Decision for Albert Price (OD10763245)
Written decision of the Deputy Traffic Commissioner in the West Midlands for Albert Price and driver Barry Joe Lee
IN THE WEST MIDLANDS TRAFFIC AREA
ALBERT PRICE – OD10763245
BARRY JOE LEE - DRIVER
DECISION OF THE DEPUTY TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER
Decision
Pursuant to adverse findings under section 26(1)(b), (c)(iii), (f) and (h) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (GVLOA 1995), licence OD10763245 is revoked under section 26(1) of the GVLOA 1995 with effect from 23:45 hours on Sunday 22 February 2026.
Further, Albert Price is disqualified under section 28 of the GVLOA 1995 from holding or obtaining an operator’s licence or being involved in the management, administration and control of any entity that holds or obtains an operator licence indefinitely.
If Mr Barry Joe Lee applies to be involved in operator licensing again in any guise, this must be referred to a Traffic Commissioner and not dealt with under any purported delegated authority.
Driver Barry Joe Lee’s LGV entitlement is suspended for a period of three months from 23:45 hours on Sunday 22 February 2026 until 23:45 hours on Sunday 22 May 2026.
Introduction
This conjoined case is called under sections 26 and 28 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (GVLOA 1995) relating to alleged breaches of operator licence OD1073245 by Albert Price. There is also a driver conduct matter called under sections 110-122 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 relating to driver Mr Barry Joe Lee and by reference to his large goods vehicle (LGV) entitlement. The public inquiry at 11.00 am on 26 January 2026 was attended by Mr Lee, his partner Ms Mandy Underhill and his daughter, Ms Nelly Underhill. Police Constable (PC) Michael Hollowell also attended the hearing.
At the outset of the hearing Mr Lee stated to me that he was also Albert Price, the operator, and that there was no separate person: Mr Lee and Mr Price were the same individual. Mr Lee provided a copy of his driving licence which identified him as Barry Joe Lee. I discuss this matter below. For the purpose of the inquiry and my decision I accept that Mr Lee submitted the application under the name of Mr Price. Mr Lee was not legally represented at the hearing.
Background
The history of this matter is in the inquiry brief with background in the case summary [3-6] and the call-in letter of 4 December 2025 [7-19]. I need not repeat this. In outline, a Restricted Goods Vehicle Licence was granted on 1 October 2007. It was recently renewed in the name of Albert Price on 30 August 2022. It is currently authorised for 1 vehicle with 1 vehicle in possession. Its operating centre is listed as Action Garage, Unit 9B Stag Industrial East, Oxford Street, Bilston WV14 7HZ. The operator is listed on the vehicle operator’s licence (VOL) system as carrying on ‘Fairground (carrying Parts)’.
On 13 February 2025 vehicle FD54EHC was stopped by the police for being in a dangerous condition due to the windscreen being badly damaged with the glass delaminating and the dashboard was full of rubbish. The police incident report of 13 June 2026 [28-30] reported that the vehicle tax had expired in March 2024. Driver Barry Lee was reported for driving the vehicle in a dangerous condition. He was unable to provide any tachograph records. The driver was reported as being very abusive and threatening to fight with PC Hollowell. The vehicle was removed from the licence on 24 February 2025.
On 12 June 2025, vehicle LV17UZM was stopped by PC Hollowell and found to be in a dangerous condition because the driver mirror was missing and the windscreen was cracked from side to side, affecting the structure of the cab. The incident report at [28-30] noted that driver Barry Lee was abusive and offered to fight with PC Hollowell adding that if he saw the officer out of uniform, he would beat him up [29]. The vehicle received a PG9 prohibition.
Following submission of the police incident report, the DVSA sought to undertake a joint traffic and maintenance desk-based assessment (DBA) requesting information from the operator. The DVSA did not receive any information. As a consequence, the Officer of the Traffic Commissioner (OTC) sent a Propose to Revoke (PTR) letter to the operator on 28 July 2025 [93-94]. The operator’s response to the PTR letter of 6 August 2025 signed by Ms Mandy Underhill explained that the reply to the DBA request had been sent to the wrong address and enclosed the completed DBA questionnaire [41-64]. The DVSA then completed a DBA report of 1 October 2025 assessing 11 areas as unsatisfactory [65-82].
