Decision for Amberley Minibuses Limited (PH1026706) and Stephen H D Lucas - Transport Manager and Matthew Lucas - Transport Manager
Written Decision of the Traffic Commissioner for the Western Traffic Area for Amberley Minibuses Limited (PH1026706) and Stephen H D Lucas - Transport Manager and Matthew Lucas - Transport Manager
IN THE WESTERN TRAFFIC AREA
AMBERLEY MINIBUSES LIMITED (PH1026706) AND STEPHEN H D LUCAS TRANSPORT MANAGER AND MATTHEW LUCAS TRANSPORT MANAGER
TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER’S WRITTEN DECISION ON 11 DECEMBER 2025
Decision
Pursuant to adverse findings under Section 17(3)(aa), Section 17(3)(b) and Section 17(3)(e) of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981, Licence PH1026706 Amberley Minibuses Limited is suspended from 23.45 on 13 December 2025 for a period of two calendar months. Thereafter, the Licence will be marked on VOL as surrendered.
Upon a finding that the Transport Manager Mr Stephen H D Lucas no longer satisfies the requirements of Section 14ZA(3) to be of good repute in accordance with Schedule 3 of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 and a finding that he is unfit to manage the transport activities of an undertaking, Mr Stephen Lucas is disqualified and prohibited from being designated as a transport manager on any operator licence in Great Britain for an indeterminate period with effect from 23.45 on 13 December 2025. The rehabilitation measures are held in abeyance as I have not had the opportunity to hear oral evidence from Mr Stephen Lucas. However, in relation to such rehabilitation measures, there is liberty to apply.
Upon a finding that the Transport Manager Mr Matthew Lucas no longer satisfies the requirements of Section 14ZA(3) according to a Schedule 3 of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 and a finding that he is unfit to manage the transport activities of an undertaking, Mr Matthew Lucas is disqualified and prohibited from being designated as a transport manager on any operator licence in Great Britain for an indeterminate period with effect from 23.45 on 13 December 2025. The rehabilitation measures are held in abeyance as I have not had the opportunity to hear oral evidence from Mr Matthew Lucas. However, in relation to such rehabilitation measures, there is liberty to apply.
Reasons
Amberley Minibuses Limited has held a Standard National Operator’s Licence since November 2003. It is currently authorised for the use of 9 vehicles. The two named Transport Managers on the licence are Stephen Lucas and Matthew Lucas. Both were also directors along with Susan Lucas and Samatha Denson for many years until recently. Matthew Lucas resigned as a director recorded on Companies House on 29 September 2025, but this was not notified to OTC within the 28 days as required.
As per the case summary, the Operator has no compliance history but in 2025 it came firmly into the radar of DVSA. In May 2025 the operator used vehicle ND61HLO to carry young people when its MOT had expired. Mrs Denson told DVSA that she had forgotten the MOT expired when she used the vehicle from 3 June 2025 to 12 June 2025 to take her own children to school. It maybe that the vehicle is not used for commercial purposes, but it was a road safety risk, and it did not receive a class 5 MOT until 12 June 2025. It informs my decision in terms of how effective the Operator’s systems were.
The follow up investigation showed basic and significant failings in the maintenance systems such that, in my judgement, this operator posed a significant risk to road safety. By way of example, the PMI sheets did not accord with the Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness including basic omissions such as ISO week (crucial to audit intervals), missing defect rectification and tyre pressures not recorded. The forms were so confusing that the experienced Vehicle Examiner found it “difficult to ascertain how the records should be completed correctly”. Further, all brake performance checks were carried out using a decelerometer with no corresponding brake temperatures recorded. For every vehicle at each PMI the parking brake performance was simply endorsed “parking brake adjusted”. This approach to brake performance testing fails to meet Regulation 18 of the Construction and Use Regulations 1986 and predates even the 2014 Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness. There were no documented VOR system and no system in place to check for defect recalls.
In terms of inspection facilities and maintenance arrangements, the Examiner was told that Matthew Lucas remained the maintainer until 01 March 2025, when they changed to ‘JRP’. Matthew Lucas is a trained mechanic but works as a fabricator and had done the PMIs in that location. Matthew Lucas then moved the maintenance to London Farm and trained Mr Pidgley to carried out the PMIs and maintenance. Facilities such as a covered workshop with a ramp were described but there was a complete absence of understanding about brake performance testing. It soon became apparent that Mr Pidgley may not be using the PSV testers manual effectively, and the confusing forms will have not helped anyone. Vehicles never underwent metered smoke capacity check nor was AdBlue consumption monitored.
