Decision for Astra Removals Ltd (OH2031190) and Astra Removals South UK Ltd (OH2087022)
Written decision of the Traffic Commissioner for the West of England for Astra Removals Ltd and Astra Removals South UK Ltd
WESTERN TRAFFIC AREA
ASTRA REMOVALS SOUTH UK LTD - OH2087022
ASTRA REMOVALS LTD – OH2031190
AT A PUBLIC INQUIRY IN BRISTOL 28 MAY 2026
DECISION
Pursuant to adverse findings under Section 26(1)(b), (1)(h) and 27(1), licence OH2031190 is revoked with immediate effect.
Section 13A, good repute, fails to be satisfied. Application OH2087022 is refused.
The good repute of Ricky Barton is lost. He is disqualified for an indeterminate period. He is at liberty to apply to have that disqualification removed at any time but will need to appear before a traffic commissioner.
BACKGROUND
Astra Removals Ltd is the holder of a standard international goods vehicle operator’s licence authorising the use of three vehicles and two trailers from an operating centre at Henbury Farm, Sturminster Marshall, Dorset. The sole director and also transport manager is Ricky James Barton. The company appeared before me at a public inquiry in August 2023 where I made the following decision:
“The operator has a very poor roadside encounter history leading to a DVSA investigation. Director and transport manager Ricky Barton has attended today represented by Philip Brown, solicitor. Compliance documents were provided in advance.
There are positives to the operator as it is today. The engagement of transport consultants has established systems and processes. There have been clear recent encounters. I note a new vehicle has been added to the fleet. The operator has invested in proper legal representation. There is evidence that drivers have received warnings.
Against those positives is the roadside encounter history. Vehicles have been encountered in very dangerous condition such as having no brake lights operating at all. Drivers have been significantly over their hours. A vehicle was overloaded; Mr Barton sought to tell me that it was a minor overload but the £300 FPN indicates otherwise. Action to move away from self-employed drivers has been slow.
Mr Barton does not appear to have the inquiring mind necessary for a transport manager. He puts it down to naivety and inexperience but he passed his CPC in April 2022 and has been listed on the licence since October 2022. I find that he is failing continuously and effectively to manage the transport operation and his good repute as transport manager is lost. He is disqualified from acting as such for a period of twelve months and until he demonstrates that he has worked alongside an experienced and capable transport manager for a period of at least three months.
I am concerned at the condition of vehicles submitted for safety inspections with many immediately prohibitable items apparently present. Advisory defects do not appear to be actioned, even when identified by DVSA on an Inspection Notice. I find that vehicles have not been kept fit and serviceable and, on that finding, the licence is curtailed to 4 vehicles with immediate effect and to three vehicles with effect from 1 October 2023. The curtailment is indefinite and any application to remove it will need to be accompanied by clear evidence of strong compliance systems, by evidence that all drivers are employed directly and by a clear, or substantially clear, roadside encounter history.
I grant a period of grace for 2 months from today to appoint a new transport manager. The variation to increase to two trailers is granted substantively.”
There has been no application to lift the curtailment. Mr Barton served his disqualification, worked alongside an experienced transport manager for ten months and attended refresher training. His good repute was restored in October 2024 and he was added back on to the licence on 17 January 2025.
Astra Removals South UK Ltd submitted an application on 7 November 2025 for a standard international goods vehicle operator’s licence seeking authority to operate three vehicles and one trailer from a site at Magna Park, Poole, Dorset. The sole director and proposed transport manager was Ricky James Barton. The applicant answered “No” to the question “Does anyone you’ve named in this application (including partners, directors and transport managers) currently hold a goods or PSV operator’s licence in any traffic area?” but the previous adverse compliance history was properly declared. The three vehicles specified on the application were those specified on the Astra Removals Ltd.
On 12 November 2025, my office wrote to the applicant with a number of questions. One was in relation to Mr Barton’s availability as transport manager. Two further questions were posed. The first was why, given that Astra Removals Limited was not proposing to surrender its licence, did Mr Barton need a licence in the same traffic area with a slightly different name for the same nature of business. The second question asked whether Astra Removals Limited was in any financial trouble.
