Decision for BM 2016 Ltd (OF2030814 )
Written confirmation of the decision of the Traffic Commissioner for the East of England for for BM 2016 Ltd and transport manager Florentin Burca
IN THE EASTERN TRAFFIC AREA
BM 2016 LTD – OF2030814
AND FLORENTIN BURCA – TRANSPORT MANAGER
CONFIRMATION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER’S DECISION
Background
BM 2016 Ltd holds a Standard International Goods Vehicle Operator’s Licence authorising 2 vehicles and 2 trailers. The Director is Ms Alina Josu, appointed 17 January 2025, having purchased the total share capital for a mere £2,000. Mr Florentin Burca was appointed as Transport Manager from 22 January 2025.
There are two Operating Centres: Unit AB, Botany Way, Purfleet RM19 1SR, and Hireco Truck Park, Stanford-Le-Hope SS17 9FA. Preventative Maintenance Inspections are said to be carried out by DT Truck Repair Ltd at 6-weekly intervals. In the course of the first hearing, I received notification that the operator had applied to remove Unit AB from the licence. That presented an issue as it soon emerged that there are no dedicated bays reserved to this operator at the other site. I was told that in busy periods the operator might have to park in different areas of the truck park. I therefore held that application in abeyance, pending an explanation regarding the grant of the licence and an explanation of the representations made at that time.
BM 2016 LTD was granted a Standard International Goods Vehicle Licence from 16 March 2020, initially authorising 2 vehicles and 2 trailers from 1 Operating Centre at the Hireco Truck Park. At that time, Marius-Mircea Botis was named as the sole Director. He was later accepted as the Transport Manager. On 17 January 2025, his name was removed as both Director and TM and Ms Josu replaced him as the sole Director. An application was lodged on the same day, nominating Florentin Burca as the Transport Manager.
It is a matter of record that Ms Josu’s name appears as Transport Manager on OF2054109, held by K4K Trans Ltd. Ms Josu was named as Transport Manager on OK2077129 held by GJI Private Ltd from 11 March 2025 until her name was removed on 10 June 2025. An application was received on 13 March 2025 nominating Ms Josu to act as the Transport Manager on OK2051939, held by S&D Haulage Services Ltd. That operator attended a Public Inquiry on 12 June 2025 following an unsatisfactory Maintenance Investigation Visit by DVSA and to consider the application nominating Ms Josu. The hearing was adjourned, and the licence was suspended pending receipt of further documentation. Her involvement with K4K Trans Ltd and others was not notified. On 10 January 2025, LJ16 CJF was removed from K4K and then added to this licence.
Mr Burca is also named as the Transport Manager on OF2040114 held by DAC Logistic International & Co Ltd, committing for 8 hours per week, and OF2079720 held by Elbic Trans Ltd, for 3 hours per week.
Hearing
The Public Inquiry commenced on 31 July 2025, in Tribunal Room 1 of the Office of the Traffic Commissioner in Cambridge. It was reconvened on 17 September 2025. The operator was present in the form of Ms Josu, the Director, accompanied by the Transport Manager, Mr Burca.
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 changes, in this case relating to maintenance and to meet the licence requirements.
- 26 (1)(c)(iii) – Prohibitions.
- 26(1)(ca) – Fixed Penalty Notices.
- 26(1)(e) – statements relating to inspection intervals, by the stated contractor, 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).
- 26(1)(h) – material change:
- 27(1)(a) – good repute, financial standing, Transport Manager meeting Schedule 3.
- 28 – Disqualification.
Mr Burca was called separately to consider whether he had exercised effective and continuous management and whether I should make a finding against his repute as Transport Manager, under section 27(1)(b) and Schedule 3.
The operator was directed to lodge evidence in support by 7 July 2025, including financial, maintenance and other compliance documentation.
Summary of Evidence
On 24 January 2025 my office received a communication from Alina Josu via the electronic messaging service. That notified me of her appointment as sole Director and that she was ‘in the process of familiarising herself with the requirements of the operator’s licence’. She sought a ‘grace period’, to ‘ensure full compliance with all necessary obligations’. Ms Josu then completed the online licence continuation on 7 February 2025.
On 30 April 2025, vehicle DK64 PGF was the subject of a DVSA inspection at Sandbach, Cheshire when it attracted a delayed Prohibition Notice as the trailer coupling was found to be defective, because the secondary locking device was not operating as required. The operator was issued an immediate ‘S’ marked Prohibition Notice as 2-wheel nuts on Trailer C199214 were found to be only finger tight. The Examiner noted that the trailer had been the subject of maintenance the previous day, when the wheels had been removed. Driver Stefan Ursu was also issued with a Fixed Penalty Notice for insufficient daily rest in a 24-hour period and was required to pay a penalty of £300.