The call-in letter referred to potential breaches of sections 26(1)(b), (c)(iii), (e), (f) and (h) of the GVLOA 1995. Due to the alleged breaches, concern was raised that the operator may not have appropriate financial standing to hold an operator’s licence for the number of vehicles authorised.
The driver call-up letter sent to Mr Lee of 8 December 2025 [97-99] explained that the hearing would consider whether he should retain his LGV driving entitlement for, among other things, the offences of driving vehicles in a dangerous condition on two occasions and also driving a vehicle without tax. The police report of 13 June 2025 [108-110] referred to in the call-up letter also reported that on the occasions Mr Lee had been stopped by the police he had been abusive and aggressive towards the officer.
The evidence and findings
Mr Lee, Ms Mandy Underhill and PC Hollowell gave oral evidence to the inquiry. Relevant documentary evidence included the police report, the DBA questionnaire and supporting correspondence and the DVSA report. The operator did not comply with the directions sent with the call-up letter to provide information on who would attend the hearing, finances, maintenance records or forward planning. The only document brought to the inquiry by the operator was a copy of an undated email explaining that Mr Lee had attended HGV Direct Ltd to collect a damaged mirror on 12 June 2025. Video evidence relating to the driver conduct incidents was at [39-41]. I explained at the beginning of the hearing that I had reviewed the CCTV evidence in advance of the hearing. Links to the CCTV footage had been made available to the operator in the information provided with the call-in letter. I asked everyone attending the hearing whether they would like to review the video evidence and everyone declined. I explained that it was available to be seen at any time during the hearing should anyone change their mind.
The DBA questionnaire stated that the vehicle was not used for business. It was only used for private light work in collecting bales of hay for horses every two to three months [44-47]. However, Mr Lee explained in evidence that he also used the vehicle for transporting fairground parts to the fairground around twice a year. In particular, heavy steel plates for securing aspects of the dodgems ride which he oversees and also in transporting a food van for a fairground associate. He explained that a large machine being carried by the vehicle on 13 February 2025 was a log splitter used for his personal use in splitting logs and wood.
The police report, the operator’s DBA response and the DVSA report were considered in detail during the inquiry. As the inquiry progressed a number of concerns arose with the licence in addition to those raised in the call-up letter including in relation to the licence holder’s identity, the use of an unauthorised operating centre, the maintenance and management of vehicles and the management of drivers.
As this is an existing licence, the burden is on me to be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence as against the civil standard of proof, (i.e. on the balance of probabilities or, more likely than not) before making an adverse finding. Applying those standards to the evidence before me I have made the following findings in the sub-sections below.
The licence holder’s name
As noted above, Mr Lee stated that he was Albert Price. I asked whether he had any evidence to prove this and he said no. This was not a trading name; his evidence to me that he had retired and did not work. He explained that he used this name for the licence because someone had been using his name Barry Joe Lee and kept getting arrested and convicted in the magistrates’ court for driving offences. He said that no-one else was aware that he was Albert Price. I explained that without any evidence to prove that he was using the name Albert Price, e.g. as a trading name, then this may amount to misrepresentation in obtaining and/or maintaining an operator’s licence. Some corroboration of the use of the name Albert Price is found in the undated letter from Ms Mandy Underhill [22] when she explains that she is the operator’s partner and that Albert did not have a bank account as is discussed below. This letter appears to have been sent in support of the application to renew the licence of 30 August 2022 [20-21]. Mr Lee could not explain to me why the date of birth of Mr Price stated on the licence was different from his own.
The Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document 5: Legal Entities notes at paragraph 30 that:
“Many individuals and many companies use trading names, these have no legal status and so the ‘real’ legal name must be used for the operator’s licence.”