Mr Barton responded via the messaging system on Thursday 13 November saying “Please find attached a letter from Ricky Barton answering all of your questions”. Unfortunately, the attached letter failed to address the second of these two questions although did indicate that the existing licence would be surrendered on grant of the application.. Despite not having supplied full and complete answers, Mr Barton chased interim authority on a number of occasions.
On 27 November, my office again wrote asking whether Astra Removals Limited was having any financial difficulties. Mr Barton replied “No. Astra Removals Limited is not in financial difficulty. We are closing it out of choice, not out of necessity.” On 5 December, my office requested three months bank statements for Astra Removals Limited. Mr Barton continued to chase interim authority on the new application. Perhaps realising that the new licence would not be granted until he complied with the request on the existing licence, Mr Barton uploaded three months bank statements on 15 December. The statements were not for the latest three months but cover the period August to October. They did not satisfy financial standing for the three vehicles authorised.
It would appear that Mr Barton tired of chasing the licensing team and contacted the hearing centre in Bristol for an update. Mr Barton wrote:
“Thank you for your time on the phone this afternoon and for agreeing to take a look into this matter for me. As discussed, I am (voluntarily) closing my current limited company, and opening a new one. There are several reasons for this - My current tenancy agreement is due to expire on our depot at Henbury farm, so we have to move, and there is an agreement in place for telecoms systems at that address with a company called [redacted] who you may be aware of? They are currently being investigated by the industry watchdog i believe. They will not let me out of a contract that we were forced to renew (its a long story but happy to share the details if you wish?) last year and want to charge me £18,000.00 to cancel it. My decision was to close the company when we move to escape the contract and to restructure the business.
we have established a new limited company and have applied for a new operator license, at our new base of operations at the request of the OTC. This was made in early November. Subsequently the OTC has asked for bank statements of the current licence as part of the application for the new licence to prove financial standing, which i provided on the 15th December, and show sufficient financial standing for the licence. I have not had any response back from anyone there until today, with information that my case may not be looked at for another several weeks yet. As you can imagine, this situation of being caught between two limited companies and trying to make sure that I am compliant while i wait for an outcome is incredibly stressful and is now impacting my mental health quite badly. I am not sleeping or eating properly and am constantly worrying about this. I wonder if there is any possibility that it can be looked at and assessed as soon as possible to allow me to move forward, as currently i do not see a way forward. I have met all the criteria for the application and have provided the evidence requested for both limited companies and can see no reasonable excuse for being made to wait 2 months for a decision while risking being non-compliant.”
The case was referred to a Deputy Traffic Commissioner who directed that the applicant be written to in the following terms, sent on 3 February 2026:
I write in reference to your application for a goods vehicle operator licence and the Traffic Commissioners decision regarding the application. The Traffic Commissioner has considered the application and has made a direction to request the following information prior to making a full decision on the application;
-
Please provide full explanations and assurances regarding the following concerns. The TC is concerned that the financial standing requirements for the current licence have not been met by the Operator over the 3-month period for which bank statements have been provided. The material change in the financial standing of the operator had not been notified to the Traffic Commissioner. The Traffic Commissioner is concerned that the conduct of the financial affairs of the company by its Board may adversely affect the good repute of the operator company. Is the company able to pay its debts when due at the current time. Is the company trading and carrying out new business. Does the company retain ownership of the vehicles specified against the licence and does it employ and pay the drivers of those vehicles.
-
Please provide full details as to the reason for the change of entity.
-
Please provide a description of the payments made into the applicant company bank account between the dates of 11/11/2025 to 10/12/2025.
-
Confirmation of which legal entity is currently operating the vehicles.
Please provide the requested information by no later than 17/02/2026.
Following a further referral to a Traffic Commissioner, the operator was notified that the application would be heard at public inquiry in the following terms:
I refer to your application for a goods vehicle operator licence.
I am writing to advise you that the Traffic Commissioner has decided to convene a Public Inquiry to consider the application due to concerns regarding the financial standing of both this company and the current curtailed licence OH2031190 ASTRA REMOVALS LIMITED. The capitolontap account shows as being in the name of “Astra Removals” and there is no confirmation that this is in the name of the legal entity applying for the licence and not ASTRA REMOVALS LIMITED. In response to the other questions the following was stated:
“thank you for your letter. I answered all of these questions in November?? the bank statements sent DO show adequate financial standing for both companies. There is also a company credit card available with £[redacted] useable balance. I am closing the existing company to restructure as already explained. I have just applied to surrender that licence and will now dissolve the LTD. There is no evidence to suggest any improper financial conduct at all, and therefore no evidence required to prove there ISNT any improper conduct. I will cancel my current application and operate my business with vehicles under 3.5T until a resolution can be found at my end.”
