Decision for All Wright Removals Ltd (OH2088870)
Written Decision of the Deputy Traffic Commissioner.
IN THE WESTERN TRAFFIC AREA
ALL WRIGHT REMOVALS LTD – OH2088870
DECISION OF THE DEPUTY TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER
Decision
On consideration of the application by All Wright Removals Ltd (the applicant) for a standard international goods vehicle operator’s licence (no. OH2088870) and upon its director, Miss Leah Wright providing the undertakings below, the licence is granted authorising licence authorising 2 heavy goods vehicles, 0 trailers and 1 light goods vehicle under section 13 of the GVLOA 1995.
Reference to pages in the public inquiry brief are in square brackets e.g. [101].
Introduction
This case is called under section 13 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (GVLOA 1995) and relates to an application (no. OH2088870) by All Wright Removals Ltd (the applicant) for a standard international goods vehicle licence authorising 3 vehicles. Miss Leah Wright and Mr Peter Wright, two of the applicant’s directors, attended the hearing. Leah Wright is the applicant’s proposed transport manager. Miss Wright is Mr Wright’s daughter. The third director, Mr Lewis Wright, is Leah Wright’s brother and Peter Wright’s son.
The history of this matter is in the inquiry brief with a concise background in the case summary [3-4] and call-in letter of 29 June 2026 [5-17]. In outline, the applicant applied for a licence in 2024 (no. OH2078492). This was refused by Traffic Commissioner Rooney at a public inquiry on 27 May 2025 because the applicant had failed to establish good repute and professional competence [45-49]. This latest application was received on 9 February 2026. The traffic commissioner decided to call the matter to inquiry due to the history of director Peter Wright, particularly in relation to the Wright Removal Company (SW) Ltd (WRC (SW) Ltd) that went into liquidation in 2024 and the refusal of the previous application [72-73]. There is also an application as to whether Miss Wright be appointed as transport manager. The applicant submitted updated financial information in accordance with the case management directions. It provided further late information such as evidence of OLAT training, policies and procedures.
Evidence and findings
In an application for an operator’s licence the applicant bears the burden of proof, according to the civil standard (i.e. on the balance of probabilities, or more likely than not) and throughout the application process, to satisfy me that it has met the legal requirements set out in section 13 of the GVLOA 1995. Applying that standard to the evidence before me, I make the following findings.
The applicant has satisfied me that it has financial standing. The financial information provided on the application and by way of the updated information demonstrate sufficient funds available for the number of vehicles sought under the application. I am also satisfied that the applicant has a stable establishment.
Good repute
Traffic Commissioner Rooney found that the applicant had not established good repute due to: (a) the failure of Peter Wright to disclose material changes as to the financial insecurity of WRC (SW) Ltd; and, (b) that as a director of that operator company Mr Wright made conscious efforts to prefer some trade creditors before HMRC prior to liquidation.
Mr Wright provided me with an oral and written explanations of the factual circumstances behind the liquidation of WRC (SW) Ltd [51-53]. He explained that the financial failure was caused largely by his former co-director, Neil Chapman, who had been responsible for the company’s financial matters. He explained that Mr Chapman had concealed the build-up of significant arrears to HMRC as well as concealing correspondence from Mr Wright by diverting important information from the main operating centre address to three separate addresses. When Mr Chapman’s actions were discovered the relationship with Mr Chapman ended. However, the finances of the business could not be saved, despite Mr Wright attempting to do so over a period of time. In relation to concerns of preferential treatment of creditors, Mr Wright explained that the decision to sell the business to Fox Moving and Storage (Fox) was on the advice of his accountant and the liquidators. Mr Wright stated that the company sale and subsequent liquidation was:
“… not the result of poor operational management or non-compliance on his part but rather due to the undisclosed financial misconduct by my former co-director, which I acted upon immediately once discovered. …” [52]
I asked Mr Wright whether he had explained the factual background in such detail to Commissioner Rooney and he said that he had not. Had he done so, it is possible that it may have had a bearing on the issue of his good repute. This does not explain the failure to report the financial situation to the traffic commissioner and, in my view, the failure to disclose material changes was contrary to section 26(1)(h) of the GVLOA 1995.
Mr Wright addressed me on the question of whether the new application may simply be a front for his own activity or that it was a phoenix operation rising from the liquidation of WRC (SW) Ltd. In that regard, Miss Wright and Mr Wright confirmed that the three directors had equal shares in the company and were also all employed full time (as they had previously been in the former company and when it was subsequently sold to Fox). This equity of ownership and responsibility in the new company was clear to me from Miss Wright’s knowledge and understanding of the current business activities. I asked Miss Wright to point out where in the bank statements the wages were paid and she did so at pages [75, 84, 108, and 119]. The wages were all of the same value and paid at the same time. There was similar scrutiny of the multiple payments to hire companies for van rental, something necessary to cover the work being undertaken by the applicant in the absence of a vehicle that may be operated under a licence. Mr Wright stated that the former customers from WRC (SW) Ltd had remained with Fox and that the applicant had an entirely new client and customer base. Again, I am uncertain that the applicant placed this level of detailed evidence before Commissioner Rooney. Overall, I am satisfied that this applicant company is neither a front nor may it be fairly described as a phoenix company rising from the ashes of WRC (SW) Ltd. The applicant has been operating in its own right and is carrying on its own business separate from WRC (SW) Ltd activities which continue to be run by Fox. I acknowledge the applicant and WRC (SW) Ltd are in the same line of work.
