Decision for BJL Skip Hire Limited (OC2070249)
Written Decision of the Traffic Commissioner for the North West of England for BJL Skip Hire Limited and transport managers Mr. Brian Johnson and Mr. Brian Derek Taylor
IN THE NORTH WEST TRAFFIC AREA
BJL SKIP HIRE LIMITED – OC2070249
&
Mr. Brian JOHNSON – Transport Manager
&
Mr. Brian Derek TAYLOR – Transport Manager
WRITTEN DECISION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER
PUBLIC INQUIRY HELD IN GOLBORNE ON 08 SEPTEMBER 2026
The Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (“the 1995 Act”)
DECISION:
BJL Skip Hire Limited (Licence OC2070249)
Pursuant to adverse findings under section 27(1)(a) of the 1995 Act, this licence is revoked with effect from 23:45 on 06 October 2026.
Transport Manager Mr. Brian Johnson
Under the provision of paragraphs 16(1) and 16(2) of Schedule 3 of the 1995 Act I find that Mr. Johnson is no longer of good repute and he is disqualified from acting as a transport manager for an indefinite period. This disqualification commences with effect from 23:45 on 06 October 2026.
Transport Manager Mr. Brian Derek Taylor
Under the provision of paragraphs 16(1) and 16(2) of Schedule 3 of the 1995 Act I find that Mr. Taylor is no longer of good repute and he is disqualified from acting as a transport manager for an indefinite period. This disqualification commences with effect from 23:45 on 06 October 2026.
BJL Skip Hire Limited holds a Standard National Goods Vehicle Operator’s Licence OC2070249 authorising ten vehicles and twenty trailers. The directors are listed as Miss Lauren Broadhurst, Mr. Benjamin Lawton and Mr. Jamie Stephenson. The licence has been in place since 26 February 2024 with no previous adverse history recorded.
The current transport manager on the licence is Mr Brian Derek Taylor. Mr. Taylor was added to the licence on 21 April 2026. The previous transport manager, Mr Brian Johnson, was listed on the licence from 15 January 2025 to 03 February 2026.
BACKGROUND
On 09 June 2026 letters were issued by the Office of the Traffic Commissioner proposing to revoke the company’s operator’s licence because the DVSA alleged that, during an investigation, the company had failed to cooperate with the traffic examiner on numerous occasions.
According to the DVSA statement, a roadside stop of vehicle KY19HDU took place on 29 March 2025. The vehicle was displaying the operator licence disc of BJL Skip Hire Limited and was towing semi-trailer C165890, despite the operator having no authorisation for trailers at that time (the company has since applied for and been granted authority for 20 trailers). The driver advised he was employed by GEB Logistics Ltd and stated that the vehicle was kept at Stalybridge, which the examiner noted was not listed on the licence of BJL Skip Hire Limited at the time of the check.
GEB Logistics Ltd does not hold an operator’s licence. It did apply for a Standard National Licence in June 2023 (application OC2066636), but this was refused on 08 August 2023.
Whilst it postdates the events reported by DVSA a further application (OC2086137) was submitted on 03 October 2025 and this was refused on 10 April 2026. Mr Brian Johnson was the proposed transport manager on both of the failed applications.
The traffic examiner report (with supporting evidence) records the following:
- The report focuses on five vehicles – KY19HDU, SF17AEZ, PE67HXX, FJ65WKB and YS17MFY.
- These vehicles were specified on operator’s licence OC2070249, held by BJL Skip Hire Limited. They had previously been specified on licence OC1102355 (held by Broadhurst Transport Ltd), which was revoked on 27 October 2023.
- These vehicles were, in fact, being used by GEB Logistics Ltd. This was supported by invoices from GEB Logistics Ltd and a schedule linking those invoices to the vehicles specified on the licence held by BJL Skip Hire Limited.
- During the investigation GEB Logistics Ltd engaged fully with the DVSA examiner and produced the vehicles records as and when required.
- Despite a schedule showing a number of attempts to engage with BJL Skip Hire Limited, and specifically director Mr. Benjamin Lawton, that company failed to engage following an initial interview which was postponed at Mr. Lawton’s request to obtain legal advice.
- Before concluding the report the examiner facilitated BJL Skip Hire Limited’s request to provide a written statement for inclusion. No statement was received.