The applicant director has stated “there ISNT any improper conduct” however on 16/02/2026 company ASTRA REMOVALS LIMITED (OH2031190) went into creditors voluntary liquidation. Upon review of statement of affairs, it shows that the company owe £248,960 with £93,000 owed to HMRC. A request has also been made to surrender that licence.
The Traffic Commissioner has calling both this application and company ASTRA REMOVALS LIMITED (OH2031190) to a public inquiry. The Traffic Commissioner has refused the surrender of the licence and has noted that any request to withdraw be refused as it is in the public interest for this application to be determined given the apparent false statement made by the director.
Mr Barton wrote again to say that his statement of 3 February had not been false as the company did not enter formal insolvency proceedings until 16 February. I concluded that it was more likely than not that the sole director will have been aware of the likely insolvency proceedings on 3 February and directed that the hearing go ahead.
THE PUBLIC INQUIRY
No-one has attended for the applicant or operator. Mr Barton has provided a written statement as his evidence. It reads as follows:
Introduction
My name is Ricky Barton. I am the director of Astra Removals South UK Ltd and was the director and transport manager of Astra Removals Limited (OH2031190). I am submitting this personal statement in lieu of attendance at the Public Inquiry. I will address the reasons for my non-attendance later in this statement.
I wish to be straightforward with the Commissioner from the outset. I accept that the new licence application will not proceed. I accept the closure of OH2031190. These are not the matters I am here to contest. I am writing because I believe the Commissioner does not yet have the full picture of what has happened, why it has happened, and who has borne the consequences of it. I am asking for the opportunity to place that picture before the Commissioner, and I am asking for my Transport Manager CPC qualification to be preserved.
I am writing this statement without legal representation. I cannot afford a solicitor for this inquiry. I am a sole individual navigating a complex regulatory process alone, while simultaneously managing the personal financial consequences of the events described below. I ask the Commissioner to read this statement in that context.
How I Built This Business and What Happened To It
I founded Astra Removals Limited in 2019. I built it from nothing. At that time I did not hold a Transport Manager CPC qualification. I did what the regulatory framework permits — I appointed an external transport manager to fulfil that function.
Then COVID-19 arrived. I want to be careful here because I am aware that COVID has been cited as mitigation by many operators, and I understand the Commissioner may have heard this argument many times. But I ask that my specific circumstances be considered on their own facts rather than dismissed as a generic excuse.
My external transport manager was unable to attend site for approximately two years. This was not a matter of poor relationship management or failure to act. It was the reality of a global pandemic during which movement, inspections, and site visits became practically impossible for extended periods. During this time, safety inspection standards deteriorated, not because I did not care, but because the systems that should have been maintained by an absent professional were not functioning. I want to be clear: I had never had a vehicle fail an MOT. I had never missed a mandatory safety inspection. The issues that developed were advisories and roadside encounter infringements — serious enough to warrant attention, but not the profile of a reckless or dishonest operator.
Critically, when I recognised the problem, I did not wait to be told to fix it. I made the decision myself to obtain the Transport Manager CPC qualification. I paid for it. I sat the examination. I passed. I then returned to my business and began implementing the processes and controls that had never been properly established. I was six months into that improvement process — actively rebuilding compliance from the ground up as a brand-new transport manager — when my business was inspected.
That inspection led to the first Public Inquiry before this same Commissioner in early 2023.
The 2023 Public Inquiry and Its Consequences
I want to be honest about how I experienced that inquiry and its aftermath, because it is directly relevant to my situation today.
The sanctions imposed were as follows: my Transport Manager CPC was suspended and I lost good repute for 12 months; I was required to appoint an external transport manager and work alongside them; and my operating licence was curtailed from 5 vehicles to 3 vehicles.