The operator was the subject of a second encounter on 22 May 2025 when Trailer C199214 attracted an immediate ‘S’ mark Prohibition Notice for a missing brake component. The defect was identified as a ‘failure in the maintenance systems as the defect should have been identified at inspection’. Vehicle DK6 PGF was found to have its fuel tank cap missing and the operator was issued with an immediate roadworthiness Prohibition Notice.
That prompted DVSA to commence a Maintenance Desk Based Assessment on 2 June 2025. That identified a number of areas which, in the opinion of the Examiner, did not amount to satisfactory compliance:
- For 3 of 7 vehicles, the inspection reports were not fully complete, omitting the odometer reading. 1 in 8 inspections did not include evidence of a satisfactory brake performance assessment and roller brake test results were not recorded on the inspection reports.
- The specified inspection frequency is 42 days, but 2 records showed that vehicle DK64 PGF had exceeded this frequency with inspections at 87 days and 82 days. As a result, the Examiner was unable to determine the effectiveness of the forward planner.
- In three years, the operator was subject to two roadside encounters where four prohibitions were issued. Three of the four defects that were identified were attributed to a lack of effective driver reporting.
- BM 2016 Ltd has a formal maintenance contract in place with Delurintu Ltd but the contractor is not specified on the licence. Roller brake tests were said to be conducted at third-party premises on every inspection.
- The record shows two initial fails at annual test giving a failure rate of 40%.
- The operator indicated that vehicle emission systems were monitored using a combination of regular inspections and maintenance schedules, but evidence of an Ad-Blue monitoring system was not provided.
- Noting the ‘S’ marked roadworthiness Prohibition for loose wheel nuts, the operator failed to provide evidence of a robust tyre management system. Tyres are assessed and recorded at inspection including tread depth, damage, pressures and tyre age, but there was a lack of evidence of driver training to conduct an effective assessment of tyres whilst in service.
- During the last 5 years, the operator was subject to 4 roadworthiness encounters and 2 traffic encounters, receiving 3 immediate prohibitions and 1 delayed prohibition. Two Fixed Penalty Notices have been issued; one mechanical and the second for insufficient rest.
The Examiner assessed that Mr Burca was carrying out most of his duties effectively, but there was evidence that some tasks and systems required improvement. The operator responded to DVSA on 10 June 2025 and referred to intended corrective and preventative measures to ensure compliance, including quarterly audits, toolbox talks and a company walkaround check policy, but did not identify the root cause of the shortcomings.
Mr Jones’s update report of 14 July 2025 followed review of the documents supplied by Ms Josu under email of 11 July 2025: Preventative Maintenance Inspection records for 2 sample specified vehicles and 1 trailer, brake test reports, Forward planner, wheel removal and re-torque logs. He referred to electronic the forward planner. He made the following observations: 3 inspection reports were checked and confirmed that all had laden roller brake tests completed within the specified period. All records were generally completed properly and signed off. No defects were reported on the inspection records. No examples of driver defect reports were provided by the operator. The operator’s email response stated “we confirm that all daily walkaround checks completed by our drivers for the above vehicles and trailers during the period resulted in ‘nil’ defect findings. Accordingly, no defect reports were generated. We maintain records of these nil returns internally, although we understand there is no requirement to submit them for this hearing.” A wheel torque check sheet was provided, covering June and July 2025 and a copy of a company wheel security policy was also provided. There had been no other encounters since the previous desk-based assessment in June 2025.
The Traffic Examiner, Mr Slowley, referred to Descartes infringement reports signed by driver and operator, digital tachograph raw data files for drivers of VRMs LK16 CJF and DK64 PGF and the equivalent Vehicle Units, DVLA driving licence summaries for Drivers Marian Mirea and Stefan Ursu. He found the licence for Marian Mirea to be in order, with an accompanying valid driver CPC and all entitlements in date. Three summaries for Stefan Ursu were provided (dated 28 March, 25 April and 6 May 2025. Indicating regular licence checks and in response to the points recorded on his licence. He was disqualified for six months after totting up from 1 April 2022, with that endorsement remaining to 4 February 2026. However, there is no evidence that Stefan Ursu currently holds a valid driver CPC.
The Drivers’ hours and digital tachographs data for the period of 28 February to 31 May 2025 were analysed using Tachoscan. The report showed 12 infringements: daily rest and daily driving offences for Driver Stefan Ursu commencing on 14 April 2025, most likely resulting from his decision to make a manual entry for Period of Availability, instead of “rest”. Mr Slowley suggested that the “use of improper tachograph” event from 29 to 31 May 2025, despite calibration of DK64 PGF, was likely due to a “temperamental” reaction to Stefan Ursu’s Romanian issue driver card.
