Decision for Benticks Ltd (OB1136754)
Written confirmation of the Traffic Commissioner for the Scottish traffic area for Benticks Ltd
IN THE SCOTTISH TRAFFIC AREA
BENTINCKS LTD - OB1136754
CONFIRMATION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER’S DECISION
Background
Bentincks Ltd holds a Restricted Goods Vehicle Operator’s Licence authorising 10 vehicles and 4 trailers. The Directors are 4 brothers: Zaffar Iqbal, Balal Ajmee, Itsham Alaq and Iftikhar Ahmed. The business is described as being involved in sofa manufacture, under the brand ‘Sofa Factory’ with sofas being distributed to trade only throughout the UK and Ireland.
There is one Operating Centre at Bentinck House Nest Road Felling Gateshead NE10 0ES. Preventative Maintenance Inspections are said to be carried out by Hoddy’s Recovery and DSB Commercials Ltd at 6 (vehicles) and 10 (trailer) week intervals. I was told that Hoddy’s had been retained as an alternative, but the primary contractor was DSB and that trailer inspections had been reduced to 6-weekly.
It is a matter of public record that the operator was at Public Inquiry before Deputy Traffic Commissioner, Miss Harrington on 11 August 2021 following an unsatisfactory maintenance investigation conducted on 30 March 2021. She recorded adverse findings under the following sections of the Act; 26(1)(c)(iii) – Prohibition Notices, 26(1)(f) breach of undertakings to have proper arrangements in place to ensure that vehicles and trailers were kept in a fit and serviceable condition and to comply with the rules on drivers’ hours and tachograph records, 26(1)(h) – material changes in the circumstances of the operator that were relevant to the issue of the licence, including a failure to notify material changes in the Directors.
She was apparently persuaded to accept the following list of undertakings:
- “The Operator shall complete promptly all of the items set out in the action plan produced to the Inquiry by Mr C Allen of Chartwise Consultancy for the Operator and shall engage his services (or of another transport consultant) to attend on the Operator for not less than one day at least once per calendar month to support the Operator in ongoing compliance with the requirements of its operator’s licence, including all appropriate management and monitoring and records of this;
-
The Operator shall arrange for an independent audit of its operator licence compliance systems and records for maintenance and driver’s hours and the effectiveness of these to be completed and reported in writing by no later than 31 January 2022 by a trade association (RHA/UK Logistics) or a transport consultancy experienced in undertaking audits to be provided to the Traffic Commissioner. The Operator shall, without reminder, send an unedited copy of the auditor’s report so that it is received by the OTC NE Leeds by no later than 28 February 2022 together with the Operator’s written proposals and timetable for implementing any recommendations made by the auditor;
- Mr Balal Ajmee shall complete an Operator Licence Awareness Training course of at least one days duration provided by a trade association (RHA/UK Logistics) or a recognised body ( IoTA/IRTE/SoE/CILT) or an organisation recognised for the purposes of the Transport Manager CPC examination in goods transport, by no later than 31 October 2021. Proof of his course completion shall be sent by the Operator to OTC NE Leeds so that it is received by no later than 30 November 2021;
- All of the Operator’s vehicles and trailers shall complete a meaningful roller brake test at least once every 12 weeks, appropriately laden on all axles and not including the annual test, using a calibrated roller brake test facility. The results of the roller brake test shall be printed out and retained with the vehicle or trailer’s safety inspection records. Brakes shall be tested using a decelerometer at all safety inspections at which a roller brake test is not completed. The results of the decelerometer test shall be printed out and retained with the vehicle or trailer’s safety inspection records;
- The Operator shall ensure that all safety inspections are undertaken undercover with adequate lighting and equipment available to complete an effective vehicle or trailer check including fully underneath the vehicle or trailer;”
- The Operator shall ensure that all tyres on all vehicles and trailers are checked by a responsible person each weekend. A written record shall be maintained of all checks completed and actions taken;
- An unannounced ad hoc audit check of a walk round check and report completed by the driver shall be undertaken by a responsible person for every driver at least once each calendar month. A written record of the check completed, and actions, shall be maintained by the Operator.”
