Decision for Alps Scaffolding Ltd (OC2055013)
Written decision of the Traffic Commissioner for the North West of England for Alps Scaffolding Ltd
IN THE NORTH WEST TRAFFIC AREA
ALPS SCAFFOLDING LTD – OC2055013
WRITTEN DECISION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER
DECISION:
Under the provision of sections 26(1)(b), 26(1)(e), 26(1)(f) and 26(1)(h) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (“the Act”), this operator’s licence is revoked with effect from 23:45 on 24 June 2026.
Alps Scaffolding Ltd (“ASL”) is a limited company which has held its current Restricted Goods Vehicle Operator’s Licence, authorising two vehicles, since 25 May 2022.
The operator has a single operating centre, recorded as Box Works Annexe, Bootle, L30 6UR. At the date the public inquiry brief was prepared, preventative maintenance inspections are recorded as being carried out internally by Mr. David Ruth at 4-weekly intervals.
Background
ASL previously held licence OC2034180 with Mr. Sean Coulton initially recorded as the sole director. That licence was revoked in May 2021 due to: (i) a failure to provide financial records in the correct entity name; (ii) a failure to notify changes to the directors as required by the conditions of the operator’s licence, and (iii) a lack of clarity as to who had effective control of the licence-holding company.
It had been found that Mr Coulton was removed as director on Companies House with effect from 1 February 2021. The sole director of the company after 01 February 2021 was Mr. David Ruth. Those changes had not, by the time the licence was revoked in May 2021, been notified to the Traffic Commissioner. This was – as noted by the Traffic Commissioner at the time - despite the issue being flagged up in correspondence from this office.
The decision to revoke the licence was appealed to the Upper Tribunal and that appeal was dismissed. The Upper Tribunal concluded that:
“We were satisfied that, notwithstanding our sympathy for Mr. Coulton and the Appellant and its subsequent improvement in fortunes, that the decision of the TC in May 2021 was not wrong. The TC was entitled to find there was serious non-compliance by the Appellant in terms of a failure to comply with the undertakings, have sufficient financial standing and failure to notify a change of directorship. There were repeated opportunities given by the OTC at the time for the Appellant to demonstrate compliance and the TC was entitled to take the view at that time that the Appellant could not be trusted to be compliant. The decision was rational and proportionate.”
The extant licence (OC2055013) was granted following a new application by the, then, sole director Mr. Ruth. On application the applicant company declared that there were no links to previous operator’s licences.
On 13 October 2025 this office was notified that Mr. Coulton had been appointed as a director, and on 15 January 2026 this office was notified that Mr. Ruth had resigned as being a director. Those changes were actually recorded on Companies House as 22 October 2023 and 18 October 2023 respectively. As such, again, ASL has seemingly breached the condition of the operator’s licence to notify such changes within 28 days.
It is a concern that despite the failure to comply with conditions of the licence being a contributing factor in the revocation of the previous licence, this operator has again failed to comply with this important requirement. On 18 October 2023 Mr. Ruth resigned as a director on Companies House. This office was not notified until 15 January 2026. Mr. Coulton was appointed on Companies House as the new sole director on 22 October 2023. That appointment was not notified to the Traffic Commissioner until 13 October 2025.
It is a concern that the failure to notify the Traffic Commissioner has been dismissed as an “administrative oversight” considering the previous similar failure, and the issue having been highlighted by both the Traffic Commissioner and the Upper Tribunal.
Further, evidence available indicates that Mr. Coulton never relinquished control of the operator’s licence. Notably it was he that attended the appeal and not Mr. Ruth. Additionally, Mr. Ruth does not have, and never has had, a user profile for the VOL system. All changes recorded on the licence have been completed by Sean Coulton. This office was therefore concerned the placement of Mr. Ruth may have been a front due to Mr. Coulton’s previous failings.
The public inquiry was therefore convened to consider whether there has been a failure to comply with the undertakings and conditions of the operator’s licence, and whether there has been a material change in the circumstances of the licence-holder which were relevant to the grant of the licence on application – namely that the licence-holder may no longer be considered ‘not-unfit’ to hold an operator’s licence.
