friday night. All drivers are employed under PAYE and generally return to the Operating Centre on a Friday. Mr Campbell Snr stated in evidence his belief that the DVSA assessment in 2024 should have led to a further desk-based assessment. I explained the independence of my office. In any event, the operator was allowed the opportunity to attend an interview with a member of OTC staff, which Mr and Mrs Campbell attended, together with Mr Campbell Jnr. Mr Campbell Snr mistakenly believed that would be with the Traffic Commissioner. Taking all representations into account, it was decided to convene this Public Inquiry.
The Examiner had found that systems still required improvement even after all the previous contact. The response from Mr Cambell Jnr referred to recent developments but also implied that some systems have been in place for some time. As identified by Mr Ridge there was a lack of supporting evidence, so I gave the operator a further opportunity to produce evidence of compliance and an interview with a senior officer of the OTC. That took place on 12 January 2026 and was attended by both partners and both Transport Managers. Mr Campbell Snr suggested that driver defect reports (DDR) were only submitted on Fridays, for review on Saturdays. The reports seen showed mainly NIL-defect boxes being ticked, with no sign-off. Mr Campbell Snr indicated that he relied on trust in his drivers rather than checking. There was no routine daily review process. Despite having workshop cameras, the operators and Transport Managers had never confirmed that proper checks were carried out. The partnership appeared unaware of the need for brake performance checks at every Preventative Maintenance Inspection, as per the Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness. Mrs Campbell suggested that she had limited involvement in day-to-day operations, whilst Allan Campbell Jnr managed office duties and drivers. Mr Campbell Snr oversees workshop and office activity.
The operator was put on notice of my concerns at the apparently weak driver defect reporting system and checks, and the lack of knowledge required to run a compliant transport operation, including laden brake testing, the absence of accurate recording, including VOR and safety defect recalls, and tyre safety management, so I did not understand Mr Kelly’s point in respect of the STL interview where his clients were present.
Representations referred to the encounter and test history showing three final fails at test over the past five years but also two PRS (in 2024). There had been 11 Roadworthiness encounters; with one prohibition, 14 Traffic Encounters with one prohibition. The Prohibition Notice referred to a maladjusted trailer brake. There was adverse weight encounter, but no action was taken by DVSA. The tachograph prohibition pertained to a Vehicle Unit after a private VRM had been fitted, suggesting the need for greater attention.
I was interested to read the brief DVSA update of 27 March 2026 against the 25 inspection records, 22 roller brake test reports, 18 Driver defect reports, and 3 Wheel torque records, and forward planner produced by the operator. The Examiner noted that the maintenance declaration had not been completed on 4 records and there were inspections where there was no accompanying brake performance assessment, with no risk assessment produced to justify unladen roller brake tests. 1 safety inspection record was produced without page 2. The Examiner noted a lack of scrutiny: items were recorded as checked, which were not applicable to the vehicle; due to the legibility of records; and the absence of rectification details in respect of defect report.
More positively, he noted that wheel re-torque records include details of the vehicle, the date of wheel fitment, the date of re-torque, the position of the wheel and the technician completing the work. He also recorded the suitability of the wall planner. As the Examiner suggested, tighter management is required.
Determination
Based on the evidence summarised, I was satisfied that I should record adverse findings in respect of the following sections of the Act: 26(1)(b) – conditions on licence to notify changes, in this case relating to the ability of named Transport Managers to meet Schedule 3, 26(1)(c)(iii) – Prohibition Notices, 26(1)(e) – statement to abide by conditions on the licence, 26(1)(f) – undertakings (vehicles to be kept fit and serviceable, effective driver defect reporting, complete maintenance records), 26(1)(h) – material change in Mrs Campbell’s involvement as Transport Manager
In her own words, Mrs Campbell had “not a lot of involvement with the transport operation”. I attempted to understand whether there had been a change in the entity holding the operator’s licence but, whilst there was a definite divide kept between the house and the linked office, Mrs Campbell retained an interest in the partnership through discussions over the kitchen table and involvement on significant decisions, such as those involving the bank or major expenditure. I was satisfied that she continued as a partner, although her day-to-day operations were limited. Given the discussions at the last Public Inquiry, the need to notify me of this change should have been obvious. Mrs Campbell was no more than a Transport Manager in name only. By reference to Statutory Documents No 1 and 3, I would have been entitled to make a finding against her personal repute under section 27(1)(b) which, following the Upper Tribunal in 2017/055 Alistair Walter, could have had very serious consequences for the partnership as a whole.
Representations accepted that some form of intervention was likely. I took evidence as to the potential consequences of possible regulatory intervention, but there remained the fundamental question first posed by the Upper Tribunal in 2009/225 Priority Freight, namely: how likely is it that operator will comply in future? The partnership had held an operator’s licence for 39 years, with varying degrees of success in compliance. I was told that, following discussions, the partners had recognised the need to change. I was pointed to the involvement of Michael Gray, to assist with the management and analysis of drivers’ hours and working time records. That had finally addressed the cause of the string of Public Inquiries, listed above. The last hearing should also have alerted the operator to the need for proper management of its maintenance arrangements. To the operator’s credit, Mr Campbell Snr had invested approximately [REDACTED] in an undercover rolling road brake performance tester.
I did not understand the argument made on behalf of operators and Transport Managers that there can be no suggestion there is not good tyre management, when there was no policy in existence to be applied to the “many tyres and wheels ready for fitment.” That was clarified in representations to mean that tyres were not unsafe. The position appeared well-illustrated by the fact that the operator has found it necessary to involve John Reid, a consultant with Transport Management Scotland. I was told that he has already attended the operator’s premises and will be attending approximately every two weeks, to assist with ensuring compliance. Mr Campbell Jnr referred to new policies and the driver defect reporting app. It was clear that these changes were attributable to the involvement of Mr Reid since 1 April 2026. For the reasons further developed below, I was not satisfied that all the issues had finally been addressed.