On that basis she was able to take deterrent action by curtailing the licence from 10 vehicles and 4 trailers to 7 vehicles and 3 trailers with immediate effect:
The Case Summary suggests that the undertaking to attend Operator Licence Awareness Training was fulfilled on 2 November 2021 and the audit undertaking on 10 March 2022. The operator apparently persuaded a traffic commissioner to allow restoration of the original authority on 6 April 2022, from which I infer that the audit must have been largely satisfactory.
Hearing
The Public Inquiry was listed for today, 27 January 2026, in the Tribunal Room of the Office of the Traffic Commissioner in Edinburgh. The operator was present in the form of Mr Ajmee, Director, accompanied by Mohammed Ahmed (transport operations) AND Chris Allen, a transport consultant (Chartwise).
Issues
The public inquiry was called Following notice that I was considering grounds to intervene in respect of this licence and specifically by reference to the following sections of the Goods Vehicle (Licensing of Operators) Act:
- 26(1)(b) – conditions on licence to notify relevant changes.
- 26(1)(c)(iii) – Prohibitions.
- 26(1)(e) – statements relating to inspection intervals, and to abide by conditions on the licence.
- 26(1)(f) – undertakings (vehicles to be kept fit and serviceable, effective driver defect reporting, complete maintenance records, drivers’ hours and tachographs).
- 26(1)(h) – material change in fitness to hold the licence and in the availability of finance required.
- 28 – Disqualification.
The operator was directed to lodge evidence in support including financial, maintenance and other compliance documentation. Compliance documentation was to be submitted to DVSA by no later than 6 January 2026 with finance and any representations to be sent to my office by 12 January 2026. Finance WAS exceeded, but 20 minutes before the start of the hearing, I was provided with a signed statement from Mr Ajmee, dated 26 January 2026. Mr Ajmee had been away over the December period.
Determination
Following an encounter on 10 October 2024, with Driver Nicholas Mamoulides, at Doxey check site whilst he was driving GX10 XFR, it was found that the vehicle had been driven without a card on two occasions (30 and 15 minutes) immediately prior to Mr Mamoulides inserting his driver’s card. Mr Mamoulides claimed that he had driven on private land and, on advice from his manager, he did not need to keep a record.
DVSA inquiries continued on 17 January 2025 when Traffic Examiner Calvin Mojapelo sent a statutory notice to the operator requiring the supply of documentation relating to the management of operations and drivers’ hours. The results prompted him to conduct a visit to the operator on 28 March 2025. The outcome of that investigation was reported to my office and included the following concerns:
- 2 drivers purporting to be self-employed, working elsewhere and not under the direct control of the operator.
- To that end, whilst the operator claimed to disciplinary processes in place, these had not been utilised, apparently because it was not thought necessary.
The operator was directed to published guidance. The Examiner identified a few infringements connected to the incorrect use of the mode switch. An additional period of driving without a card was also identified. In addition, two warehouse employees shunted the vehicles within the yard.
On 4 April 2025 and after his visit, Mr Mojapelo sent an invitation to the operator to respond to his findings. He specifically referred to the operator’s approach to the engagement of drivers. In the absence of a response, Mr Mojapelo was required to send a chaser on 24 April 2025. He eventually had to telephone the operator on 29 April 2025, when he left a voice message, but again the operator failed to respond. On 2 May 2025, Mr Mojapelo contacted the operator’s transport consultant and spoke to an Alex Mullen of Chartwise. Following that conversation, Mr Mullen apparently emailed the operator, copying in the Traffic Examiner. There was no response until 29 May 2025 and even then, it was from the consultant. Mr Mullen indicated that the operator ‘was having trouble communicating with you by email’. A partial explanation referring to the ‘self-employed’ drivers was eventually provided.