Pre-Hearing
A letter calling the operator to a public inquiry was issued on 02 March 2026 to the given correspondence address. This set out the location, date and time of the public inquiry, as well as the reasons. It also set out several case management directions which included (i) the need to respond to this office to confirm who will be in attendance; and (ii) a list of documents to be provided to this office for assessment 14 days prior to the hearing date. The stated deadline was 25 March 2026.
The operator did respond to the calling in letter, requesting an adjournment on account of a pre-planned holiday. As evidence of that holiday was provided, the adjournment was granted and the public inquiry was relisted for 12 May 2026.
Less than a week ahead of the new date this office had not received any further communication. As such, this office contacted the operator to determine whether it would be in attendance. In response ASL confirmed that it would be in attendance and an attendance list dated 05 May 2026 was provided. No other case management directions had been complied with despite the extended timeframe.
In the absence of any further information being submitted the operator was invited to present any additional evidence on the day of the inquiry together with an explanation for the delay.
Public Inquiry
The public inquiry took place on Tuesday 12 May 2026 at a hearing centre in Haydock. The licence-holder was in attendance through its sole director Mr. Sean Coulton. He was supported by Mrs. Amy Coulton (Company Admin) and Mr. Philip Savin (Transport Consultant). It was established that Mr Sean Coulton and Mrs. Amy Coulton were married, and Mr. David Ruth was Mrs. Coulton’s father.
In evidence I was unimpressed with Mr. Coulton as a witness. He was unable to provide direct responses to some of my questions, and I had to remind others in attendance that I was trying to obtain evidence from Mr. Coulton as the sole director. These were straight-forward questions about the management of vehicles operated under the operator licence which should have been known to anyone involved in the establishment, management or oversight of compliance systems.
On a few occasions Mr. Coulton appeared to initially seek to give me the response he might have believed that I wanted to hear, but he was unable to expand upon that response when questioned further. This resulted in him backtracking, more than once, to the point where he admitted that the business did not, in fact, take the actions that he initially stated.
Issues
There were primarily three areas for consideration:
- failure to notify changes to directors within 28 days;
- failure to produce maintenance and traffic records as per the case management directions; and
- fitness of the licence-holder to hold an operator’s licence.
Review of Evidence
Changes to Directors
The changes to the listed directors in February 2021 – removing Mr. Coulton and adding Mr. Ruth – were explained as a structural change to allow Mr. Coulton to concentrate on the scaffolding work and growing the business. Mr. Ruth took over the administration and office work.
One of my concerns was that evidence indicated that Mr. Ruth played no active role in the management of the business. It was Mr. Coulton that attended the appeal, and it was Mr. Coulton that made all changes on the VOL system. Apart from a signed declaration by Mr. Ruth on application, there was no evidence of his active involvement with the business. I was advised that the appeal to the Upper Tribunal likely aligned with a period of illness by Mr. Ruth and resulted in him being unable to attend. No evidence in support of this assertion was provided.
Mr. Ruth’s health was also the given reason for Mr. Coulton being reinstated as director in 2023, allowing Mr. Ruth to take a step back. I was also advised that Mr. Ruth had provided financial support for the business during its formative years hence his greater involvement.
When asked to explain the delay in notifying this office of the changes to named directors Mr Coulton stated that he simply wasn’t aware. I reminded Mr. Coulton that the delay in notifying the change of director was a specific point of criticism from the Upper Tribunal. It stated, at paragraph 39 of its decision dated 22 March 2022:
He [Mr. Coulton] also explained that he had not informed the OTC of the change of directorship with Mr Ruth taking over because he did not know the company needed to. He was new to the business and apologised for any misunderstanding.
Noting that Mr. Coulton was in attendance at the appeal hearing I am satisfied that he was very clearly made aware of the need to notify such changes within 28 days of their occurrence. Despite this, the more recent changes to directors were again not notified within that timeframe. Mr. Ruth was removed as a director on Companies House in October 2023, but that was not notified to this office until 15 January 2026, some 27 months late. Mr. Coulton was reappointed as a director on Companies House in October 2023, but that change was not notified to this office until October 2025, some 24 months late.
Non-Compliance with Case Management Directions - Maintenance
The case management directions issued to ASL on 02 March 2026 set out a requirement to provide my office, 14 days before the initial hearing date, all maintenance records for the past six months, including: preventative maintenance records, brake test reports, driver defect reports and wheel removal / retorque records.