In considering the Priority Freight question, I kept returning to the position of Mr Campbell Jnr which appeared to present a real hurdle. I was careful to try and distinguish between the considerable nerves displayed at the hearing and his ability as a Transport Manager. He had not been named on the licence until the Public Inquiry in 2019, but he should have been aware of the adverse history. He had relied on the assistance of Mr Grey to manage drivers’ hours and records. That should have left a lot of time to ensure the efficacy of maintenance and driver defect systems. Given the circumstances explored at that Public Inquiry, he should have been aware of the need for an effective Transport Manager. Mrs Campbell confirmed that she had not exercised the responsibilities since 2019. These had been left to Mr Campbell Jnr. Her name was left on the licence in the hope that her health might improve, but that did not prove to be the case. Looking at that period of over 6 years, it was only with the involvement of Mr Reid from the beginning of this month that any kind of quality check was introduced to the driver defect reporting system. (He was also responsible for the retorque policy.) Mr Campbell Jnr struggled when I sought to understand how defects were reported by drivers during the week and how he recorded that. He appeared to wait for an invoice to be produced rather than making a contemporaneous record. That had only recently been replaced by the R2C system/app. If a defect is reported, it requires a photograph to be submitted. He had yet to have any experience of rectification recording.
Mr Campbell Jnr assured me that he was able to read the brake test reports and produced a printout of the DVSA guidance, but there was no excuse for the absence of regular brake performance testing prior to that. I rejected Mr Kelly’s suggestion that the latest iteration of the Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness had not provided clarity to the industry:
There is an expectation that every safety inspection will include a brake performance assessment using either a roller break test (RBT), a suitable electronic brake performance monitoring system (EBPMS) or a decelerometer where temperature readings.
Conducting a laden brake test using a calibrated roller brake tester is the most effective method of measuring individual and overall breaking performances. A plate brake testing device may also be suitable depending upon the design of the equipment.
Vehicles can be presented for roller brake testing up to 14 days before the safety inspection date; This allows the operator the flexibility to conduct a laden brake test during normal operational activities without the need to specially load it. In these circumstances the RBT report needs to be provided to the person conducting the safety inspection. A copy of the RBT report generated must be retained on the vehicle’s maintenance file.
It is acceptable to use an approved and calibrated decelerometer to measure overall break performance values for vehicles without trailers over vehicles that cannot be tested on an RBT. A decelerometer will issue the overall break performance but it may not identify individual breaking issues. The seller emitters cannot be used for testing trailer brake performance.
Those representations risked the impression not only of a level of ignorance, but a failure to keep up to date or to check understanding. In those circumstances, whilst the Examiner’s comments at an apparent lack of knowledge may have “greatly hurt all partners and Transport Managers”, it appeared justified. The operator now undertook to have laden brake tests of all tractor units and trailers at every Preventative Maintenance Inspection, but that should already have been happening. When questioned by Mr Kelly, Mr Campbell Jnr appeared to struggle with the statutory duty on every named Transport Manager, but when I put the examples to him, he accepted that he had failed to exercise effective and continuous management. Annual auditing by FORS had not apparently alerted him to the need to take action. I heard about additional administrative support available to Mr Campbell Jnr, but I could not avoid the impression that, whilst Mr Campbell Jnr had been persuaded to adopt changes to his processes, there was little proactive intervention by him as Transport Manager and without the help and direction of experienced transport professionals such as Mr Grey and Mr Reid.
I was told of the intention to apply for an operator’s licence in the name of a limited company with both Messrs Campbell as Directors and shareholders, and Allan Campbell Jnr to be nominated as the Transport Manager. There was to be an office restructuring to provide greater support for him. Mrs Campbell was to retire from the road haulage industry but retain a shareholding in the new company. However, it emerged on evidence that, whilst advice had been sought from an accountant, the new entity had yet to be incorporated. I was faced with a situation where I was asked to infer from actions within the last weeks, that Mr Campbell Jnr was now capable of exercising effective and continuous management, despite 6 years where he was not, and to trust the operators to proactively manage change when all the evidence showed that it had taken years to reach this stage. I acknowledge that, on each intervention, the list of issues had grown smaller, but compared that with the management of other compliant operators who adapt to change and ensure compliance with the licence regime.
I regret that my assessment of Mr Campbell Jnr led me to conclude that he was not capable of meeting paragraph 14A(1)(d) of Schedule 3 and that he should be prevented from relying on his Certificate of Professional Competence pursuant to a finding under section 27(1)(b). Rather than make a similar finding against Mrs Campbell, which would have resulted in the operator losing repute, I was persuaded to accept her resignation as Transport Manager. She was advised that being a Transport Manager in name only could lead to a long-term disqualification. She gave a personal undertaking not to seek to rely on her Certificate in future. I imposed the minimum disqualification period on Mr Campbell Jnr to allow him opportunity to work with an experienced CPC holder to learn how to exercise effective and continuous management of a transport undertaking before he might apply to rely on his Certificate again. This led the operator to be without the mandatory and continuing requirement for a Transport Manager meeting Schedule 3, requiring me to revoke the licence under section 27(1)(a). The operator was advised that I had weighed the positives improvements into the balance, although some were very late. The consequences could have been more serious.
I allowed time before the revocation of this licence in order that the new entity might lodge an application and seek, with Mr Kelly’s assistance and through the provisions of Schedule 4, interim authority to continue these operations. This licence will be revoked from 23:45 on 14 July 2026.
R Turfitt
Traffic Commissioner
17 April 2026