The Examiner has disregarded that event. However, the Tachoscan manipulation warnings report refers to 73 incidents consisting of numerous overspeed events – those on 30 May 2025 in respect of DK64 PGF (117 kph / 2 min 18 secs and on 28 May 2025 112 Kph / 1 min 48 secs) standing out. The Examiner explains that overspeed events can be caused by bigger tyres being mounted on the vehicle without proper calibration. The technical data suggested calibration on 29 November 2024, so the Examiner discounted that explanation. He noted numerous events of “speed during break/rest in slot 1” but with modern digital tachographs, it is possible to drive for up to 30 seconds, without the activity being recorded, although another function on Tachoscan allows these incidents to be detected as they can be exploited to gain a slight advantage. The Examiner noted a small number of “Availability activities found in slot 2 during break/rest in slot 2” events on the report. The events on 7 and 15 May 2025 in DK64 PGF were for 26 minutes and 3 hours 29 minutes respectively and, whilst not frequent, could not simply be attributed to technical fault.
More positively, the Tachoscan history of downloads reports (from the data provided) suggested regular download of driver cards and Vehicle Units. Copies of Descartes infringement reports (signed by driver and operator) were provided, indicating a system for checking tachographs. He also noted the copy of Descartes “unaccounted distance” reports. The Tachoscan infringement reports showed that drivers have also driven vehicles that are not specified on the BM 2016 Ltd operator’s licence. For example, Driver Marian Mirea had driven vehicles specified on OF1134073 PAV Haulage Ltd and Marian Delurintu, vehicles specified on OK2051939 S&D Haulage Services Ltd (see above). Vehicle DK64 PGF was removed from this operator’s licence on 27 June 2025. I was also told that Mr Ursu is no longer working with the operator.
The Examiner referred to the Transport Manager, Mr Burca. From the evidence provided, the Examiner found some drivers’ hours infringements, Tachoscan manipulation warnings were not numerous. He noted the evidence of direct monitoring, with Driver Stefan Ursu holding 11 points on his licence, but DVLA could not confirm that he holds a current driver CPC and would not be exempt under this licence.
At the first hearing I was told that the undeclared contractor, Delurintu Ltd, was under the control of Mr Delurintu (see above) who was supporting the Director following an illness to build something to support her family. I was assured that the Director is the sole shareholder and that Mr Delurintu’s involvement was limited. He owns DK65 PGF and the remaining vehicle LK16 CJF. I was told that hire agreements would be produced. The identified trailer was hired from another supplier. It then emerged that the operator was also undertaking third-party traction for one of the Amazon entities. The Transport Manager was unable to tell me how he checked the roadworthiness of those trailers beyond the driver walk round. He was unsure if the number of times those trailers were brake tested or how. There was a suggestion that inspection intervals had been reduced to 6-weeks, the same as this operator, but the Transport Manager was unable to check. There was a further possibility that inspection and test records might be accessed via an app, which was used by the drivers. None of this or the contractual terms with Amazon were produced or available. I therefore adjourned the hearing part heard.
Prior to the reconvened hearing, I received the following:
- A plan of the proposed Operating Centre and surrounding yards, but no contract.
- Unsigned rental agreement dated 6 April 2025 between K4K Tran Ltd (referring to Adi Marian Delurintu, and DM 2016 Ltd for trailer C199214, with the operator responsible for care of that vehicle and compliance with transport laws and regulations.
- Rental agreement dated 19 January 2025 between K4K Tran Ltd (signed by Adi Marian Delurintu, and DM 2016 Ltd for vehicle LK16 CJF (specified 20 January 2025) , with the operator responsible for care of the vehicle and compliance with transport laws and regulations.
- Rental agreement dated 2 December 2024 between K4K Tran Ltd (signed by Adi Marian Delurintu, and DM 2016 Ltd for vehicle DK64 PGF (specified 3 December 2024), with the operator responsible for care of the vehicle and compliance with transport laws and regulations.
- An undated (see below) communication/circular headed “Change in UK Trailer Safety Inspections Interval” addressed to an “Amazon Freight Partner”. That refers to the Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness (version not provided) and advises that inspections must be conducted in accordance with operator licence requirements. Amazon had been completing trailer inspections in the United Kingdom at 10 weekly intervals through TIP Trailer Services UK Ltd. This was advanced warning ahead of March 2025 when “Amazon UK” revised the inspection schedule, increasing intervals from 10 weeks to 12. It apparently alerts operators to ensure that declared intervals on the Operator’s Licence are the same. If the operator does not alter the notified inspection intervals it must sign a Statement of Responsibilities (Appendix 1 - below).
