Decision for Atlas Removal Services Ltd (OC1034027) and Transport Manager Darren Bentham
Written confirmation of the oral decision of the Deputy Traffic Commissioner for the North West of England for Atlas Removal Services Ltd (OC1034027) and Transport Manager Darren Bentham
IN THE NORTH WEST TRAFFIC AREA
ATLAS REMOVAL SERVICES LTD - OC1034027
AND
TRANSPORT MANAGER DARREN BENTHAM
CONFIRMATION OF ORAL DECISION OF THE DEPUTY TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER
Decision
ATLAS REMOVAL SERVICES LTD OC1034027
On findings in accordance with Sections 26(1)(c)(iii), 26(1)(e), 26(1)(f) and 26(1)(h) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995, I direct that the standard international goods vehicle operator’s licence of Atlas Removal Services Ltd OC1034027 is curtailed from 3 vehicles to 1 vehicle with effect from 23:45 hours on Wednesday 29 October 2025 until further order.
On findings in accordance with Section 27(1)(a) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995, I find the operator licence of Atlas Removal Services Ltd OC1034027 no longer meets the requirement of professional competence.
I grant a period of grace for 3 months to 29 January 2026 for professional competence to be restored.
The following undertakings offered by Atlas Removal Services Ltd shall be recorded on the licence OC1034027:
Atlas Removal Services Ltd will identify an independent body to carry out an audit of transport safety and compliance systems in April 2026. The audit will assess the systems for complying with maintenance and 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 31 May 2026
By 31 January 2026 Sandra Michiels will either:
- attend in person an operator licence management training course; or
-
participate in a virtual online operator licence management course.
- Courses must be run by one of the following bodies:
- a trade association (Logistics UK/RHA/BAR/CPT),
- a professional body (IoTA/CILT/SOE/IRTE),
- a JAUPT accredited training centre or an exam centre approved by an accredited body to offer the transport manager CPC qualification in goods transport, or,
- a firm of solicitors (or their associated training organisation) with significant experience with road transport regulatory and compliance issues (defined as having represented road transport operators and/or transport managers in at least 20 public inquiries over the past two years).
Virtual online courses must satisfy the criteria for such courses established by the traffic commissioners. Whether attending in person or participating in an online course, proof of attendance must be submitted by e-mail to the Office of the Office of the Traffic Commissioner at Golborne within seven days of completing the course and by no later than 28 February 2026.
TRANSPORT MANAGER DARREN BENTHAM
The good repute of former Transport Manager Darren Bentham is lost, pursuant to Schedule 3 of the Act. Under paragraph 16 of that Schedule, he is disqualified from acting as a transport manager on any operator’s licence until further order with effect from Wednesday 26 November 2025 until further order.
Introduction
Atlas Removal Services Ltd (“the operator) has held a standard international goods vehicle operators’ licence OC1034027 since 16 June 2004 authorising the use of 3 vehicles with 1 vehicle currently in possession.
The operator’s sole director is Sandra Paula Johanna Michiels.
The transport manager from June 2020 is Darren Bentham. Mr Bentham was also the operator’s mechanic. Mr Bentham was removed as transport manager on the licence by Mrs Michiels on 27 October 2025, 2 days before the public inquiry.
On 23 May 2025, the operator’s vehicle was presented for its annual test, and several immediate prohibitions were issued because of identified safety critical issues. Most seriously an inoperative service brake was marked as a “significant failure of roadworthiness compliance” (“S marked”). Other defects that attracted prohibitions include issues with the windscreen wipers and washer, speedometer/ tachograph, brake systems and components, aim of headlamps and parking brake performance.
The vehicle was again presented for a MoT test on 6 June 2025 and again failed due to defective windscreen wipers and washers. The vehicle passed its annual test at the third attempt on 09 June 2025.
The prohibition prompted the DVSA to take a closer look at the operator’s management of its licence. Vehicle Examiner (“VE”) Hirons undertook a maintenance investigation visit on 08 July 2025 and subsequently prepared a report (“MIVR”) on his findings. Whilst VE Hirons found there were some systems and effective processes in place, his report contains several aspects that he found to be unsatisfactory. These included:
- Inaccurate completion of preventive maintenance inspections (“PMIs”).
- A lack of evidence of brake testing of a method and at a frequency as recommended by the DVSA guidance.
- The operator had a poor annual test history (an initial failure rate of 66% and final failure rate of 44% over the past 5 years). Many of the failures were attributed to road safety critical failings.