Without any substantial evidence to suggest otherwise, it appears to me that ‘Albert Price’ is not the ‘real’ legal name of the licenced operator; it is Barry Joe Lee. It is arguable that there may be an allegation of misrepresentation in obtaining or continuing an operator’s licence. However, this was not something before me or stated in the call-up letter. That said, knowing what is now known and taking into account the information and discussion at the hearing, the licence cannot continue in the name of Albert Price. Further, it cannot in my view simply be a question of changing the name on the licence. Mr Lee, with Ms Mandy Underhill’s assistance, has maintained the pretence that Albert Price is the holder of the licence including in the last few months submitting documents to the DVSA in that name. Thus, while there is no allegation of fraud before me, the explanation and statements made on this issue may go to whether the operator is fit to hold an operator’s licence under section 26(1)(h) of the GVLOA 1995 as alleged in the call-up letter.
Financial resources
The operator confirmed the financial position remained as it was in the undated letter from Ms Underhill [22] which was that:
“… Albert has not got a bank account but as I’m his partner I give him permission to have what funds he needs as and when I’ve enclosed three months statements for you to see.”
The operator did not bring any financial information to the inquiry despite this being requested in the call-up letter directions. The obligation to demonstrate sufficient financial resources is a continuing one. It is why the call-up letter highlights this and states in clear terms what is required. Ms Mandy Underhill appeared to have provided bank statements in 2022 in support of the renewal of a licence, it is not known why such information was not provided again, albeit that this would not have been adequate to persuade me that the licence holder had sufficient financial resources. Mr Lee confirmed to me that he did not have a bank account and that he could not demonstrate having sufficient funds. As I explained to Mr Lee at the hearing, if an operator does not provide me with any evidence of financial resources, I have very little choice but to revoke an operator’s licence.
Vehicle and licence management and operation
Having run through the DVSA report and the operator’s response to this, I find that most, if not all, of the unsatisfactory assessments are made out. I have not been provided with any information in relation to vehicle maintenance, vehicle management or driver management.
In terms of documentation that may have provided some indication of the maintenance systems in place, Mr Lee explained to me that all the vehicle documentation had been stolen from the vehicle when it had been broken into overnight on 12 June 2025 when the vehicle had been left at HGV limited. However, the call-up letter had asked the operator to provide information for vehicle LV17UZM from 1 October to 30 December 2025 and this has not been provided. The DBA response suggested a very pragmatic approach to vehicle maintenance and operational management. After going through the DBA assessment areas during the inquiry the position remained as set out in the DVSA report, for instance:
- “4a, The operator has not provided any evidence in the form of maintenance reports to enable an assessment. In a covering letter from the operator it is stated that the records were stolen with a toolbox from the vehicle.
- 4b. No records provided.
- 4c. No records provided. the operator states inspections are conducted every 6 weeks.
- 4d. The operator has stated on the DBAQ response that there is not planning system.
- 4e. The DBAQ response indicates that there is no written VOR system.
- 4f. There is no evidence of a vehicle safety recall system.” [67]
In relation to the use of driver management and the use of tachographs. The DVSA report noted in section 11 that:
“DABQ does not provide any details of the driver documents and all the questions regarding driver documents has been marked N/A.
A DVLA check carried out with information gleaned from VOL system show that Mr Price himself is not entitled to drive the specified vehicle (LV17UZM 18 tonne) as he does not hold the required category C entitlement.
Mr Price was not entitled to drive the previous vehicle FD54EHC (12 tonne), which was removed from the licence on 24/02/25 for the reason described above.
The covering letter by Mr Price eludes to 2 drivers being employed by him. He states in the letter, “There is two drivers for the vehicle on the operator license.” [73]
Mr Lee and Ms Underhill confirmed at the inquiry that, in fact, there was only one driver of the vehicle: Mr Lee. The DVSA assessment that Mr Price was not entitled to drive is now clear for the reasons explained above and that there is no legal person called Albert Price associated with this operator’s licence.
Mr Lee stated to me that in relation to driver training and hours and the use of a tachograph he was exempt from all the regulatory requirements because he was a showman and also that he used the vehicle for purely personal use i.e. carrying hay bales. One or the other of the options may have applied. However, Mr Lee explained during the inquiry that he used the lorry for carrying hay bales, for moving a wood cutter and, from time to time, for transporting fairground equipment including; an electric generator and steel plates for the dodgems and also equipment for an associate’s food stall.