Whilst no records were produced on time Mr. Coulton did bring a neat folder of vehicle maintenance records on the day of the inquiry. When I asked why this could not have been provided on time, he advised me that he had two new vehicles and he was not aware of the need to retain records pertaining to his previous vehicles. Inferring, initially, that he had the records for the previous vehicles but disposed of those when changing vehicles.
Vehicle NU63 YHT had been specified between May 2022 and January 2026, and vehicle SF06 NYL specified between May 2022 to April 2026. When I asked Mr. Coulton whether he was aware of what his licence required in relation to maintenance records for those vehicles he advised he was not aware.
Mr. Coulton confirmed that, as he did not retain maintenance records for the required 15 months, he was unable to produce them when requested. However, when I inquired further I was concerned to learn that, actually: (i) vehicles had not been undergoing the 8-weekly maintenance inspections; (ii) drivers were not recording walk around checks (although it was claimed that vehicle checks were conducted); and (iii) drivers were not recording defects in writing (although it was claimed that repairs were made as needed).
I was also informed that vehicles were not subject to regular brake testing. Mr. Coulton initially sought to challenge me on how often brakes should be tested or assessed but quickly resiled from that position, admitting that he was simply unaware of the requirements.
Mr. Coulton also stated that the maintenance provider was Lamont’s of Heysham Road. I was advised that a contract with Lamont’s was in place, dated 16 April 2026; however, I was also advised that this was the provider used for MOT preparation for a few years now. Mr. Coulton also confirmed that, if a defect was identified that could not be easily rectified in-house it was taken to Lamont’s for repair. It is noted, however, that the maintenance provider, specified on VOL until April 2026, was Mr. David Ruth as an internal provider.
I was advised that Mr. Ruth was not a fitter – but an electrician by trade. I am unable to ascertain why he was nominated as the maintenance provider. Mr. & Mrs. Coulton explained that Mr. Ruth was not a scaffolder, but he did have experience in managing companies and had wanted to help his daughter and son-in-law out. This does little to provide rationale for Mr. Ruth being specified as the maintenance provider.
In addition to the inappropriateness of specifying Mr. Ruth as the maintenance provider, and the failure to notify the changes to the maintenance and safety inspection arrangements within 28 days, it was also identified at the public inquiry that the maintenance inspections were not being completed every four weeks as stated.
Non-Compliance with Case Management Directions – Driver’s Records
The case management directions within the calling in letter also asked for evidence of the licence-holder’s systems for managing drivers for the last six months. This included, specifically, evidence of driver licence checks, driver infringement reports, missing mileage reports, evidence of CPD, and evidence of disciplinary records.
Whilst no evidence was provided in advance to suggest that licence checks were undertaken Mr. Coulton started by telling me that he did complete checks. Initially he stated that he photocopied the licence and checked expiration dates. He then suggested that he checked online but he was unable to provide any detail on that process. When pressed he admitted that he did not, in fact, complete licence checks.
Mr Savin then interjected to advise that since he would, as part of his new role as compliance consultant for ASL, complete these checks four times per year. This assurance carried little weight as it was immediately identified that Mr. Savin had only been engaged since mid-April. As such, only a single check had been done prior to this public inquiry.
It was unsurprising to then hear that, whilst the two drivers employed have tachograph cards, one of those was expired and an application was in process. Mr. Coulton had been unaware of the expiration and was unable to tell me when it had expired as “the driver had not told him”. This is a matter that may have been avoided had a proper system for checks been in place.
When I inquired about systems for complying with the rules in respect of drivers’ hours and tachographs, I was told that Mr. Savin had been managing this since his engagement (mid-April), but prior to that there had been no systems in place whatsoever. There was no company card, there were no downloads of tachograph data, and there were no manual records of working time and driving hours.
I was advised that, since April 2026, the driver who retained a valid tachograph card has been using it, and the other driver is now recording his hours in a booklet provided by Mr. Savin.
Mr. Coulton has signed up for an OLAT Course, and drivers are following up on their driver Continuous professional development. No additional training had been undertaken ahead of this public inquiry.