I respect the Commissioner’s authority and I do not raise the following point to be disrespectful or confrontational. I raise it because it is a material fact. In his written decision, the Commissioner made no reference to the COVID-19 pandemic or its documented impact on my ability to maintain compliance through an absent external transport manager. That context — which I believe was central to understanding why the compliance record looked as it did — was not reflected in the reasoning. I have never had a vehicle prohibited. I have never had a vehicle fail an MOT. The underlying record was that of a business that had struggled through an extraordinary global crisis and was actively being rebuilt at the moment of inspection. I felt that this was not fully weighed.
The curtailment from 5 vehicles to 3 vehicles removed 40% of my operating capacity and therefore approximately 40% of my revenue, effectively overnight. For a small operator with fixed costs, vehicle finance commitments, staff wages, and business loans to service, this was a severe and immediate financial shock. I want to be direct: that curtailment decision was the primary catalyst for the financial decline of Astra Removals Limited that followed. This is not a retrospective excuse. It is a straightforward financial consequence that any analyst would recognise as foreseeable.
I complied with every aspect of the sanctions. I served the 12 months. I worked alongside an external transport manager. I did not contest the decision. I accepted it and tried to rebuild.
The Debt, The Plan, and The Licence Delay
The Commissioner has cited the Creditors Voluntary Liquidation of Astra Removals Limited, and debts of £248,960 including £93,000 to HMRC, as the basis for his concern about improper financial conduct. I want to address this fully and honestly.
I was aware of the HMRC debt. I received correspondence from HMRC’s VAT Debt Management team in October 2025 referencing £[redacted] owed (Exhibit E). I did not ignore it. I did not hide from it. I had communicated to the assigned HMRC collection agent my intention to refinance the company vehicles to generate funds to address the debt. I am able to provide that agent’s contact details to the Commissioner should verification be sought.
That refinancing plan was not invented after the fact. It was a real, documented, professionally assessed strategy that had been in place since at least June 2025. I refer the Commissioner to Exhibit C — an email dated 13 June 2025 from Ben McLeod of Honey Asset Finance, a commercial finance broker, in which he assessed the viability of refinancing specific vehicles in my fleet, identified the potential to clear the Funding Circle loan, and quantified the cashflow benefit. This email predates the HMRC demand by four months.
By February 2026, that plan was actively progressing. I refer the Commissioner to Exhibit D — an email chain dated 3 February 2026 from James Grant of Honey Asset Finance, in which he confirms we had spoken that day by telephone, sets out the documentation required to progress a fleet refinance, and confirms I had already provided settlement figures for two vehicles. I was specifying replacement vehicles. This was a live transaction.
The refinancing plan required a fundamental decision: what vehicles to refinance, and whether to retain HGV capability or transition entirely to sub-3.5T lutons. That decision depended entirely on whether the operator’s licence would be granted. Without certainty on the licence, I could not responsibly commit to a refinancing structure that might be entirely wrong for my operational needs within weeks.
The licence application had been with the Traffic Commissioner for over five months without a decision. That delay — which was entirely outside my control — directly prevented me from executing the financial plan that would have addressed the HMRC debt and avoided the CVL. By the time it became clear that no decision was imminent and the licence was unlikely to be granted, the window for refinancing had closed and the CVL became the only remaining option.
I want the Commissioner to understand the full causal chain that led to this point:
- COVID-19 caused my external TM to be absent for two years, degrading compliance through circumstances outside my control.
- I proactively obtained my TM CPC and began rebuilding compliance.
- An inspection six months into that process led to the 2023 PI.
- The 2023 PI resulted in a 40% reduction in operating capacity and revenue.
- That revenue reduction created the financial pressure that built the debt.
- I developed a documented refinancing plan to address the debt.
- The licence application delay prevented me from executing that plan.
- With the plan frozen and the window closed, the CVL became unavoidable.
I raise this chain of events not to deflect responsibility, but because the Commissioner is being asked to make findings about improper financial conduct without, I believe, being aware that his own institution’s decisions and delays form a material part of the story. I ask that this be considered fairly.
My Personal Financial Position – The Debt I Have Personally Carried
There is a fact about this situation that I believe the Commissioner is not aware of, and which I consider fundamental to any assessment of my conduct.