Paragraph 14 of the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document 0: Introduction to operator licensing, the statutory guidance and statutory directions discusses exemptions and provides that:
Regulation 33 and Schedule 3 to the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Regulations 1995 [GVLOR 1995] sets out the classes of vehicle for which an operator’s licence is not required (see Annex 2).5 Any use, seeking to benefit from one of the exemptions, must fall exclusively within the exemption. Any operation outside of an exemption requires an operator’s licence no matter how short the period.
Footnote 5 adds that the difficulty in determining the exemptions is illustrated in R (VOSA) v Kayes [2012] EWHC 1498 (Admin) in relation to a ‘showman’s goods vehicle’.
Regulation 3 of the GVLOR 1995 provides that ‘showman’s goods vehicle’ has the same meaning as section 62 of the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 which provides that:
“showman’s goods vehicle” means a showman’s vehicle which— (a) is a goods vehicle, and (b) is permanently fitted with a living van or some other special type of body or superstructure forming part of the equipment of the show of the person in whose name the vehicle is registered under this Act, “showman’s vehicle” means a vehicle— (a) registered under this Act in the name of a person following the business of a travelling showman, and (b) used solely by him for the purposes of his business and for no other purpose.
In R(VOSA) v Kayes [2012] Mr Justice Collins dismissed an appeal by case stated of a magistrates’ decision to acquit Mr Kayes of breaches of, among other things, the GVLOA 1995 for not obtaining an operator’s licence. Collins J held that the magistrates had not acted unlawfully in reaching their decision. However, his decision, turned on the facts and relied upon the vehicle being found to be a specialised vehicle, permanently fitted with a special body or equipment, namely a food kiosk, and where it was registered in the name of the vehicle owner. In the present case, there has been no specialist equipment permanently fitted into the operator’s vehicles and the business purpose is of transporting showman’s equipment was for the equipment of associates, with the operator stating in his DBA response that he is retired: see [64].
In terms of the vehicle being used for personal use only, the oral evidence of Mr Lee in stating that his vehicle is used twice a year for fairground work contradicts this. Mr Lee may have believed that his vehicle fell within a class of ‘private’ use, although, I find that even his personal use did not fall within the scope of paragraph 3, Part 1, Schedule 3 of the GVLOR 1995 as: ‘a vehicle used on a road only passing from private premises to private premises in the immediate neighbourhood’ and not exceeding 6 miles in any one week.
Drawing the discussion on possible exemptions together, whether in relation to the vehicle use or the need to use a tachograph, I find that the unsatisfactory assessment and evaluation in section 13 of the DBA report is correct in noting the following:
“… Mr Price states that “This vehicle is not used for any work purposes, it picks some hay bales up once every 2/3 months for our own horses. The vehicle is used for a couple of hours maximum to do this. As this vehicle is not being used for work the tachograph is not used.”
Frequency of the use of vehicle and duration of driving are not relevant factors in determining whether tachograph is used or not.
Mr Price has not specified any EU exemption or GB derogation under which the use of vehicle may be exempt from tachograph. The description of the nature of work stated by Mr Price is not a valid reason for not using tachograph. I have not been able to find any exemption/derogation that would exempt the vehicle from tachograph use.
In any event, any vehicle with gross weight exceeding 7.5 tonne must use tachograph regardless of whether it is personal use or business use. No exemption or derogation is applicable to the specified vehicle (LV17UZM) as it’s gross weight is 18000kg /18tonne. No exemption/derogation would have been applicable to removed vehicle FD54EHC as the gross weight of that vehicle is 12000kg/12 tonne. The driver of the vehicle/s would have been required to comply with EU drivers’ hours rules.”
Overall, I agree with the DVSA’s unsatisfactory findings in relation to driver management covered in sections 11 to 14 of the report and that the operator is not complying with the regulatory provisions. I also find that the use of the operator’s vehicles does not fall within any exemption to the regulations such that it could avoid any obligations to meet the regulatory requirements, including the use of a tachograph.