The examiner’s report included the following conclusions:
- GEB Logistics Ltd applied for an operator’s licence in 2023, the director was Georgia Broadhurst and the transport manager was Brian Johnson. The application was refused.
- The vehicles specified on BJL Skip Hire Limited’s licence, but operated by GEB Logistics Ltd, were previously specified on a revoked licence, OC1102355 held by Broadhurst Transport Ltd (Mr. Steven Broadhurst was the director). The same vehicles have also been linked to another operator licence, OC2071792 J Harvey Logistics Ltd. James Harvey is listed on Companies House as a former director of J Harvey Logistics Ltd and GEB Logistics Ltd.
- The vehicle on the day of the roadside encounter was still locked in to J Harvey Logistics Ltd and had missed the 90-day download period.
- GEB Logistics Ltd hired vehicles from Mr. Steven Broadhurst.
- GEB Logistics Ltd are operating their vehicles through the operator licence of BJL Skip Hire Limited.
- At the start of the investigation, TM Brian Johnson was named on the operator licence of BJL Skip Hire Limited. Mr Johnson has now been removed from BJL’s licence and is named on the new application for GEB Logistics Ltd. Brian Taylor is now named as TM for BJL Skip Hire Limited.
- Each of the 5 vehicles tachograph data was requested for were locked in to J Harvey Logistics Ltd.
- Throughout the investigation, Mr Lawton has been difficult to communicate with. The examiner hadn’t had a telephone conversation with him despite several attempts, and at times he had taken weeks to respond to emails. Any telephone response seemed to be delegated to someone else, and the examiner was unable to secure an interview date with him following the postponement of the first meeting in January.
On 30 June 2026 Mr. Lawton messaged the Office of the Traffic Commissioner using the VOL message service to respond to the proposal to revoke and request a public inquiry. Within that request he asserted that:
- The compliance issues arose under the management of a former Transport Manager, who had since been dismissed for gross misconduct.
- Once these matters came to his attention, he acted immediately to rectify them and had implemented comprehensive compliance systems with professional support.
- He takes his operator’s licence extremely seriously and is committed to meeting all undertakings going forward.
- Revocation without the opportunity to explain these circumstances would be disproportionate and would cause severe prejudice to the business, employees, customers and suppliers.
No evidence was provided to support these assertions; no further information was provided to identify the compliance issues he referred to; and no comment was provided in relation to the alleged non-engagement with the DVSA.
At the operator’s request the case was therefore directed to be considered at a public inquiry.
It is noted that as GEB Logistics Ltd do not have an operator’s licence I have no authority to call them to an inquiry or take action in relation to the allegation of using vehicles without an operator’s licence. That remains a matter for the enforcement agency.
PRE-PUBLIC INQUIRY
A letter, calling BJL Skip Hire Limited to the public inquiry, was issued on 28 July 2026. That letter was sent to the given addresses for correspondence and set out the date, time and location of the hearing. It also provided the link to the public inquiry bundle and instructions as to how the bundle could be accessed.
Additionally, the calling-in letter set out a number of case management directions to be complied with ahead of the inquiry. These case management directions included the requirement to notify this office of attendees; to provide evidence of financial resources; and to submit maintenance and driver records to the DVSA for assessment ahead of the hearing.
Royal Mail records show the calling in letter was delivered and signed for on 30 July 2026. The case management directions have not been complied with.
Similarly, letters calling each of the transport managers to the inquiry were issued on 28 July 2026. The calling in letter to Mr. Brian Derek Taylor was delivered and signed for on 30 July 2026. Whilst no record could be provided by Royal Mail for the delivery of the letter to Mr. Johnson, that letter was issued by post to his given correspondence address and twice sent by email to his given email address.
I am therefore satisfied in each case that good service has been made.
ADJOURNMENT REQUEST
On the morning of 07 September 2026 I received a request from Mr. Lawton seeking to adjourn the hearing. He set out his reasons (being a late notice medical appointment). Having considered the request I gave a direction refusing to adjourn. Due to a subsequent challenge I repeat it here in full:
BJL Skip Hire limited has been called to a public inquiry along with Transport Manager Brian Taylor and Transport Manager Brian Johnson.