Fitness
I was advised that, upon receipt of the calling in letter Mr. Coulton realised he needed some assistance. He rang some local companies, who were known to him, and sought guidance. Through those calls he identified Mr. Savin. He also engaged Mrs. Coulton to assist with the administration.
Disappointingly, despite knowing that the business was not in a fit state to comply with licensing requirements; despite accepting his knowledge was absent; and despite accepting that he needed external assistance; Mr. Coulton did not see fit to park up the company’s vehicles and continued to run the vehicles as before.
Recently, ASL changed the vehicles specified on the operator’s licence. RE69 MXO was added on 08 January 2026 and MJ69 XPU was added on 01 April 2026. Mr. Coulton was unable to tell me when the business first took lawful ownership of those vehicles. Whilst no detail could be obtained for RE69, I was advised that MJ69 did undergo a brake test on 07 January 2026 as part of a pre-delivery inspection. There was no associated maintenance inspection to be found and there were no records to suggest that any first-use inspection was carried out by ASL on either vehicle.
I am advised that Mrs. Coulton took up a more active role. She is a HR Business Partner and will be developing policies in relation of health & safety, training needs, and HR policies. I was told that some of this work in underway, but further work will commence after she has had relevant training, with an Operator Licensing Awareness Training (OLAT) course scheduled for the week following the public inquiry.
Mr. Savin is a transport compliance consultant with a lengthy career across a wide-range of roles and functions relevant to operator licensing. He is a qualified driver, CPC transport manager and trainer. He has been contracted by ASL since 16 April 2026. That contract sets out the responsibilities of Mr. Savin, and initially Mr. Savin had intended to carry out an audit, but on realising that there were no records to audit he considered that would be a pointless exercise. Thereafter the role would commence with establishing proper systems for compliance.
I was advised that, since being engaged in mid-April the work of Mr. Savin was delayed by a pre-planned holiday of Mr. & Mrs Coulton. That commenced on 26 April 2026 and ran until 04 May 2026. Therefore, Mr. Savin has been engaged for a total of 18 available days.
Despite this short timeframe he has managed to obtain a company card for ASL and achieve an initial download of vehicle units and driver cards. Induction booklets have been signed by drivers, a driver handbook has been provided, and walkaround checks have been implemented. Gate checks are planned but have not yet commenced. Mr. Savin has also met with Lamonts and obtained a preventative maintenance inspection and brake test assessment (using a rolling road brake tester) for each of the recently specified vehicles.
I was also provided with vehicle and driver files produced for the inquiry. These are records that should have been provided to this office 14 days before the inquiry as per the case management directions. To the credit of Mr. Savin the records were properly filed and indexed. I determined that I would allow their introduction to the inquiry.
There were two vehicle files. These contained a single maintenance inspection report and brake test. There was also a tachograph calibration certificate, MOT certificate and a VTG6. The files contained a range of other sections, for example defect reporting which, as of yet, contained no records.
Driver files included a single licence check, an infringement report (for the driver with a tachograph card), signed health and safety handbooks, a signed driver’s declaration and an unsigned employee handbook.
A further folder contained a range of generic templates for a wide range of compliance systems yet to be fully implemented. The records were blank, showing potential future systems including: defect rectification; wheel torquing; infringement reporting; gate checks; PMI assessment; VOR; tyre change record; and a draft notice of offences to the Traffic Commissioner.
My brief review of the maintenance records and brake test reports that were provided (only one each per vehicle) identified: (i) records were not properly completed (tyre pressures had not been recorded); (ii) driver detectable defects were identified by the inspection with no corresponding driver defect record; and (iii) significant imbalances were recorded at brake test with no evidence of adjustment and retesting as recommended by the DVSA Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness.
Findings
Changes to Directors
I am satisfied that there was no nefarious reason for the failure to notify the changes to directors. I did not identify any reason why this information might be withheld from the Traffic Commissioner such as director disqualification or similar. Accordingly, I do not consider that there has been any attempt by either director (Coulton or Ruth) to act as a front for the other. However, governance was ineffective, and the arrangements resulted in an absence of genuine control.
There is an identifiable failure to comply with the condition to notify such changes within 28 days. This had previously been highlighted to the licence-holding entity by both the Traffic Commissioner and the Upper Tribunal. It is relevant that Mr. Coulton was in attendance at the Upper Tribunal appeal and would personally have been aware of the requirement. I cannot accept Mr. Coulton’s excuse that he simply did not know.