On the basis of the DVSA findings and the operator’s response, a colleague directed that a letter be sent to the operator. That was dated on 14 July 2025 and sought a fuller explanation regarding the issues raised. A response dated 22 July 2025 was signed by Director, Balal Ajmee, was received via Chris Allen from the transport consultancy. That stated that the operator had ignored the advice and guidance provided relating to the use of self-employed drivers. It had been believed that self-employed drivers were permitted so long as those individuals were able to work elsewhere without having to provide notice. That arrangement suited all parties and there was no intention to take advantage of this mechanism so as to avoid tax liabilities. Following a discussion with the drivers, they were offered employment, firstly on a full-time basis, which they rejected. That was then amended. The discussions resulted in delay during which time they continued to be treated as self-employed. On driver, “Richard” agreed to be employed from 1 June 2025, the other, “John” from 23 June 2025. The operator claimed that the late response was due to a misunderstanding with the consultant as to who would respond. In evidence, the operator appreciated the need for effective control of the drivers and operation.
Vehicle Examiner Peter Hodgson commenced his investigation on 5 August 2025. However, he discovered that the operator had shut down for the Summer and rescheduled his visit for 21 August 2025. The alleged shortcomings can be summarised as follows:
- Inspection/maintenance records - of the 43 records checked, 29 did not record a brake test and there were instances of inspections not being signed off as roadworthy. There was one instance of extended inspection frequency where the inspection was 4 days overdue. The VOR process required improvement and so as to control keys and prevent VOR vehicles being operated (and poor security). There was no safety defect and recall system in place.
- Driver defect reporting - instances of driver detectable defects left to Preventative Maintenance Inspections. Drivers tramping to Ireland complete a weekly form when leaving and returning to the UK with any walk round check conducted on Tuesday-Thursday, not being recorded. Instances of where defects have not been signed off as rectified.
- Inspection facilities/maintenance - poor annual test history where even the final test failure rate was at 15.38%. As at the hearing, there had been 2 further clear roadworthiness encounters and 4 further tests: 2 passes, 1 PRS, 2 initial failures.
- Vehicle Emissions - requires improvement as no meter fitted to the filler and drivers were not keeping a record of Adblue usage.
- Wheel & tyre management - no system in place for wheel security. A calibrated torque bar was present and used by two drivers, but torque tags are not employed and there was no record of wheel security. In addition, ineffective system for tyre maintenance, e.g. GX10 XFR, nearside outer axle 2 worn low around the circumference with a minimum depth of 1.43mm measured in the centre of the tread but not reported by the driver.
In responses to the specific undertaking given to the Deputy Traffic Commissioner, Mohammed Ahmed suggested that the operator was trying to have a roller brake test at every inspection but in any event, one should be performed at every second inspection (12 weekly). The Examiner referred to the current Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness, although present in previous iterations. The Examiner also contrasted the other undertakings referring to a mobile contractor without the capacity to crawl under the articulated units for a full inspection. The provider does have its own garage and until vehicles are driven to this facility the undertaking will not be met. A tyre register was produced but guidance notes suggest that a management check is required every 10 weeks, not each calendar month (as per the undertaking) and the records were missing months of checks. The Examiner noted that that the consultant was regularly identifying repeat shortcomings i.e. brake testing not completed, missing weekly tyre and walk round checks. In May/June 2025 the consultant raised the issue of multiple driver defects on safety inspections.