Calling-in letters confirming the date, time and location of the hearing were issued by post and email on 28 July 2026 (44 days ago). Those letters set out a number of case management directions to be complied with including, a requirement to confirm attendance 14 days ahead of the hearing; a requirement to provide evidence of financial standing 14 days ahead of the hearing; and a requirement to provide maintenance and driver records to the DVSA 21 days ahead of the hearing.
The operator has failed to comply with any of those case management directions.
Today, 07 September 2026 – the day before the hearing - I have received a request from Director Benjamin Lawton as follows:
“I am writing urgently regarding the Public Inquiry listed for tomorrow.
[Redacted]… required to attend an urgent medical appointment tomorrow…[Redacted]… I am unable to attend the Public Inquiry either in person or remotely.
This is an unexpected and unavoidable medical matter and I appreciate the seriousness of making an adjournment request at such short notice. I have only just had notification of this appointment due to it being an urgent medical appointment hence the late email.
I want to make absolutely clear that my inability to attend is not a failure or refusal to engage with the Traffic Commissioner. I fully intend to attend the Public Inquiry and address all of the matters raised. I therefore respectfully request that tomorrow’s Public Inquiry is adjourned and relisted for the next available date. I would be grateful if you could confirm the earliest available date so that I can make the necessary arrangements to attend and ensure I am available.
I sincerely apologise for the short notice, but the circumstances are outside my control and I respectfully ask that this request is placed before the Traffic Commissioner as a matter of urgency. Please could you confirm receipt, whether the adjournment has been granted, and the next available date for the Public Inquiry.”
Whilst no supporting evidence has been provided in respect of the medical appointment, I do not place significant weight on that omission. Given the nature of the circumstances described, I accept that supporting evidence may not have been immediately available. My decision therefore does not turn on the absence of documentary evidence.
My reasons for refusing the adjournment request go further.
The licence-holder is a limited company rather than an individual operator. There are three statutory directors. Even if Mr. Lawton is unavailable due to personal circumstances, I am not satisfied that the company is unable to be represented by either of the remaining directors. This is particularly relevant when considering the DVSA notes when engaging with Mr. Lawton at page 84 of the hearing bundle:
“Mr Lawton said he was very busy, he had 7 other businesses to run and invited me to look him up on Companies House. Because of his involvement with his other businesses, he doesn’t really have anything to do with the trucks, he leaves it for other people to sort out. He said he wasn’t in a position to answer questions about something he doesn’t know about and he didn’t want to implicate himself. He employs 40 people in the skip company and they could potentially lose their jobs if he said something wrong.”
I am therefore not satisfied that Mr. Lawton’s personal attendance is indispensable to the fair determination of the issues before me. To the extent that he wishes to place any further information before the inquiry, this could have been provided in writing.
Within the request for an adjournment Mr. Lawton states that his “inability to attend is not a failure or refusal to engage with the Traffic Commissioner. I fully intend to attend the Public Inquiry and address all of the matters raised.” I cannot ignore the fact that the operator has failed to comply with any of the case management directions contained within the calling-in letter. That history of non-compliance is relevant when assessing this late application. I again remind myself that there are two other statutory directors in the company.
I also take account of the impact an adjournment would have upon other parties and witnesses. The inquiry has been convened not only in respect of BJL Skip Hire Ltd, but also Transport Managers Brian Taylor and Brian Johnson. The DVSA has likewise made arrangements to attend and present evidence. Granting an adjournment at such short notice would result in inconvenience and wasted public resources.
I have balanced the circumstances advanced by Mr. Lawton against the public interest in the effective regulation of operator licensing, the operator’s previous failure to comply with case management directions, the availability of alternative directors to represent the company, and the prejudice that would be caused to the other parties and witnesses if the hearing were adjourned at the last minute. Having considered all of those matters, I am not satisfied that an adjournment is necessary or justified. In particular, I am not satisfied that the interests of justice require the hearing to be vacated at such short notice.
The public inquiry will proceed tomorrow at 10:30 as scheduled.
The Public Inquiry
The public inquiry took place on Tuesday 08 September 2026 at the Golborne Hearing Centre. An additional 30 minutes was allowed after the notified start time. DVSA were in attendance by Examiners Joanne Tinsley and Aidan McCabe. Neither the licence-holder nor the two transport managers were in attendance.