I have personally retained approximately £[redacted] of the company’s debts through personal guarantees and novated agreements. The Commissioner has cited £248,960 of company debt as evidence of improper financial conduct. I have personally absorbed more than that entire figure. I am not a man who used a CVL to escape his obligations. I am a man who is living with them personally
.
The personal liabilities I have retained are as follows:
• Paragon Business Finance — commercial loan — £[redacted] personal guarantee (Exhibit A). Signed 31 March 2025. Formally executed under DocuSign.
• Novuna Business Finance — vehicle finance — personal guarantee, unlimited (Exhibit B). Deed of Guarantee and Indemnity signed 12 November 2025 — just three months before the CVL.
• Funding Circle — business loan — £[redacted] personal guarantee.
• Northridge Finance — vehicle finance — £[redacted] novated agreement.
• BNP Paribas — vehicle finance — £[redacted] novated agreement.
• Capital on Tap — business credit card — £[redacted] personal guarantee.
I wish to draw particular attention to the Novuna guarantee signed on 12 November 2025 — three months before the CVL (Exhibit B). At that point I was signing an unlimited personal guarantee to support the continued operation of the new company. A person planning to act improperly or intending to use an insolvency process to escape financial responsibility does not sign an unlimited personal guarantee eleven weeks before that process begins.
Documentation supporting these liabilities is attached as exhibits to this statement. Further documentation is available on request.
The False Statement Allegation
The Commissioner has identified my message of 3 February 2026 — in which I stated there was no evidence of improper financial conduct — as a potentially false statement, pointing to the CVL that followed on 16 February 2026.
I make three submissions on this point.
First, on timing. The CVL did not formally commence until 16 February 2026. On 3 February 2026 — thirteen days earlier — insolvency proceedings had not begun, JT Maxwell had not been appointed, and the statement of affairs had not been prepared. My statement reflected my honest position at the time it was made. For a false statement finding to be sustained, it must be demonstrated that I knew the statement to be untrue when I made it. I did not.
Second, on the substance of the statement. Having debts is not improper financial conduct. The debts of Astra Removals Limited were business loans, vehicle finance, and VAT — incurred in the ordinary course of trading. There is no suggestion of fraud, misfeasance, or wrongful trading. The Commissioner appears to have treated the existence of significant debt as equivalent to improper conduct. With respect, those are not the same thing, and the false statement allegation depends entirely on that equivalence being correct.
Third, and most importantly, on context. At the precise moment I sent that message on 3 February 2026, I was simultaneously engaged in an active refinancing transaction with Honey Asset Finance that I believed would resolve the financial position. Exhibit D shows that on that same day I had spoken to James Grant by telephone, received a formal information request to progress the deal, and responded with vehicle settlement figures. I was not a director concealing a crisis. I was a director actively working to resolve one. The statement was not false. It was the honest position of someone who had a plan.
The New Company – Restructuring, Not Phoenix
I want to address directly the question of why I incorporated Astra Removals South UK Ltd and applied for a new licence while the old company was in financial difficulty. I am aware that this sequence of events can look, on the surface, like a phoenix arrangement — closing one company to escape its debts and starting fresh. I want to be clear that this is not what happened.
The new company was incorporated as part of a genuine business restructuring. I had been open about this intention throughout my correspondence with the Office of the Traffic Commissioner. The Novuna personal guarantee signed on 12 November 2025 (Exhibit B) is in the name of Astra Removals South UK Ltd — demonstrating that the new company was a real operational entity with real financial commitments, not a shell created to avoid obligations.
Furthermore, as set out in Section 5, I personally retained approximately £[redacted] of the old company’s debts. If this were a phoenix arrangement designed to escape financial responsibility, it failed comprehensively. I have not escaped anything.
The Message of 13 March 2026
I wish to address the message I sent on 13 March 2026 directly. The tone of that message was not appropriate and I regret it unreservedly. It was not a considered legal position and it does not reflect how I wish to engage with the regulatory process.
I ask the Commissioner to understand the circumstances in which it was written. By that point, the licence application had been pending for five months. During that entire period, my ability to operate my larger vehicles had been constrained by regulatory uncertainty. I had watched that uncertainty directly prevent me from executing the refinancing plan that would have saved the business. I had entered CVL. I was personally carrying over a quarter of a million pounds of debt. My staff were at risk. My family was under severe pressure.