- The circumstances of the prohibition highlighted these concerns. The vehicle had been inspected 2 months before the test but had only undergone an unladen road test to assess its braking performance. VE Hirons said that if the vehicle had undergone a roller brake test and/or a pre-test inspection before it had been presented, then the brake defect would have been identified.
VE Hirons’ assessment of TM Bentham was unsatisfactory. The VE drew attention to the lack of evidence of continuing professional development by TM Bentham such as the failure to attend a CPC refresher course despite his qualification being over 5 years previous. VE Hirons said that whilst TM Bentham was undertaking most of his duties effectively, the shortcomings identified above caused him to question if he was only exercising partial control over the licence.
Mrs Michiels and TM Bentham provided separate responses to the MIVR findings. Both accepted the shortcomings described. They referred to a breakdown in communication between them and promised that they would address matters going forward.
The traffic commissioner was made aware of the prohibition and the MIVR findings and decided the concerns were such that this public inquiry should be called to consider if regulatory action was required.
The operator, its director and TM Bentham had not previously been called to a public inquiry or otherwise come to the traffic commissioner’s attention as subjects of concern.
The Call to Public Inquiry
The operator was called up to public inquiry by letter dated 11 September 2025.
The call up letter gave notice that the grounds for regulatory action in 26(1)(c)(iii), 26(1)(e), 26(1)(f)) and 26(1)(h) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (“the Act”) were to be considered as well as the statutory requirements to be of good repute, hold professional competence and to have financial standing. The letter also gave notice that the provisions for disqualification in Section 28 of the Act would be considered.
Darren Bentham was called up in his capacity as transport managers by letter also dated 11 September that gave notice of consideration of the requirement of good repute and professional competence in Schedule 3 of the Act.
The Public Inquiry
The Public Inquiry was heard at Golborne today. The operator was represented by director Mrs Michiels. The operator and Mrs Michiels were not professionally represented at today’s public inquiry, but representations and evidence were submitted on their behalf ahead of the hearing by Beverley Bell Consulting and Training.
Former TM Bentham was not present. Mrs Michiels told me that he was aware of the public inquiry. After she had informed him that she was terminating his services as TM and maintenance provider, he had responded by stating that to her that he did not consider it necessary to attend the public inquiry.
I have considered Paragraph 5(7) of Schedule 4 of the Goods Vehicle (Licensing of Operators) regulations 1995 and the guidance in the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document Number 9: Case Management. I am satisfied that proper notice of the hearing has been given to the Mr Bentham and that he has been given a fair opportunity to attend or otherwise respond to the call to public inquiry.
I am satisfied that postal service of the call up letter was effective. In the absence of any evidence that the letter was not delivered as required, I apply the presumption that there was effective service of the letter Mr Bentham of today’s date. I also take account of the Upper Tribunal’s guidance in Philip Drake [2023] UKUT 98 (AAC) in relation to the use of addresses provided by an operator, namely, “As we see it, once such an address has been given, it is for the holder of a licence to ensure correspondence relating to the licence and sent by the OTC may be properly received.” I consider the same principle applies to transport managers as to operators.
Notice of the public inquiry has been properly published as required. Mr Bentham has not provided my office with any evidence to suggest that he is unable to attend for health or any other reason.
In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I find that Mr Bentham has deliberately absented himself from the hearing without good reason. I consider that it is appropriate to proceed to a determination of the public inquiry in his absence.
The operator submitted satisfactory evidence of its financial standing in advance of the hearing.
The operator was directed to provide evidence of its more recent maintenance records to the DVSA before the hearing. VE Hirons supplied a report dated 9 October 2025 on the documents provided. He noted that PMIs were now being arranged at 6-week intervals. The records were properly competed and accompanied by evidence of roller brake testing. Driver defects reports were mostly in order and the ones that fell short had evidence of disciplinary action against the driver concerned.
The operator also submitted evidence that TM Bentham had attended a 2-day CPC refresher course in September 2025.
A week before the public inquiry, further information was provided in the form of a statement from Mrs Michiels and a document entitled “Compliance Assistance Action Plan” (effectively a form of audit report) provided by Mr Kemp of Beverley Bell Consulting and Training and dated 16 October 2025.
