Decision for Billington Farms Limited (OG2047787) and Billington Stud Farms Limited (OC2087722)
Written decision of the Deputy Traffic Commissioner in Wales for Billington Farms Limited and Billington Stud Farms Limited
IN THE WALES TRAFFIC AREA
BILLINGTON FARMS LIMITED OG2047787
BILLINGTON STUD FARMS LIMITED OC2087722
WRITTEN DECISION OF THE DEPUTY TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER
In the matter of the Goods Vehicle (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995
Public Inquiry held at the Ibis Styles Hotel Haydock on 28 April 2026 at 2pm
DECISION
BILLINGTON FARMS LIMITED OG2047787
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 restricted goods vehicle operator’s licence of Billington Farms Limited OG2047787 is revoked with effect from 23:45 hours on 26 May 2026.
The operator Billington Farms Limited is disqualified from holding or obtaining any type of operator’s licence in any traffic area, with effect from 27 May 2026 until further order, pursuant to Section 28(1) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995.
The director Paul Robert Billington is disqualified from holding or obtaining any type of operator’s licence in any traffic area, and from being director of any company holding or obtaining such a licence with effect from 27 May 2026 until further order, pursuant to Section 28(1) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995.
BILLINGTON STUD FARMS LIMITED OC2087722
On findings pursuant to Section 13B, 13C(4) and 13D of the Goods Vehicle (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995, the application for a restricted goods vehicle operator’s licence by Billington Stud Farms Limited OC2087722 is refused.
Introduction
Billington Farms Limited (“the operator”) holds a restricted goods vehicle operator’s licence OG2047787 in the Wales traffic area issued on 26 August 2021 and authorising the use of 8 vehicles and 12 trailers, with 7 vehicles currently in possession.
Billington Stud Farms Limited (“the applicant company”) applied for a new restricted goods vehicle operator’s licence OC2087722 in the North West of England Traffic Area on 8 December 2025 to authorise the use of 12 vehicles and 16 trailers. The application indicated that the Billington Farms Limited licence would be surrendered if the applicant company’s licence was granted.
The sole director of both the operator and the applicant company is Paul Robert Billington.
The operator, the applicant company and their common director have not previously been called to a public inquiry. However, Mr Billington’s conduct was considered by a traffic commissioner at a public inquiry in 2018 for the restricted licence of Linda Billington OG113491 that resulted in that licence being revoked and Mrs Billington (wife of Mr Billington) being disqualified for 2 years. The traffic commissioner commented in his decision that he would have disqualified Paul Billington if he had the power to do so.
It appears that Mr Billington’s involvement in that previous licence was not identified when the application was considered for the operator’s current licence in 2021 and the application was granted under delegated powers.
The basis of referral to the public inquiry is set out in the case summary and evidence included in the brief. In summary, the operator received a prohibition in May 2025 at a roadside encounter, and this prompted a DVSA maintenance investigation visit in September 2025 that identified a number of shortcomings. These events led to the traffic commissioner calling the operator to public inquiry to consider if regulatory action was required.
When the new application by the applicant company came to the traffic commissioner’s attention, it was also decided that it should be heard at a conjoined public inquiry. This was to consider if the evidence relating to the linked company’s existing licence was relevant to assessing if the statutory requirements had been shown for the new application.
The Call to Public Inquiry
The operator was called up to public inquiry by letter dated 2 March 2026.
The call up letter gave notice that the grounds for regulatory action in Sections 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 provisions for disqualification in Section 28 of the Act.
The applicant company was also called up by letter dated 2 March 2026. The letter gave notice that specific attention would be given to the requirements of Section 13B, 13C(4) and 13D of the Act when considering its application.
The operator and applicant company were each informed by letter dated 3 March 2026 that the public inquiry would now be heard at the temporary hearing centre at the Ibis Styles Hotel, Haydock.
The operator and applicant company were further put on notice by letter dated 8 April 2026 that the involvement of Mr Billington in the licence of Linda Billington OG113491 would be considered at the public inquiry as to whether it was relevant to the requirement not to be unfit for the purposes of the new application and amounted to a material change in the circumstances of the operator’s existing licence.
The Traffic Commissioner for the North West of England had given consent for the new application to be heard alongside the public inquiry for the operator’s existing licence called in the Wales traffic area.