Preliminary Matters
Ahead of the commencement I was advised that Mr. Lawton had responded to my refusal to grant an adjournment. He stated that his circumstances had not changed and repeated that his non-attendance was not a refusal to engage with the traffic commissioner. The response went on to raise concern with my previous reliance on a statement by the DVSA examiner at Page 84 of the hearing bundle (referred to above). He did not recall making the comments in the terms quoted and states that, as he has not been provided with the hearing bundle, he has not seen the DVSA statement and has had no opportunity to consider their accuracy, context or completeness.
The first point I note is that the licence-holder has been provided access to the bundle of papers through the link and instructions provided on the calling-in letter. The failure to access those documents is a matter for the licence-holder. Whilst case bundles are now provided electronically the failure to access the records is akin to not opening the envelope of papers delivered physically. I note that there has been no request to this office for assistance at any time since receiving the calling-in letter and link to the papers.
The point being advanced by Mr. Lawton is also contradictory to his previous claim in his initial adjournment request when he stated “I fully intend to attend the Public Inquiry and address all of the matters raised”. I do not understand how he would intend to address all of the matters raised without being sufficiently prepared, and I do not understand how he could have been sufficiently prepared when he failed to access the bundle of papers. I was advised the medical appointment was a last-minute request, therefore the licence-holder ought to have been at least somewhat prepared before last minute medical appointment. If the medical appointment was not last minute, then greater notice to this office should have been given.
The absence of the two transport managers was such that I was again required to consider whether or not this hearing should be adjourned. This also afforded me an opportunity to consider whether the operator inquiry should be adjourned in light of the further representations from Mr. Lawton.
With regard to the transport managers, I took account of the guidance issued by the Senior Traffic Commissioner at paragraph 27 of Statutory Document 9, which states
The Traffic Commissioner is entitled to expect that the party called to a hearing will submit any application for an adjournment.
I concluded, for the reasons set out above, that good service of the calling in letter had been provided. I was also mindful that the DVSA examiners had taken the time to attend and, further, that my public inquiry room is scheduled for hearings until November 2026, therefore any adjournment would not be brief.
When reconsidering the licence-holder’s position I have reviewed my previous refusal. I consider that, even if I disregard my consideration of the examiner’s “Page 84 comments” (and I am happy to disregard them in the interests of fairness), the other reasons for refusal remain relevant and appropriate. Mr. Lawton’s most recent response does not address the failure to comply with the case management directions or the availability of alternative directors to represent the company. It also raises the concern that the operator had not prepared for the hearing as it had not taken the time to review the materials provided to it in advance. It remains the case that I am not satisfied that the interests of justice require the hearing to be vacated at such short notice particularly as the DVSA have made the effort to attend.
Issues
There are some matters arising from the DVSA report which I do not seek to consider further.
- The use of a trailer without authority to do so was resolved as the BJL Skip Hire Limited applied for, and was granted, trailer authorisation shortly after the encounter. I also consider this to be a moot point considering the claim that the actual operator was GEB Logistics Ltd.
- The drivers’ hours offences were dealt with by DVSA with a warning. Again, this is a moot point as I am advised that the drivers were employed by, and working for, GEB Logistics Ltd.
- The vehicle units remain locked into J Harvey Logistics Ltd. This is a further moot point as GEB Logistics Ltd has been responsible for the downloading of VU and driver card data.
- As stated above, as GEB Logistics Ltd is not a licence holder I am unable to give consideration to fact that they were operating without a licence, or any compliance issues arising from those operations.
The areas for my consideration are therefore;
- The failure of the operator to comply with the case management directions & failure to attend this inquiry;
- the allegation of licence lending; and
- the role of the transport managers.
Failure to Comply with the case management directions & failure to attend the public inquiry
The case management directions were clearly set out within the calling in letter. I have confirmation that the operator has seen the calling in letter, but no explanation for the failure to provide the records as directed within it. The operator was put on notice that the failure to provide those records was part of my reason for refusing the application for adjournment but failed to reference this within the follow-up communication.