It was noted that Mohammed Ahmed had twice attempted to obtain a Transport Manager CPC. Mr Ahmed is apparently tasked with driver scheduling, maintenance scheduling, organising repairs, 24/7 availability to drivers, in addition to delivery problems and finding overnight parking for drivers if needed. The operator’s response gave assurances that brake tests would be conducted within the recommended 2 weeks prior to the Preventative Maintenance Inspection, the VOR procedure had been updated and that keys are now locked away, that safety recall checks are conducted and recorded each month by the transport consultant. All drivers and the ‘transport operations controller’ (Mohammed Ahmed) were to attend a session on defect reporting and walk round checks. Drivers had been notified of the need to record Nil defects. Defect sheets are checked daily (unless tramping) and all defect sheets are signed off, with rectification details. It was said that the maintenance provider responsible for the annual test failures was no longer used but see above. Monthly reports for fuel usage and adblue usage are produced and a template has now been introduced. Drivers will have training in the use of torque wrenches and retorque books had been ordered. Weekly tyre checks will also be completed, and tyres will now be replaced once the tread reaches 2mm. In the course pf the hearing, it was agreed that a limit of 3 mm would now be implemented. All inspections will now be conducted at the contractor’s premises ‘for the foreseeable future’, as the operator has longer term plans to develop its own facilities. Director, Mr Ajmee, has now attended and Faizan (Mohammed) Ahmed is due to undergo HGV practical training.
The update report from Vehicle Examiner Peter Hodgson dated 16 January 2026, noted that a forward planner, maintenance records for 3 vehicles. Two annual test failures had occurred since the maintenance investigation; a PRS on a vehicle and a failure on a trailer. Details were requested with an additional vehicle. Of the 10 specified vehicles, one was found to be VOR. There was a PRS for GX10 XFR on 20 September 2025, for both reverse lamps not operating. Two failures and a PRS event were recorded on trailer C273007 on 22 November 2025. The failures were due to excessive corrosion at two of six suspension spring mounting areas on the three-axle trailer. An offside front part of the body was found to present a risk of injury, rectified at the station. Two of the three axles were advised for brake imbalance at this test. The operator was asked about annual test investigations. In its response dated 13 January 2026 the operator indicated that explanations from the maintenance contractor (Hoddy’s) were still awaited despite the failures being historic.
Preventative Maintenance Inspections showed 7 of 8 brake tests had been completed, suggesting that they are now being completed at the facility. One roller brake test was completed in advance within the accepted period. Correct DTP brake test codes were used for only 6 of 8 tests, with no brake code inputted for the remaining, but was eventually used on one vehicle. However, only one vehicle (7.5 tonnes) was laden with the rigid 12 tonne, and the articulated vehicle were unladen. The forward planner suggested irregular intervals in brake testing.
More positively, the Nil driver defect reporting was found to be satisfactory. 3 defects records were provided for vehicle YJ18 SBR; no defects were reported for GX10 XFR, whilst YN13 RXC was only used infrequently. One defect was for a brake pad wear in October 2025, which was signed off with the brakes repaired 4 days later, but there was no indication of who rectified the fault, just ‘Brakes fixed’. In November 2025, a defective nearside headlamp was reported to the office, but no action or resolution was noted. In December 2025, a defective nearside front lamp bulb was reported to the office and signed off as replaced and rectified by “K.S” but no date. Four days later an offside rear indicator bulb was reported and again signed off as rectified by “K.S”, no rectification detail. The operator’s summary Excel spreadsheet highlighted the risk from agency drivers failing to submit walk round checks. The Examiner noted the small data and mixed compliance. One of the two additional safety inspection records received for YN13 RXC, contained a number of driver defects on 5 January 2026.
Axle 1 nearside wheel nuts were found to be insecure on vehicle YN13 RXC at the Preventative Maintenance Inspection on 5 January 2026. The remedial action was to torque the nuts back up, but there was limited detail including any potential damage. As Mr Hodgson advised, best practice would have involved removing the wheel to investigate rather than to just re-torquing etc. One tyre DOT code was the same as last inspection, and one was slightly different (2124 vs 2424) with no further information. There was no obvious explanation beyond administrative error but should have been investigated. Two torque tags were provided for vehicle GX10 XFR with the same date and very similar content. The second later timed tag appeared to record a second tyre replacement on the vehicle on the drive axle following an earlier replacement on the steered axle. The later torque tag referred to the same steered axle wheel as being removed, suggesting that two different contractors may have attended at different times during the day to replace different tyres, but no explanation. Previous assurances referred to a wheel re-torque booklet but that was nor reflected in the documents provided. A change in tread depth for a tyre on vehicle YN13 RXC suggested tyre replacement as tread depth increased to 8mm. There was no other record. A letter was produced from the maintenance contractor suggesting this was a further administrative error, bit not picked up at the time. The Examiner noted DOT code discrepancies and on YJ18 SBY together with tyre tread depth issues.