I consider, instead, that this is consistent with a complete absence of oversight and disregard for all undertakings and conditions of the operator’s licence.
Non-Compliance with Case Management Directions - Maintenance
It was admitted that the case management directions to provide maintenance records could simply not have been complied with as the records did not exist. I am also satisfied that this is not a case where the records were once made but not retained. The vehicles did not undergo scheduled inspections, were not subject to any driver defect reporting, and were not brake tested. These are the most basic parts of an effective maintenance regime and do not include the more detailed elements such as wheel security, tyre safety, emissions and load security.
The absence of systems, procedures and records also evidence a complete lack of oversight on the part of Mr. Coulton as the responsible person and demonstrate an identifiable and unacceptable road safety risk.
The provision of last-minute records are a minor positive against a significant, long standing, and consistent failure to comply.
Non-Compliance with Case Management Directions – Drivers Records
As with the maintenance records the complete absence of driver records further indicate a complete absence of management. ASL had no knowledge of what working time rules were relevant to its drivers and no systems to ensure that those rules were complied with. I am satisfied that there were no systems for downloading, reviewing, training or disciplining.
Drivers’ hours and working time rules are a significant feature of road safety, and of fair competition. Again, the absence of systems, procedures and records evidence a complete lack of oversight on the part of Mr. Coulton as the responsible person and demonstrate an identifiable and unacceptable road safety risk
Fitness
I set out above the steps taken since the calling in letter was issued. It is relevant, however, that, in response to inquiries from this office as to the reasons for failing to notify the changes to directors, Mr. Coulton stated – by way of a VOL message dated 24 December 2025 – that he:
“…works closely with the Transport Manager, reviews maintenance and drivers’ records, and ensures issues are addressed promptly. The company has established compliance systems including a Transport Manager, regular audits, licence checks, driver training, and management compliance reviews. Mr Coulton’s involvement provides additional director-level oversight.”
The public inquiry identified no evidence whatsoever that this statement was factual. Compliance systems were not in place, the transport manager [consultant] was not engaged until April 2026, and regular audit, checks, training and reviews were simply not in place. This was, I conclude, another example of Mr. Coulton seeking to provide the answer a regulator would wish to hear, rather than the factual position. At best, it was a misleading statement.
In mitigation Mr. Coulton told me that he considered himself a scaffolder who had been thrown in at the deep end and was now willing to learn. I reminded him – he was not thrown into the deep end, he willingly jumped in. The declaration was signed and the licence was issued both of which clearly documented the undertakings and conditions which are to be complied with.
Decision
My review of the evidence within the hearing bundle, and that provided at the inquiry, is such that I am satisfied that I should record adverse findings under the following provisions:
-
Section 26(1)(b) – that the licence-holder has contravened a condition attached to the licence namely (i) to notify changes in maintenance and safety inspection arrangements within 28 days; and (ii) to notify changes in the ownership of the business within 28 days.
-
Section 26(1)(e) – that the licence-holder made, or procured to be made, for the purposes of an application for the licence, a statement of fact that, whether to his knowledge or not, was false; namely (i) that maintenance inspection would be undertaken at 4 week intervals; and (ii) that maintenance inspections would be undertaken internally by Mr. David Ruth.
-
Section 26(1)(f) – That the licence-holder has failed to fulfil the undertakings of its licence, namely to have proper records to ensure: (i) rules on drivers’ hours and tachographs would be observed and proper records kept; (ii) motor vehicles are kept in a fit and serviceable condition; and (iii) drivers report promptly any defects or symptoms of defects that could prevent the safe operation of vehicles and that any defects are promptly recorded in writing.
-
Section 26(1)(h) – That since the licence was granted there has been a material change in the circumstances of the licence holder, namely that it no longer satisfies the requirement of being ‘not unfit’ to hold an operator’s licence. I make this finding due to the long-term failure to comply with the conditions and undertakings of an operator’s licence particularly having been previously placed on notice by the Upper Tribunal. Mr. Coulton’s lack of knowledge is also a significant feature.