Police reports of vehicles in a dangerous condition
Having read the police report at [28-30] and having heard evidence from Mr Lee and PC Hollowell and reviewed the CCTV footage, I find that the two incidents of vehicles being driven in a dangerous condition are made out. I do not consider these in the context of any prosecution, but these do amount to a breach of conditions of the licence to keep vehicles fit and serviceable.
Legislative breaches
Having regard to the above, I find that there have been the following breaches of the GVLOA 1995:
- section 26(1)(b) and a breach of licence conditions including that vehicles are to be kept fit and serviceable;
- section 26(1)(c)(iii) and that prohibition notices have been issued by the DVSA or the police in the last five years including in October 2022 for concern over seat belts, brakes and suspension and in June 2025 by the police for a defective mirror;
- section 26(1)(f) relating to undertakings given when applying for the licence including that rules on drivers’ hours and tachographs would be maintained; that drivers would report any defects or symptoms of defects promptly and in writing and that the traffic commissioner would be informed of any changes or convictions; and,
- section 26(1)(h) and a failure to notify the traffic commissioner of a material change in the operations including that Northamptonshire Police has referred two instances of vehicles being driven in a dangerous condition and further that the operator has not shown that he has sufficient financial resources.
Driver conduct
In relation to Mr Lee’s conduct as a driver, I must consider whether he is unfit to hold an LGV driving entitlement and, if so, whether that entitlement should be either suspended or revoked under section 115 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. In oral evidence, Mr Lee disputed that the vehicles were in a dangerous condition although he did accept that on the 13 June 2025 he had been driving without a driver-side mirror. He disputed that it had been missing since the previous day but that it had broken immediately prior to being stopped by the police and that he was on the way to get this fixed. He accepted that he was abusive and aggressive towards PC Hollowell and that he had threatened to fight with the officer.
During the course of the hearing, Mr Lee stated that he had never undertaken any driver training and that he did not have a Certificate of Professional Competence (CPC) qualification. He explained that because he only drove for personal use this was not required. There are exemptions for some drivers who if using a vehicle for, among other things, the non-commercial carriage of passengers or goods, are not required to maintain driver CPC. However, Mr Lee’s driving in relation to the fairground activities do not appear to me to fall within any other exemption. Should Mr Lee decide to carry out this type of driving activity in the future, it seems to me that he will require relevant driver CPC training and if he fails to do so will be driving unlawfully.
The specific allegations in the call-up letter include driving without tax, driving a vehicle that has received a PG9 Prohibition and driving a vehicle in a dangerous condition. The Police Goods Vehicle Incident Referral at [108-110] which is referred to in the call-up letter also amounts to a ‘Report from a public body of a driver adopting abusive or intimidating behaviour to a public official’ noted at page 39 of Statutory Document 6: Vocational Driver Conduct (SD6) This sort of behaviour can amount to an offence under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 and which covers police officers: see e.g. DPP v Orum [1988] Crim LR 848. PC Hollowell noted in evidence that he decided not to arrest Mr Lee for his actions. I am aware that Mr Lee was issued with two fixed penalty notices of £100 each: one on 12 February 2025 for the offence of being in charge of a vehicle in a dangerous condition, and the second on 12 June 2025 of being in charge of a vehicle with a defective mirror and for which a PG9 prohibition had been issued. I understand that Mr Lee did not have any penalty points added to his licence.
I do have regard to the suggested starting points in Annex A of SD6 and also the discussion at paragraph 100 which provides that:
“Traffic commissioners are entitled to expect that drivers will treat public officials with respect at all times. If a traffic commissioner receives a report that a driver has been abusive or intimidating to officials, they will consider whether such conduct affects the driver’s fitness to continue holding vocational entitlement.”
Drawing the above matters together I find that Mr Lee has fallen below the standards expected of professional drivers such that I regard him as being unfit to hold his LGV entitlement for a period of time.