I accept the explanation of Mr Wright and the factual circumstances surrounding the sale of WRC (SW) Ltd. Overall, I am of the view that I now have a much greater level of detail and explanation as to the circumstances behind the demise of WRC (SW) Ltd than Commissioner Rooney. I also have the benefit of the time and the activities that have passed since May 2025, including that the applicant company has matured and appears to be demonstrating financial stability and good management. Drawing all this together, I reach the conclusion that on 28 July 2026, Mr Wright can be regarded as having some good repute. The failure to report material financial changes in 2024 was not acceptable but that, on its own, does not demonstrate loss of repute as of today’s date.
Professional competence
In terms of professional competence, the applicant has revised its business structure since the last application. This includes that Miss Wright is the nominated transport manager. I am told that this decision was taken in the light of legal advice given after the earlier licence application had been refused. Miss Wright passed her transport manager CPC qualifications in September 2025. She acknowledged that she did not have experience of acting formally as a transport manager, although the applicant was operating its business according to the general principles of operator licensing for their sub 3.5 tonne vehicle (a Luton van). I find that Miss Wright’s experience was limited in some areas, such as driver management and maintenance. Although she did present herself as having a good grasp of financial and other management aspects of the business. Mr Wright explained that he had many years’ experience as a transport manager and so would be providing support and guidance whenever necessary. Mr Wright had current transport manager CPC qualifications, having updated these in May 2025 [98-99].
I note also that the third director Lewis Wright had attended a one-day OLAT course on 1 May 2025. I was informed that he had also recently obtained his Class 2 LGV entitlement. It appears to me that all the directors are taking material efforts to help ensure that their business may operate with an operator’s licence effectively and compliantly.
Decisions
Having regard to the above I find that, while Mr Wright failed to disclose material changes to the licence of WRC (SW) Ltd, on the evidence before me I do not consider that his actions in 2022-2024 amounted to such that it can continue to be said that he has lost his good repute for the purpose of section 13 and Schedule 3 of the GVLOA 1995. If he had, the actions and steps he has taken since then in helping to develop the applicant company as a lawful and financially stable business is such that any lost repute that may have arisen could now be revisited. Accordingly, my finding is that as at today and with the benefit of the detailed submissions and explanation provided to me that Mr Wright’s shortcomings are now such that his repute, if it was lost, may now be regarded as restored. This is not to say that I consider Mr Wright’s repute to never have been tarnished; it had. He had joint and several liability for all matters relevant to the operator licence and WRC (SW) Ltd went out of business.
I remind the applicant and its directors that they are expected to know the full nature and extent of their responsibilities under the operator licensing regime. They make a declaration to that effect when they apply for their operator’s licence and on any subsequent application to continue or vary the licence. They are also expected to have sufficient knowledge and understanding of the advice and guidance that is publicly available. The Upper Tribunal in LA & Z Leonida t/a ETS [2014] UKUT 0423 (AAC) noted that:
.4. … 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. That means that they cannot plead ignorance or put the blame on the transport manager because they are required to have sufficient knowledge of the regulatory regime to ensure compliance in general and the proper performance of the transport manager’s duties in particular.
Having decided that Mr Wright’s repute is not lost in terms of the operator licensing regime, I look to all the directors and the applicant company itself and I am satisfied that the applicant has good repute sufficient to meet the standard in section 13A(2)(b) and paragraphs 1-5 of Schedule 3 of the GVLOA 1995.
Turning now to the question of professional competence. Strictly, Miss Wright is professionally competent according to section 13A(3) and paragraph 14A of Schedule 3 of the GVLOA 1995. However, I am concerned that she has the sole responsibility of being transport manager on the licence. She would benefit from some practical experience and being responsible for managing matters such as maintenance inspections, drivers’ hours management and so on and she may gain this from Mr Wright. However, on balance I do not suggest that Mr Wright is proposed as a transport manager. I consider that bearing such sole responsibility will help focus Miss Wright’s mind and sharpen her learning of all the relevant skills and knowledge required. I do so with the knowledge that she can draw upon her father’s experience as a certified transport manager.
The above said, I would like some oversight of this new application. I sent a draft decision to the applicant and proposed granting the application subject to the applicant offering two undertakings:
-
to obtain an independent audit within nine months from the date of the grant of any licence; and,
-
that it submits evidence of financial standing in the form of three months bank statements after a period of nine months from the grant of any licence.
I was informed on 4 August 2026 that the applicant had offered undertakings in the terms above. In accepting the undertakings offered to me and having regard to my findings above on application (no. OH2088870) by the applicant for a standard international goods vehicle licence I grant the licence authorising 2 heavy goods vehicles, 0 trailers and 1 light goods vehicle under section 13 of the GVLOA 1995.
Undertakings
-
The operator undertakes to identify an independent body to carry out an audit of transport safety and compliance systems. The audit will assess the systems for complying with maintenance and/or drivers hours’ requirements, and the effectiveness with which those systems are implemented. The audit should cover at least the applicable elements detailed in the guidance on Operator Compliance Audits available at: www.gov.uk/government/publications/operator-compliance-audits. A copy of the report together with the operator’s detailed proposals for implementing the report’s recommendations is to be uploaded to the licence record via the Vehicle Operator Licensing self-service account, or, if the operator does not have a self-service account, emailed to notifications@vehicle-operator-licensing.service.gov.uk by 30 April 2027.
-
The operator will provide original or copies (verified by the issuing bank or building society) of financial evidence in the name of All Wright Removals Ltd covering the period 1st January 2027 to 31st March 2027 to the Office of the Traffic Commissioner in Bristol by no later than 30 April 2027. This must show that the operator has continued to meet the required level of available finance throughout the period by reference to an average balance, dependent on the rates applicable at that time. Rates to be found in the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document No. 2 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/traffic-commissioners-finance-march-2019 Where originals are not available each statement must be stamped and authenticated by the bank/building society.
5 August 2026
Dr Paul Stookes
Deputy Traffic Commissioner