This is not a case that is without positive features. The licence-holder attended the public inquiry and engaged with that part of the process. Mr. Coulton accepted the failings and took a number of reactive steps. These included updating records on VOL, obtaining the external support of a transport compliance consultant, and the establishment of a range of potential systems. Each new vehicle was subject to a maintenance inspection and brake test report before the inquiry took place.
In the negative there has been a long term and sustained absence of effective oversight. Until April 2026, after the calling in letter was issued, there were no systems whatsoever to ensure compliance with drivers’ hours & tachograph rules, or to ensure compliance with the maintenance requirements. Mr. Coulton admits to a lack of knowledge, but I have little evidence of attempts to fill that knowledge gap. As at the day of the inquiry, he had still not undertaken any relevant training. All the positives appear to have come about due to Mr. Savin’s intervention and efforts, but it is not Mr. Savin who I am being asked to entrust with an operator’s licence.
I also consider that the positive improvements fall into the category of too little, too late. Too little, because this licence has been in place since 25 May 2022 and the entirety of the records available to me were single inspection reports, single brake test reports, single driver licence checks and single infringement reports. Too late, because the proposed systems have not yet been implemented with sufficient time to allow provision of evidence that systems are effective.
On consideration of the guidance provided by the Senior Traffic Commissioner on starting points for regulatory action, as set out at Annex 4 of Statutory Document 10, I place this case within the category of “severe”. There have been persistent operator licence failures with an inadequate response. I find these to be reckless actions, stopping short of considering them to be deliberate as it is clear to me that Mr. Coulton does not have the required knowledge. The licence-holder has, for a sustained period, obtained a commercial advantage and created a significant road safety risk.
I am also deeply concerned with the responses received from Mr. Coulton. I am of the view that he often sought to tell me what I might want to hear rather than the factual position. It is only possible, as a regulator, to come to the correct conclusion if I have the facts. Mr. Coulton made that process more challenging, and this is, in itself, a matter that affects his repute and fitness to hold an operator’s licence.
Whilst I recognise that this is a Restricted licence holder, I note the comments from the Upper Tribunal in Redsky Wholesalers Ltd v UKUT [2013] UKUT 194 (AAC) indicating that asking the ‘Priority Freight’ and ‘Bryan Haulage’ questions can be helpful in determining the proportionality of approach. I therefore consider the question posed by the Upper Tribunal in 2009/225 Priority Freight namely: how likely is it that this operator will, in future, operate in compliance with the operator’s licensing regime? I answer in the negative. The evidence before me in respect of this licence – particularly the long-term absence of systems and oversight – leads me to conclude that this is an operator that cannot currently be trusted.
I go on to consider the question posed by the Upper Tribunal in 2002/217 Bryan Haulage namely, “is the conduct such that the operator ought to be put out of business?” I answer this in the positive. I have considered the representations from the licence-holder on the effect of regulatory action, but I consider that any decision other than revocation would be perverse in the circumstances. I do not find a suspension or curtailment to be appropriate as there has been no baseline compliance period, nor evidence that the systems will function in practice (noting the issues I identified within the maintenance records), and previous regulatory reminders and warnings had been ignored.
I therefore make a direction under the legislative provisions set out in paragraph 64 above that this licence be revoked with effect from 23:45 on 24 June 2026. This short period is allowed to ensure the orderly closure of transport services allowing scaffolding to be dismantled and returned to base.
Disqualification
Having revoked the licence for the reasons set out, I take account of the guidance provided by the Senior Traffic Commissioner at Paragraph 108 of Statutory Document number 10. Whilst this operator did not comply with the case management directions, I understand that, in fact it could not, due to the absence of records. Whilst initially Mr. Coulton sought to tell me what I wanted to hear he was, ultimately, honest as regards its failures and whilst I conclude the steps taken were “too little, too late”, I do give credit to the commencement of those steps. I am satisfied that this is a licence-holder who has failed due to absence of knowledge and not due to any nefarious reasons.
Accordingly, I hold back from any direction of disqualification. I am aware that this allows ASL to reapply, but I remind it that good repute is lost. ASL is therefore burdened, on application, to satisfy the Traffic Commissioner that good repute and fitness is regained.
David Mullan
Traffic Commissioner for the North West of England
26 May 2026