Determination
Having made the above findings, I remind myself of relevant provisions from the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document 10 (SD10) including paragraph 4 and that the legislation exists to promote road safety and fair competition and that commissioners will: “have regard to the principle of proportionality in deciding what intervention is commensurate with the circumstances of each individual case”. At paragraph 50 it also notes that:
“A traffic commissioner should consider all the relevant negatives and positives when balancing the relevant factors and so should also carry out an assessment of the weight to be given to all the various competing elements. …”
On the positive side, Mr Lee and Ms Underhill have been open and frank in their discussion and explanations albeit that there are some gaps in their evidence. Also, and as far as I am aware, this is the first occasion that Mr Lee and this licence have been before a traffic commissioner at an inquiry. The negative factors are that there are a number of breaches of legislation, prohibition notices issued and a number of unsatisfactory areas in operation, management and oversight and use of the licence.
One of the difficulties is that the operator has simply not understood the full nature and extent of his responsibilities. Yet, operators are deemed to know the advice and guidance that is publicly available. In LA & Z Leonida t/a ETS [2014] UKUT 0423 (AAC) the Upper Tribunal noted that:
- … it does not matter whether an operator’s licence is held by an owner operator, a partnership or a limited company because in each case the person or persons responsible for managing the business bear the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that the road transport aspect of the business operates in compliance with the regulatory regime.
This means that operators cannot plead ignorance or put the blame on others because they are required to have sufficient knowledge of the regulatory regime to ensure compliance.
Taking into account the positive and negative factors and by reference to the suggested starting points of regulatory action found in Statutory Document 10, Annex 4, I find that this case may be regarded as severe to serious, this is because I have found that there appears to be no vehicle or driver management or oversight under this licence. Further, there appears to have been no effort to address the shortcomings found by the DVSA. Finally, I do have regard to the effect of the regulatory action proposed on the operator which will be personal rather than commercial.
Decisions
As noted above, I have not been provided with any financial information, and I am therefore bound to revoke licence OD1073245. Further, the licence is in the name of a person who does not have a distinct legal personality in the context of this operator’s licence and for that reason revocation must also follow. Accordingly, I direct that the order of revocation will take effect at 23:45 hours on Sunday 22 February 2026.
Having revoked licence OD1073245 I go on to consider disqualification under section 28 of the GVLOA 1995. This may be an abstract question in the light of my findings but, for completeness, I disqualify Albert Price from holding an operator’s licence indefinitely. The primary reason for this is to dissuade Mr Barry Lee from seeking to apply for another LGV licence in that name. That said, I do not disqualify Mr Lee however, I do direct that if he decides to apply for an LGV licence in the future the matter should be referred to a traffic commissioner and not determined under delegated authority. That is not to say that a licence may not be granted but any application will have to address all the concerns raised in this inquiry including ensuring that there will be full compliance going forward, that there will be sufficient financial resources and that he demonstrates that he is fully aware of the duties and responsibilities under the licence. He will need also to demonstrate that he can be trusted in the future, given that he maintained the pretence of being Mr Albert Price for so long.
If Mr Lee applies to be involved in operator licensing again in any guise, then I direct that this must be referred to a traffic commissioner and not dealt with under any purported delegated authority. In terms of any fresh application, Mr Lee may wish to consider obtaining some specialist guidance or advice before submitting an application. However, that is entirely a matter for him.
In terms of driver conduct, having found that Mr Lee has behaved in a way that is unacceptable for a professional LGV driver, I suspend his LGV entitlement for a period of three months from 23:45 hours on Sunday 22 February 2026 until 23:45 hours on Sunday 22 May 2026. The purpose of this is to seek to deter Mr Lee behaving in this way in the future. He must appreciate that PC Hollowell, his police colleagues and the DVSA all work for the public benefit in civil society. Their task is in trying to keep the roads as safe as is possible at a time when there are still too many instances of injury and death on the roads. I wish to highlight that the length of suspension has been aggravated by the abusive language and aggressive behaviour which is wholly unacceptable. Finally, Mr Lee will be aware that his LGV suspension does not affect his ordinary driving licence, and he is able to continue to drive any car or van that does not require LGV entitlement during the period of suspension. However, I emphasise that driving an LGV vehicle during that period is an offence.
13 February 2026
Dr Paul Stookes
Deputy Traffic Commissioner