The contents of Mr Kemp’s report were very troubling and gave a far less reassuring picture of the operator’s current compliance. The report details the absence of effective systems in several aspects of vehicle maintenance and driver management. Mr Kemp also stated that Mr Bentham appeared to be unaware of his responsibilities as transport manager and was not exercising effective control of the licence. It was also stated that he was responsible for many of the maintenance issues and that Mrs Michiels had been advised to replace Mr Bentham as both transport manager and maintenance provider.
I was told she had arranged to attend an OLAT course in December 2025.
It was also disclosed that Mr Bentham provided his maintenance services through a company named Elite Plant & Commercials Services that had entered voluntary liquidation in October 2023. Mr Bentham had not disclosed this development to the traffic commissioner previously (or indeed to the operator).
Mrs Michiels provided a statement in which she accepted the previous shortcomings. She also accepted she had placed far too much reliance on Mr Bentham in terms of ensuring the licence’s compliance. Mrs Michiels said she had had not appreciated the extent of his failures until she spoke to Mr Kemp on 16 October 2025 (when Mr Bentham was absent due to a bereavement).
Written submissions were also supplied by Beverley Bell Consulting and Training on behalf of the operator in which it was accepted that there were grounds for regulatory action, but I was invited to consider the case fell into the “moderate” to “low” categories set out in the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document No. 10.
It was stated that the operator would offer an undertaking that it would only operate one vehicle until a satisfactory audit report had been supplied but I was asked to refrain from directing any curtailment or alternatively, restricting the extent of any curtailment to allow the operation of two vehicles.
Mrs Michiels oral evidence today confirmed the contents of her written statement and the submissions. She freely accepted that she had lacked sufficient knowledge to be able to supervise Mr Bentham effectively and consequently had placed too much trust in him. In recent years, she had developed concern about what might be happening but these only came to a head following the DVSA investigation.
Mrs Michiels said she is going to carefully select a new transport manager, assisted by Mrs Bell, so she avoids such pitfalls in future. She is also committed to improving her understanding of compliance to avoid future difficulties.
Determination
Atlas Removal Services Ltd OC1034027
Based on the evidence of the DVSA and the Operator’s frank acceptance of the contents of that evidence today, I formally record the following findings of fact:
- The operator has been issued with prohibitions in the past year. This satisfies the grounds for regulatory action in Section 26(1)(c)(iii) of the Act.
- The operator has not fulfilled the statement it made when applying for the licence, namely that its vehicles would be inspected at 12-week intervals. This satisfies the grounds for regulatory action in Section 26(1)(e) of the Act.
- The operator has not honoured the undertakings it signed up to when it applied for the licence, namely, - that its vehicles and trailers would be kept fit and serviceable; - that it would keep records for 15 months of driver defect reports, safety inspections and routine maintenance and make them available on request;
- that drivers would report promptly any defects or symptoms of defects that could prevent the safe operation of vehicles and trailers, and that any defects would be promptly recorded in writing;
This satisfies the grounds for regulatory action in Section 26(1)(f) of the Act.
I do not consider that the findings above are to such an extent that I need to make an adverse finding in relation to good repute or financial standing.
Having reached the findings of fact recorded above, I have considered the balancing exercise and have considered the positive and negative features by reference to the guidance in the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document Number 10.
I find the following negative features are present:
- At the time of the DVSA investigation there was ineffective management control and insufficient systems in place to prevent operator licence compliance failings.
- Three prohibitions have been issued including “S” marked prohibitions have been issued for road safety critical defects.
- Failings have continued after the DVSA investigation with effective remedial action only being taken shortly before the public inquiry.
I identify the following positive features:
- There does now appear to be appropriate systems and management control in place to prevent many operator licence failings, but there are many areas requiring further improvement.
- The Operator has now acted decisively to replace its transport manager and maintenance provider.
- The Operator fully co-operated with the enforcement investigation and the public inquiry process.
Having balanced these factors and considered the guidance in Statutory Document 10, I am of the view that the case falls in the “moderate” category when considering the starting point for regulatory action.
I have gone on to consider the test set out by the Upper Tribunal in “Priority Freight 2009/225”
of whether I can trust the operator to be compliant in future. I find I can have confidence in the Operator’s ability to operate compliantly in future but subject to taking action to underline that expectation.
I have accepted that may of the issues have arisen due to the poor approach of Mr Bentham as transport manager. However, Mrs Michiels as director ought to have greater steps to oversee his work and seek reassurance that he was an effective transport manager. Some of the issues such as the high MoT failure rate should have been apparent to the director. Whilst Mrs Michiels points to Mr Kemp’s visit on 16 October 2025 as highlighting to her the extent of the issues and Mr Bentham’s failings, she should have been alert to that following VE Hirons’ earlier report in July 2025.