The failure to attend this public inquiry carries lesser weight than it might have done in the event that no one from the licence-holder had contacted this office. Mr. Lawton’s late engagement is recognised, but it remains that I refused the request to adjourn, set out my reasons, and set out that I considered it appropriate that a different director attend in the case that Mr. Lawton could not. This point was not addressed and none of the directors attended the inquiry. No written representations were provided.
It is also relevant that this approach appears consistent with the evidence provided by the DVSA within the papers and at the hearing. The examiner found Mr. Lawton to be “difficult to communicate with”. At the time of writing the report she had been unable to speak with him by phone despite several attempts, and at times he took “weeks to respond to emails”. Upon the conclusion of the public inquiry report she invited Mr. Lawton to provide a written statement for inclusion within the report. On 08 April 2026 Mr. Lawton had asked for time to produce a statement and he was given until 17 April 2026. As at 18 May 2026 no further communication had been received and the report was concluded.
Alleged Licence Lending
The DVSA met with representatives from GEB Logistics Ltd and concluded that the vehicles were operated by that company and the drivers were employed by that company. It is also the case that s99ZA requests for records relating to the vehicles and drivers were provided, not by BJL Skip Hire Limited but by GEB Logistics Ltd. The vehicles are registered to Mr. Steven Broadhurst and GEB Logistics Ltd, with Mr. Broadhurst’s vehicles leased to GEB Logistics Ltd.
Furthermore, the bundle of records includes invoices showing work undertaken by GEB Logistics Ltd with a schedule aligning those invoices to the vehicles registered under the licence of BJL Skip Hire Limited.
The current position is that those vehicles remain specified on the operator licence for BJL Skip Hire Limited as at the date of the inquiry despite the operator being on notice of the allegations.
Transport Manager – Mr. Brian Johnson
Mr. Johnson was the transport manager for BJL Skip Hire Limited between 15 January 2025 and 03 February 2026. This places him as the transport manager during the period of the DVSA investigation.
The evidence provided by the DVSA clearly indicates that vehicles were being used by GEB Logistics Ltd and being driven by employees of GEB Logistics Ltd. As the role of the transport manager is to ensure continuous and effective management of transport services, I do not envisage a scenario where Mr. Johnson was not aware that the vehicles specified during that time were being operated by a separate entity. He was either aware, and turned a blind eye, or he was unaware and was failing on his legal responsibilities. In either case the matters give reasonable cause to consider Mr. Johnson’s good repute.
I further find it relevant that Mr. Johnson was the nominated transport manager on the refused application for GEB Logistics Ltd. As the proposed transport manager he would have completed an application and will have been aware of the refusal.
I note that Mr. Lawton, in his VOL message dated 30 June 2026, claims “The compliance issues arose under the management of a former Transport Manager, who has since been dismissed for gross misconduct.”. Whilst this appears to implicate Mr. Johnson I cannot be certain. Mr. Johnson was not named, and the compliance issues have not been qualified by Mr. Lawton.
That said, a feature of my considerations is that Mr. Johnson has been called to this public inquiry in his own right as a transport manager and he has failed to attend. I remind myself that the calling-in letter was posted, and emailed twice, to the addresses he provided to this office.
Transport Manager – Mr. Brian Taylor
Mr. Taylor is the current transport manager. He was added to the licence on 21 April 2026 and therefore the findings of the DVSA report pre-date his appointment.
I remain concerned, however, as the issue of licence lending does not appear to have changed. The vehicles identified as being used by GEB Logistics Ltd remain specified on the licence held by BJL Skip Hire Limited. As transport manager, Mr Taylor was directed to provide evidence demonstrating his continuous and effective management of those vehicles and to address the concerns raised by the DVSA investigation. He failed to provide any such evidence.
As with Mr. Johnson, a significant feature of my considerations is that Mr. Taylor has been called to this public inquiry in his own right as a transport manager and he has failed to attend. The calling-in letter is recorded by Royal Mail as being delivered and signed for by him. He has not notified this office of any reason he could not attend, he has not complied with the case management directions within the calling-in letter and he has not asked for an adjournment. Mr. Taylor was directed to provide evidence to this inquiry demonstrating his continuous and effective management of this licence, he has failed to do so.
DETERMINATION
Having considered the evidence within the case bundle, and provided by DVSA at the hearing, I make the following determinations.