Of particular concern is that the operator did not have a formal wheel and tyre management policy. There were simply reference to the drivers induction process and the walk around checks. There is no record of any training having taken place. Assurances were given that drivers had been issued with tyre depth gauges but that is of little consequence. The whole point of a system is that if one part falls (e.g. a driver does not do an effective check), another part of the system picks it up. Systems for wheel and tyre management have been expected throughout all versions of the Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness and are implicit within general Health and Safety legislation.
The Vehicle Examiner’s assessment of the Transport Managers is apposite, namely ineffective control and unsatisfactory overall. Stephen Lucas and Matthew Lucas have failed to do any refresher training since passing their CPCs in 1991 and 2016 respectively. VOL indicates Mr Matthew Lucas stated that he was full time in the business but that was not the evidence of Mrs Denson to the Examiner. VOL was never updated with this material change. Stephen Lucas said that previously there had been robust systems but as business eased the focus on the necessity of meeting full compliance had diminished. With no refresher training it is hard to see how assurances of robust systems could be evidence based. Whilst there may be no compliance history, on the evidence before me this is an operator that has fallen off the radar and nothing more. The failure to understand and demonstrate basic systems which are clearly dealt with in the Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness over the last 15 years does not support suggestions of previous robustness.
Stephen Lucas told the Examiner in July 2025 that it was Matthew Lucas who was involved in the day to day running of the business; at the time of the investigation Matthew Lucas was on holiday. However, the Vehicle Examiner formed a view based on what he had seen and heard that Matthew Lucas being present would not have made any difference. The Vehicle Examiner’s conclusion on this area is on point, and I agree with it wholeheartedly “based on conversations and provision of information provide so far, it is my opinion that Mrs Denson is the glue that holds the business together. She stated that she forgotten the MOT had expired… and that was the reason she had used it. It was a business decision not to use the vehicle after 17 May 2025. Currently the only aspect of the business that mitigates some of the risk to passengers and other road users is the limited mileage the vehicles travel per annum”.
The assurance provided to the Examiner in the MIVR response have not been able to be tested as the operator decided to cease trading. In terms of the operator, on the available evidence, on balance I find that this is not a licence that I would have revoked (subject what I say about professional competence below), that it would have been the subject of a significant period of suspension for there to be a root and branch review and a new transport manager engaged. No formal surrender form was ever received but there is a clear indication that it wanted to do so; noting that the vehicles were removed from the licence prior to the call-in letters. However, as I say, there has been no formal surrender request and in any event the operator was aware prior to the indication of surrender that it was being reported to OTC for the non-compliance to be considered. I would not therefore be duty-bound to accept a surrender in any event. Accordingly, I have reached the decision set out in paragraph 1 above.
Transport Managers
As a safety regulator it is difficult for me to conceive how two Transport Managers responsible for only 9 vehicles are found to be so out of date and with systems so inadequate. The evidence demonstrates that there is too much “customs and practice” and informality, yet they were responsible for some of the most vulnerable passengers. The Senior Traffic Commissioner Statutory Document No. 3 Transport Managers sets out in detail what is expected. Mr Stephen Lucas told the Examiner that Matthew Lucas was exercising continuous and effective management of the transport operations day to day as of the end of July 2025. That it is not supported by evidence. Also, in contrast, In his Letter of Representation for the Public Inquiry Matthew Lucas stated that he had not been active for the company in the last 6 months, except as an occasional consultant. That would suggest that he had done nothing since April 2025. If so, Stephen Lucas materially misled the Vehicle Examiner in July 2025.
Matthew Lucas says he would like to preserve his Transport Manager qualification having studied hard to get it. Unfortunately, the responsibility for professional competence requires an informed and engaged transport manager which Mr Matthew Lucas was not for some considerable time even before he did step away. In terms of Mr Stephen Lucas, his Letter of Representation (pages 152-154) seeks to go behind the earlier admissions in his response to DVSA. The letter is further evidence that Mr Lucas did not exercise continuous and effective management and could not have done so as his knowledge was appallingly out of date. By way of example, refers to the ‘new’ requirement around braking standards and wheel tightening checks but those requirements have been in place for many years. Whilst there have been some changes in terms of more robustness – such as a bare minimum of roller brake testing quarterly and some form of brake performance check in between, I repeat that has been a requirement for several years. To still be relying on decelerometers with no brake temperatures is archaic.
In my judgment the risk posed to road safety is such that despite this being a first Public Inquiry it is appropriate and proportionate to find a loss of good repute as Transport Managers for Stephen Lucas and Matthew Lucas. Neither have demonstrated competence in the common sense meaning of the term for too long. In the absence of any refresher training or more recent records to assess changes or improvements, it is also not appropriate and/or possible for me set rehabilitation measures. Accordingly, I reached the decisions set out in paragraphs 2 and 3 above.
Miss Sarah Bell
Traffic Commissioner
Written confirmation: 11 December 2025