I have considered the guidance offered by “2013/082 Arnold Transport Ltd “where the Upper Tribunal considered the differing classes of operators appearing at public inquiry and commented, “The attitude of an operator when something goes wrong can be very instructive. Some recognise the problem at once and take immediate and effective steps to put matters right. Others only recognise the problem when it is set out in a call-up letter and begin to put matters right in the period before the Public Inquiry takes place. A third group leave it even later and come to the Public Inquiry with promises of action in the future. A fourth group bury their heads in the sand and wait to be told what to do during the Public Inquiry”. I consider this operator falls in to the second of those categories.
I have also noted and give the operator credit for its willingness to offer to restrict its operation to one vehicle voluntarily whilst it seeks a new transport manager and is able to provide a satisfactory audit report. However, I am concerned that notwithstanding the change in transport manager, there is much still to deliver compliance on this licence and that needs to be underpinned by formal regulatory action. I have also considered the guidance offered by the Scottish Court of Session in “Thomas Muir (Haulage) Ltd (1999) SC 86” that regulatory action can be used to achieve the purpose of the legislation by deterring this operator and others from non-compliance.
I determine the proportionate action to achieve that aim is to direct a curtailment of the licence to the 1 vehicle in possession at present until further order.
I am prepared to indicate that after a new transport manager is appointed and Mrs Michiels provides evidence of attendance at the OLAT course, the curtailment can be partially varied so that 2 vehicles may be operated. If the audit report in April 2026 is fully satisfactory, the operator can then apply for the curtailment to be fully lifted, and its authority of 3 vehicles restored.
My decision has also been informed by the willingness of the operator to offer the undertakings recorded above.
In relation to the lack of professional competence, grant an initial period of grace for 3 months until 29 January 2026 to allow for the operator to identify a new transport manager. Having heard from Mrs Michiels today and considered the support she is currently receiving from the transport consultancy, I am satisfied that he has provided sufficient evidence that such a period of grace will allow professional competence to be restored. The test as set out by the Upper Tribunal in 2014/008 Duncan McKee is met, namely that the operator presents “some tangible evidence, beyond mere hope and aspiration, that granting a period of grace will be worthwhile, and that there are reasonable prospects for a good outcome.”
The Operator is reminded that the requirement is to obtain the traffic commissioner’s approval of any new TM within the period of grace, and it is its duty to make an application for any extension well in advance of the expiry date. Failure to restore professional competence by obtaining approval of a new transport manager by the period of grace expiry date may result in revocation of the licence.
Transport Manager Darren Bentham
Mr Bentham, as transport manager at the relevant time, must accept responsibility for the adverse findings made against the operator above. An effective and competent transport manager would not have allowed those issues to arise. The report of Mr Kemp commissioned by the operator discloses that the trust placed by the director in Mr Bentham was misplaced as “a number of essential systems, processes, and oversight arrangements were either absent or ineffective.”
In addition to those findings, Mr Bentham’s failure to notify the traffic commissioner of his involvement as director of an insolvent company and his failure to attend the public inquiry today without explanation are also pertinent to my assessment of his good repute.
I consider that against the background of these findings it is proportionate and justified to find that Mr Betham’s good repute as transport manager is lost.
I have moved on to consider the length of the disqualification that must follow. I have considered the guidance offered by Statutory Document 10. I face the difficulty that Mr Bentham’s failure to engage with the public inquiry process means that I have not heard any further explanation from him about the matters above. Nor have I had the opportunity to hear from Mr Bentham about his current and future intentions in terms of rejoining the industry and any proposed rehabilitative measures.
For those reasons, I do not consider I have sufficient information to direct a disqualification for a finite period as I am unable to fully assess what that period should be. I therefore direct a disqualification until further order. I make it clear it is not my intention that Mr Bentham should remain disqualified indefinitely or for an extended period. However, if he wishes to have the disqualification removed or reduced to a finite period, Mr Bentham will need to provide further information and answer traffic commissioner questions (potentially involving further hearing).
The disqualification will take effect in 28 days’ time. If Mr Bentham wishes to make relevant representations before that date to explain his absence from the hearing on 29 October 2025 and/or in relation to his good repute, I will consider setting aside the direction until those representations have been considered.
Gerallt Evans
Deputy Traffic Commissioner
29 October 2025