The operator and applicant company were initially represented by a solicitor, but the Office of the Traffic Commissioner was informed of their withdrawal on 9 April 2026. An email was sent to both the operator and applicant company on 15 April 2026 reminding them of the case directions contained within the call up letter.
The operator sent some maintenance records to the DVSA ahead of the hearing as directed. A report was subsequently prepared by Vehicle Examiner Corcoran noting that some areas of concern from his previous investigation remained.
The operator and applicant company did not submit up to date financial evidence before the hearing as directed or evidence of the applicant’s proposed compliance systems. Emails sent by the Office of the Traffic Commissioner to the given addresses went unanswered and attempts to contact the operator and applicant company on the common mobile phone number provided were also unsuccessful. I was also informed that a DVSA traffic examiner had been unable to raise a response from Mr Billington for the purposes of arranging a visit to the applicant company’s proposed operating centre.
The Public Inquiry
The Public Inquiry was heard at Haydock today. The operator and the applicant company’s common director, Paul Billington did not attend. The operator and the applicant company were not otherwise represented. No explanation for their absence was provided.
I am satisfied that the call up letter (and subsequent correspondence) was properly sent to both the operator and applicant company at the addresses they had nominated on their respective licence record and application details. I apply the presumption of good service. I have taken account of the guidance of the Upper Tribunal in Phillip Drake [2023] UKUT 98 (AAC) and Ocean King Ltd [2024] UKUT 333 (AAC) on the use of correspondence addresses provided by operators on the licence record.
I further note that the operator and applicant company initially instructed solicitors to act on their behalf and the operator did provide some documents to DVSA as directed in the call up hearing. I am satisfied that the operator, applicant company and their common director, Mr Billington are fully aware of the public inquiry and the expectation of attendance.
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 parties and that they have been given a fair opportunity to attend or otherwise respond to the call to public inquiry. The gravity of the position and the full extent of the matters to be considered have been explained to them. I have not seen any evidence to explain their absence. I consider that it is appropriate to proceed to a determination of the public inquiry in their absence.
Determination
Billington Farms Limited OG2047787
I have considered the evidence contained within the DVSA maintenance investigation report including the limited response provided by the operator. I have also considered the evidence contained within Vehicle Examiner Corcoran’s more recent “pre-PI” report. I have not seen any evidence that challenges the findings of the DVSA reports.
Accordingly, I find the evidence of the DBA supports adverse findings of fact under Section 26(1)(c)(iii), 26(1)(e) and 26(1)(f) of the Act in relation to prohibitions, failure to honour the statements as to maintenance intervals and that conditions on the licence would be met, and failure to fulfil the undertakings that vehicles would be kept fit and serviceable and appropriate records kept.
Further I find there is a clear basis for concluding the operator no longer meets the statutory requirement that it must not be unfit. This amounts to a material change in the circumstances of the operator as licence holder and satisfies the grounds for regulatory action in Section 26(1)(h) of the Act.
I draw attention to the previous adverse comments about the director Mr Billington made by the traffic commissioner when revoking the linked licence of Linda Billington OG113491 in 2018. It is regrettable that the link to that previous licence was not identified when this licence was first granted. Had it been raised, I consider it is highly likely that the licence would not have been granted; certainly, without a traffic commissioner first considering Mr Billington’s fitness at a public inquiry.
Although the events that led to the revocation of that previous licence were 8 years ago, I find the non-compliance described in the traffic commissioner’s decision is entirely consistent with the more recent evidence of this operator’s compliance under Mr Billington’s sole control.
The failure to fully comply with the case management directions for this public inquiry, failure to respond to correspondence from the Office of the Traffic Commissioner and the failure to attend the public inquiry, are also reason why I am satisfied that the operator no longer meets the requirement of fitness.
One of the directions that has not been met was the direction to produce financial evidence to show that arrangements for maintaining vehicles in a fit and serviceable condition was not prejudiced by reason of the operator having insufficient financial resources for that purpose (in accordance with the requirements of Section 13D of the Act). In the absence of any financial evidence to address that point, I conclude there has also been a material change in the operator’s circumstances relating to that requirement.
Having reached the findings of fact recorded above, I have undertaken a balancing exercise by reference to the guidance in the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document Number 10 and have considered the positive and negative features.