Failure to Comply with the case management directions & failure to attend the public inquiry
Whilst I apply some lesser weight to the failure to attend this public inquiry following the late engagement, I do add these failures to the balancing exercise as a negative feature. Whilst Mr. Lawton has communicated with this office and requested an adjournment I consider it relevant that the licence-holder did not comply with the case management directions and did not adequately prepare for the hearing (as confirmed by Mr. Lawton when he claims not to have seen the DVSA Report which is within the bundle). It is also the case that this licence-holding business has three statutory directors and a current transport manager, none of whom attended.
Alleged Licence Lending
The evidence before me is such that I find, to the civil standard, that licence-lending has occurred. I would like to have seen more within the DVSA report in respect of evidence regarding the employment status of drivers, and a wider range of invoices, but I appreciate that this may have been difficult as that evidence pertains to GEB Logistics Ltd and not BJL Skip Hire Limited.
Regardless, the evidence which is available satisfies me that there was licence lending identified during the period February 2025 to May 2025 as a minimum. The vehicles identified during that investigation remain specified on the licence for BJL Skip Hire limited. The failure of the operator to provide the more recent records requested or to have someone attend this public inquiry is such that I have no statements or evidence to provide mitigation or confirmation of remedial arrangements. This invites an adverse inference that matters remain unresolved.
I consider it relevant that the licence-lending occurred following a failed application by GEB Logistics Ltd for its own operator’s licence. The businesses are linked by family members, and I find it more likely than not that BJL Skip Hire Limited has sought to facilitate the transport requirements of GEB Logistics Ltd.
Licence lending in the goods vehicle operator licensing regime is an extremely serious matter as it fundamentally undermines the framework designed to ensure that only fit, competent and financially sound operators are authorised to carry goods. When a licence-holder allows another party – even one with close personal connections – to operate vehicles under their licence, the enforcement and regulatory bodies lose visibility and control over those who are actually responsible for critical obligations such as vehicle maintenance, driver control, and compliance systems.
Furthermore, it has the effect of distorting fair competition and, in worst case scenarios, creates an unacceptable risk to road safety. In the case at hand the beneficiary, GEB Logistics Ltd, had previously failed to satisfy a traffic commissioner that it met the legislative requirements to obtain a licence. The lender, BJL Skip Hire Limited, facilitated a bypassing of the important application process and sought to negate the Traffic Commissioner’s decision to refuse the application. Regardless of intent, in allowing its discs to be used by GEB Logistics Ltd, BJL Skip Hire Limited has undermined the Traffic Commissioner and compromised fair competition which, in turn, erodes trust within the licensing regime.
On review of the guidance provided by the Senior Traffic Commissioner on starting points for regulatory action, as set out at Annex 4 of Statutory Document 10, I place this case within the category of “Severe to Serious”. There has been persistent and deliberate operator licence failures with an inadequate response.
I consider the question posed by the Upper Tribunal in 2009/225 Priority Freight namely: how likely is it that this operator will, in future, operate in compliance with the operator’s licensing regime? I answer in the negative. The evidence before me, and my conclusions as set out, leads me to conclude that this is not an operator who I can trust to comply. I give greatest weight to the licence lending, with further negative weight added through the failure to properly engage with the DVSA investigation and this regulatory process.
I go on to consider the question posed by the Upper Tribunal in 2002/217 Bryan Haulage namely, is the conduct such that the operator ought to be put out of business? I answer this in the positive. The negative features of this case are well laid out above and in the absence of statements, records or evidence from the licence-holder I have no positive features to counterbalance the very serious negatives.
I therefore make a finding that this licence-holder no longer satisfies the requirement to be of good repute and, under the provision of section 27(1)(a) of the 1995 Act, order that the licence be revoked. I direct that revocation takes effect from 23:45 on 06 October 2026. This allows a period of time for transport operations to be brought to an orderly conclusion, although I remind the operator that it remains that its licence is not transferable. As such the licence must not be used by any vehicles operating on behalf of GEB Logistics Ltd during this period.