I am not offering this as justification. I am offering it as honest context for a moment in which I lost my composure under an extraordinary accumulation of pressure. I do not believe that one emotional message, sent in those circumstances, should define how the Commissioner views my character or my conduct as a transport manager.
My Non-Attendance at the Public Inquiry
I have not yet made a final decision about whether to attend the Public Inquiry in person. I want to be transparent about my position and the reasons behind my uncertainty.
The 2023 Public Inquiry was a deeply damaging experience. I attended with legal representation and left with sanctions that — as I have described in this statement — had severe and lasting consequences for my business, my finances, and my family. Despite that representation, I felt that my circumstances were not heard and that the context I tried to present was not given meaningful weight. That experience has left me with a genuine and significant anxiety about repeating it, particularly now, when I am already at the lowest point I have experienced in my professional life.
I am without legal representation for this inquiry and cannot afford a solicitor. If I do attend, I intend to present this written statement [redacted]. I ask the Commissioner to accept this statement as my full account and to treat it accordingly, whether I am present or not.
I have put everything I can into this written statement. I have provided documentary evidence. I have addressed every concern I am aware of as fully and honestly as I am able. Whether or not I am present on the day, I respectfully ask the Commissioner to give this statement full consideration.
Submissions on the Transport Manager CPC
I ask the Traffic Commissioner not to make a referral that would result in the loss or extended suspension of my Transport Manager CPC. I obtained that qualification voluntarily — not because I was required to, but because I wanted to manage my business properly. It represents something I worked for and value.
I ask the Commissioner to weigh the following:
• The financial position of Astra Removals Limited was caused in material part by the 2023 curtailment decision and by the regulatory delay in determining the new licence application — not by misconduct or dishonesty.
• The false statement allegation fails on its own terms. The statement was accurate at the time it was made. Debt is not improper conduct. And on the day of that statement, I was actively progressing a financial solution.
• I have personally retained £[redacted] of company debt — more than the entire CVL figure. This is not the conduct of someone who acted improperly.
• I served the 12-month loss of good repute from the 2023 PI without challenge. I complied fully with every condition imposed.
• I have never had a vehicle fail an MOT. I have never missed a mandatory safety inspection. My compliance record, properly understood in the context of COVID and a mid-transition inspection, is not that of a habitual non-complier.
• An extended disqualification from holding the CPC would prevent me from rebuilding. It would compound, significantly, the consequences of a sequence of events in which regulatory decisions have already played a substantial role. I ask the Commissioner to consider whether that would be a proportionate outcome.
Conclusion
I built a business from nothing. I was hit by a pandemic that nobody could have predicted or controlled. I responded by qualifying myself to a higher standard rather than waiting for someone else to fix the problem. I was inspected at the worst possible moment and received sanctions I believe were disproportionate. Those sanctions removed 40% of my revenue and set in motion a financial decline I spent the following two years trying to prevent. I signed personal guarantees. I engaged brokers. I had a plan. I was thwarted by a five-month regulatory delay that I had no power to influence. I entered a formal, lawful insolvency process. I personally absorbed over a quarter of a million pounds of debt. And I am still here, trying to do the right thing.
I am not asking the Commissioner for special treatment. I am asking for fairness, and for the full picture to be considered before any further decision is made about my future in this industry.
I accept the licence outcomes. I ask only that my Transport Manager CPC is preserved, so that I retain the possibility of rebuilding properly — the way I have always tried to do things.”
FINDINGS OF FACT
Astra Removals Limited
The company has entered liquidation. That is a material change in control and financial position. Section 26(1)(h) is made out.
The company fails to meet financial standing and was found to have done so upon submission of bank statements on 15 December 2025. Section 27(1)(a) is made out. Revocation is mandatory.
The operator failed to notify the material change in its financial position as it is required to do. From the evidence provided in support of Mr Barton’s written statement, the financial distress was known about from 3 October 2025 at the latest, that being the date of the first correspondence from HMRC debt recovery. Section 26(1)(b) is made out.
In response to the letter of 27 November, Mr Barton said “Astra Removals Limited is not in financial difficulty. We are closing it out of choice, not out of necessity.” That was a false statement which Mr Barton knew to be false at that date.