In the absence of meaningful cooperation from the operator, there are limited positive findings that I can identify. I note the DVSA “pre-PI” report does acknowledge some improvement including compliant roller brake testing and that the MoT failure rate is below the national average.
I find the following negative features are present:
-
There is ineffective management control and there are insufficient systems in place to prevent operator licence compliance failings. That was the case during the initial DVSA investigation in September 2025 and the more recent report from April 2026 indicates many of those issues are persisting.
-
Insufficient and ineffective changes have been made to ensure future compliance. This is illustrated by the failure to produce evidence that issues with wheel security and driver defect reporting first identified in September 2025 have been addressed.
-
The operator continues to have a high prohibition rate with the most recent prohibition in May 2025 involving a road safety critical and significant defect.
-
The operator has failed to attend the public inquiry or fully cooperate with the case management directions issued beforehand.
Having balanced these factors and considered the guidance in Statutory Document 10, I am of the view that the case falls in the “serious” to “severe” 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. The findings of the DVSA investigation call the ability of the operator to be compliant into grave doubt. The operator has not provided me with sufficient evidence to answer those doubts.
I answer the Priority Freight question in the negative and have gone on to ask the question of whether the operator deserves to be put out of business, as directed by the decision in Bryan Haulage (No.2) 217/2002. I have not been provided with any evidence by the operator to assist me in understanding the effect of a revocation order. The negative features described above are to an extent where I consider it is proportionate and necessary to direct the revocation of the licence even if that means the end of the business.
Turning to the question of disqualification, as the operator has only a single director in Mr Billington, I consider it is appropriate to approach the issue as one for both the company and its individual director.
I have applied a balancing exercise, and the features identified above in relation to regulatory action are equally pertinent to the question of disqualification. The negative features outweigh the positives, and I consider a period of disqualification is justified.
I have taken account of paragraph 108 of the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document Number 10 that provides some guidance on the length of any disqualification, states that for an operator’s first Public Inquiry, consideration of a disqualification period of between 1 and 3 years may be appropriate rising to 5 to 10 years for more serious cases that may include previous public inquiry history.
As stated above, I face the difficulty that Mr Billington’s failure to attend the public inquiry process means that I have not heard any further explanation from him of the failings identified in the DVSA evidence nor have I had the opportunity to hear from him about his future intentions 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 the operator or Mr Billington should remain disqualified indefinitely, but they must engage with the traffic commissioner if they wish for the disqualification order to be set aside or fixed for a definite period.
I will defer the final taking effect of the revocation and orders above for a period of 28 days to allow the operator one final opportunity to contact the Office of the Traffic Commissioner. If they provide relevant representations (supported by evidence) within that time to explain the absence from the hearing today, consideration can be given to setting aside the orders above until those representations have been considered (if necessary, at a further public inquiry). If the operator does not contact my office before 27 May 2026, the orders for revocation and disqualification will take effect as directed above.
Billington Stud Farms Limited OC2087722
I refer to my findings above in relation to the fitness of the applicant company’s sole director, Mr Billington, as director of Billington Farms Ltd.
It follows that as its sole director has been disqualified, the applicant company’s application cannot be granted. It has failed to demonstrate that the requirement not to be unfit in Section 13B of the Act is met.
Further I am not satisfied that the applicant company has shown that it meets the statutory requirement in Section 13C(4) that it has satisfactory facilities and arrangements for maintaining its vehicles in a fit and serviceable condition. The applicant company has not complied with the direction to provide evidence of its proposed arrangements. The compliance of the sister company under the management of the same director also causes me to question if this applicant has satisfactory arrangements in place.
The applicant company has also failed to produce evidence to show that it meets the statutory requirement of financial sufficiency in Section 13D.
For these reasons, I refuse the application.
I would additionally note that I have concerns about the suitability of the proposed operating centre and would have wanted to investigate that further had the applicant company engaged with the public inquiry. I also noted that the bank statements submitted with the original application in December 2025 contained entries that strongly suggested goods vehicles were being operated by the applicant company already. The question of whether there had been unauthorised operation and a premature change of entity is another issue I would have wanted to explore had the applicant company attended the public inquiry.
Gerallt Evans
Deputy Traffic Commissioner
28 April 2026