I consider that any decision other than revocation would give the wrong message to the wider industry. The importance of this is set out in the decision of 2006/277 Michael James Fenlon t/a County Skips, where the Upper Tribunal commented:
- “It has been said on many occasions that trust is one of the foundation stones of operator licensing. Traffic Commissioners must be able to trust operators to comply with all the relevant laws, rules and regulations because it would be a physical and financial impossibility to police every aspect of the licensing system all day and every day. In addition, operators must be able to trust other operators to observe the relevant laws, rules and regulations. If trust between operators breaks down and some operators believe that others are obtaining an unfair commercial advantage by ignoring laws, rules or regulations then standards will inevitably slip and the public will suffer.”
Disqualification
Having revoked the licence, I go on to consider whether disqualification is required. I, again, take account of the guidance provided by the Senior Traffic Commissioner at Paragraph 65 and 108 of Statutory Document number 10. Disqualification should not be routinely ordered, but there may be cases in which the seriousness of the operator’s conduct is such that a traffic commissioner may properly consider that both revocation and disqualification are necessary for the purposes of enforcing the legislation.
As stated above, licence lending is a serious issue and this, coupled with the operator’s lack of engagement with the DVSA investigation and this regulatory process, are such that I have concluded I can no longer trust this licence-holder. I have set out the seriousness of licence lending and identified, in this case, that the licence-holder has undermined the Traffic Commissioner’s decision to refuse GEB Logistics Ltd’s entry to the occupation of freight transport operator. I therefore find a period of disqualification to be justified and proportionate. Noting that this is the licence-holder’s first public inquiry I direct that BJL Skip Hire Limited is disqualified from holding or obtaining an operator’s licence for a period of twelve months.
I have held back from applying an order of disqualification against any of the named directors. I am mindful that there are three and whilst none have attended today’s public inquiry – and all are to be criticised for it – I do not have evidence which makes any one more or less culpable than the other for the licence-lending. It is Mr. Lawton’s name that continuously arises within this decision, but conversely it was only he that had any type of engagement with the enforcement and regulatory process (minimal as it was). For the avoidance of doubt, I consider these findings to be relevant to any future application involving any of the named directors and expect them to be drawn to the attention of the Traffic Commissioner dealing with such an application.
Transport Manager – Mr. Brian Johnson
The evidence presented by the DVSA identified licence-lending during the period Mr. Brian Johnson was the appointed and approved transport manager. Mr. Johnson was called to this inquiry and put on notice that his good repute was under consideration. His failure to attend this public inquiry at my direction is a significant breach of trust. I repeat that I am satisfied that good service has been made and I consider that he has, more likely than not, taken the decision to not attend this inquiry. Accordingly, I find that Mr. Johnson has lost his good repute under the provision of Paragraph 16(1) of Schedule 3 of the 1995 Act.
In line with the requirement set out at Paragraph 16(2) I order that Mr. Johnson is disqualified from acting as a transport manager for an indefinite period of time. Unlike a timebound period of disqualification this invites Mr. Johnson to apply to have the order lifted subject to the mandatory criteria set out at Paragraph 17(1A) of Schedule 3.
The order of disqualification shall take effect from 23:45 on 06 October 2026 to allow this decision to be communicated to Mr. Johnson.
Transport Manager – Mr. Brian Taylor
Whilst the evidence presented by the DVSA pre-dates Mr. Taylor’s position as a transport manager on this licence the continued specification of GEB Logistics Ltd vehicles on this operator’s licence is a matter of concern and invites concern that the issue has not been remedied. Those concerns were serious and required an explanation from Mr Taylor. He was expressly directed to provide evidence of his systems for continuous and effective management and failed to do so. He also failed to attend the inquiry despite being placed on notice that his good repute was at risk.
I repeat that I am satisfied that good service has been made and I consider that he has, more likely than not, taken the decision to not attend this inquiry. Accordingly, I find that Mr. Taylor has lost his good repute under the provision of Paragraph 16(1) of Schedule 3 of the 1995 Act.
In line with the requirement set out at Paragraph 16(2) I order that Mr. Taylor is disqualified from acting as a transport manager for an indefinite period of time. Unlike a timebound period of disqualification this invites Mr. Taylor to apply to have the order lifted subject to the mandatory criteria set out at Paragraph 17(1A) of Schedule 3.
The order of disqualification shall take effect from 23:45 on 06 October 2026 to allow this decision to be communicated to Mr. Taylor and for the orderly cessation of transport operations for the affected operator licence.
David Mullan
Traffic Commissioner for the North West of England
09 September 2026