I need to correct the record. The decision of the 2023 public inquiry is recorded in full above. The curtailment was in two stages. The reduction from 5 to 4 was removal of the margin only and had no material impact on the operation. The reduction from 4 to 3 was delayed. I have not checked my notes but that would normally be done to allow an operator to complete obligations. So the reduction in revenue from heavy goods vehicles was, as a maximum, 25%. The operator also had 3.5 tonne vehicles so the percentage is lower still. I can find no application for that curtailment to have been lifted, an application which the operator was free to make.
Astra Removals South UK Ltd
The same false statement of 27 November 2025 is relevant here when determining good repute and fitness.
In his email of 27 January 2026 to the hearing centre, Mr Barton said “As discussed, I am (voluntarily) closing my current limited company, and opening a new one. There are several reasons for this – My current tenancy agreement is due to expire on our depot at Henbury Farm, so we have to move, and there is an agreement in place for telecoms systems at that address with a company called [redacted] who you may be aware of? They are currently being investigated by the industry watchdog i believe. They will not let me out of a contract that we were forced to renew (its a long story but happy to share the details if you wish?) last year and want to charge me £18,000.00 to cancel it. My decision was to close the company when we move to escape the contract and to restructure the business.
It is clear now that this was a further false statement. A change of operating centre does not relate to the need to change operating entity and was a nonsense. I have no information to support any claim about [redacted]. The later correspondence from Mr Martin shows beyond any reasonable doubt that the catalyst for the incorporation of the new entity and the associated licence application was the financial distress of the previous company, particularly following the HMRC contact of 3 October. I make this finding anyway but it is supported by the timing of the new incorporation on 22 October 2025, just over a fortnight after HMRC began recovery proceedings.
I find that this application was a pre-emptive phoenix to allow the continued operation of Ricky Barton’s removals business. It was characterised by a lack of transparency from the outset including at least two clear false statements. False statements rarely support establishing good repute.
In Aspey Trucks Ltd 2010 – 49, the Upper Tribunal comments on the difference between finding a loss of repute in an existing haulier and whether or not a new applicant to the industry met the standard to be of good repute:
“In a case such as this, the Deputy Traffic Commissioner was not looking at putting someone out of business. Rather, he was deciding whether or not to give his official seal of approval to a person seeking to join an industry where those licensed to operate on a Standard National or Standard International basis must, by virtue of S.13(3), prove upon entry to it that they are of good repute. In this respect, Traffic Commissioners are the gatekeepers to the industry - and the public, other operators, and customers and competitors alike, all expect that those permitted to join the industry will not blemish or undermine its good name, or abuse the privileges that it bestows. What does “Repute” mean if it does not refer to the reasonable opinions of other properly interested right-thinking people, be they members of the public or law-abiding participants in the industry?”
The lack of honesty in this application means that the applicant is unfit to be the holder of a restricted goods vehicle operator’s licence. Fitness is an essential part of good repute so I find that good repute is not established and the application must be refused.
Ricky Barton, Transport Manager
I have found that Mr Barton has made false statements in relation to this new application and that he failed to declare, as he was required to have done, the financial distress of Astra Removals Limited. He has not attended today and I do not doubt that he has been through an very difficult time. Having made false statements to a Traffic Commissioner, any re-entry in to the industry would have to be scrutinised. There are positives in that compliance appears to have improved significantly since 2023, at least by reference to MOT pass rates. He has been disqualified previously and complied with the orders to reestablish his good repute. I make no adverse finding in relation to the tone of his correspondence at a time of great stress. But the lack of honesty cannot be overlooked. The order I make is not intended to keep him out of the industry for any particular length of time as he has leave to apply whenever he wishes. He must be prepared at that time to attend a hearing to explain what has gone on here.
DECISIONS
Pursuant to adverse findings under Section 26(1)(b), (1)(h) and 27(1), licence OH2031190 is revoked with immediate effect.
Section 13A, good repute, fails to be satisfied. The application is refused.
The good repute of Ricky Barton is lost. He is disqualified for an indeterminate period. He is at liberty to apply to have that disqualification removed at any time but will need to appear before a traffic commissioner.
Kevin Rooney
Traffic Commissioner
28 May 2026