Whilst an improvement in brake testing at a proper facility was evident, issues remain. The driver defect reporting system was still not effective. The risk of wheel loss was fortunately identified on vehicle YN13 RXC at the inspection on 5 January 2026, but there appears to have been a lack of scrutiny of documentation, notably tread depths and tyre age.
The Director’s statement of 26 January 2026 acknowledged the compliance shortcomings identified by the Examiners and fully accepted that one of the contributing factors was a lack of sufficient Director management and oversight. The Director confirmed that responsibility for day-to-day management transport had been delegated but that he now recognised that this does not remove his responsibility as Director. In hindsight, his engagement should have been more robust and structured. He therefore accepted his role in the shortcomings and wished to communicate his understanding of the importance of setting clear expectations and in reviewing performance. He referred to corrective training to drivers as a remedial action, focusing on “daily” walk round checks, the importance of accurately identifying and reporting defects, promptly and clearly, and employing correct procedures relating to wheel nut retorque. The drivers have been reminded that compliance is a core part of their responsibilities. The operator enlisted the services of an experienced professional trainer, and these sessions were said to have challenged their understanding of the procedures and tested their ability to comply.
In terms of improved management reporting and oversight, a selection of compliance reports will be submitted to the Directors every four weeks by a responsible member of the transport department can stop the report will cover key areas including driver defect reporting, vehicle maintenance inspection, wheels security management, outstanding defects and replication, any trends or emerging risks. These reports will be reviewed at direct level and challenged appropriately. Following a review of the maintenance arrangements a decision has been taken to change maintenance provider. There was initially a reluctance to undertake this change, largely due to the convenience off the previous arrangement. The previous provider was said to be located close to the operating centre and provided access to annual test at the same location. It has become apparent that the provider did not have sufficient capacity to adequately support the operation due to workload pressures. Ultimately, this could not be overcome and the change became inevitable. Mr Ajmee sought to reassure me that these changes represent a long-term commitment going forward.
Based on the evidence, summarised above, I recorded adverse findings under the following sections of the Act: 26(1)(b) – conditions on licence to notify relevant changes, 26(1)(c)(iii) – Prohibitions, 26(1)(e) – statements relating to inspection intervals, and to abide by conditions on the licence, 26(1)(f) – undertakings (vehicles to be kept fit and serviceable, effective driver defect reporting, complete maintenance records, drivers’ hours and tachographs). Whilst many of those findings were based on historic incidents, it remained to be seen whether the operator would continue to demonstrate the level of scrutiny of maintenance and other systems required in order to ensure sustained compliance. On the basis of the noted improvements, it should be possible to sustain that in the future. I was also able to conclude that, whilst this was not the operator’s first Public Inquiry, it fell within a MODERATE starting bracket for regulatory intervention. However, the number of undertakings given the Deputy Traffic Commissioner in 2021 should have acted as a sufficient wake up call to the Directors; unfortunately, that did not prove the case until the middle of last year. Even now, there is further work to do, but the operator is assisted by a consultant and there is now clear performance reporting to the Directors. Fitness is tarnished. There is an intention to invest in replacement vehicles and to replace aged trailers. I did not wish to halt those proposals but there was a need for deterrent action to spur on compliance efforts. I heard evidence on the impact of regulatory intervention and determined that the operator’s licence be curtailed by 2 vehicles for 1 month commencing at 23:45 on 28 January 2026. During that period, vehicles GX10 XFR and MX13 HXU cannot be operated on this or any other licence pursuant to a direction under section 26(6).
R Turfitt
Traffic Commissioner
27 January 2026