- Appendices headed “Traction-Only Haulage: Statement of Responsibilities” and “UK Trailer Fleet Maintenance” apparently issued by an Amazon entity as they are headed “Amazon Freight Partner”. The trailer “owner” is described as Amazon UK Services Ltd (another licensed operator) indicating that the annual test expiry date, inspection intervals, date of last inspection and the contact details for reporting defects are displayed on the trailer. The trailers are said to be fitted with electronic brake performance monitoring systems (EBPMS) from the end of 2023 and “tire” pressure monitoring systems (TPMS) from February 2025. A laden roller brake test is undertaken once per year but left to annual test. As per the Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness, the EPBMS enables the brake performance of the trailer to be monitored and recorded during everyday operation. It suggests that Amazon is responsible for declaring the relevant trailer VOR. The dates of annual test and last inspection are available to drivers via “R4D” and defects are to be reported to the “TOM team” in the relevant yard.
It only emerged in evidence at the reconvened hearing that these were not proper hire arrangements where the operator took possession of the vehicles but rather spot hire arrangements, whereby the owner of the vehicle and others might determine the availability of vehicles. This was not obviously reflected in arrangements for first use inspections. This was not what I was told at the first hearing, and the relevant operations were clearly more enmeshed despite Ms Josu’s evidence. On her own admission, Ms Josu had been responsible for sourcing work for K4K Trans Ltd. No agreement was produced for PO64 DVK. Ms Josu indicated that she had forgotten about this vehicle. I am satisfied that these ‘hire’ arrangements did not represent separate business operations and that there was not the separation I was entitled to see from individual operator.
I consulted the Vehicle Operator Licencing record. Ms Josu would have been aware of the following, but I nevertheless put the following to her:
- Mr. Delurintu is Sole Director of K4K Trans Ltd, as Ms Josu has acted as the Transport Manager since 16 August 2023. All the vehicles have apparently been removed from the Operator’s Licence held by K4K Trans Ltd (see the agreements above).
- The correspondence address is the same for both BM 2016 and K4K Trans Ltd.
- Reports show that Mr Delurintu has undertaken driving for this operator from 28 February to 31 May 2025.
- Other vehicles have been added to the Operator’s Licence held by S & D Haulage Ltd (OK2051939) as of 10 May 2025.
- Mr Delurintu’s maintenance company (DT Truck Repair Ltd. previously Delurintu Ltd) is the maintenance provider for BM 2016 Ltd, S & D Haulage Services Ltd, and K4K Trans Ltd.
- S & D Haulage Ltd was at Public Inquiry on 17 June 2025 and that licence was suspended pending the supply of documentation to DVSA so that the hearing could be reconvened on 7 October 2025.
- Ms Josu has an outstanding application to be added to that Operator’s Licence dated 11 March 2025.
- PO64 DVK was specified against S & D Haulage Services Ltd from 20 October 2023 to 7 January 2024. It was then specified by K4K Trans Ltd from 7January 2024 until 8 October 2024 and again on 17 October 2024. The vehicle was then specified on this licence from 25 November 2024 until 20 January 2025.
It was admitted that Ms Josu had failed to notify my office of the changes in her responsibilities as Transport Manager for K4K Trans Ltd. Again, this was not communicated. I was told that from April/May 2025 Mr Delurintu had been spending increasing amounts of time in Romania but thought he might retain the Operator’s Licence as a contingency. That will need to be put to that entity in due course. As he is also the Director of the maintenance provider to this operator, I was concerned as to was conducting the Preventative Maintenance Inspections. I was assured that Mr Delurintu was still able to do so, and that Mr Burca had engaged with him recently, begging the question around K4K Trans Ltd and alerting me to how the three operations are being run.
I was told that the Director of S & D Haulage Ltd had failed to read all of the requirements of that licence. She then asked Ms Josu for help with compliance. Given the findings here, that may have been overly optimistic. Ms Josu told me that K4K Trans Ltd and S & D Haulage Ltd were also involved in work for Amazon, albeit S & D Haulage Ltd was operating its own single trailer now. She indicated that she wished to commit to this operation going forward and yet she remains nominated to act for S & D Haulage Ltd. A copy of this decision will have to be made available to the Commissioner presiding on 2 October 2025.
Mr Burca confirmed that he was unaware of the alert communicated by Amazon prior to March 2025. He thought it was appropriate to simply rely on the driver’s walk round checks, despite advice to the contrary in the Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness. He was unable to explain or justify the suggestion of roller brake testing being left to the annual test. He had never had access to the EPBMS results on any of the relevant trailers being operated under this licence. I was left with the impression that it was all too difficult. Put simply, he was unable to satisfy himself that trailer brakes would operate as they should and that the risk of vehicles not stopping or jack-knifing was adequately addressed. That does not amount to continuous and effective management.
No changes were made to his management approach following the questions posed at the last hearing. The issue has only been addressed because of a restriction on the work which the operator is permitted to undertake on behalf of Amazon. Ms Josu indicated that the operator had been locked out of the app which allowed it to accept third-part traction work. It now undertakes Amazon work as a sub-contractor for GJI Private Ltd which holds a Standard International licence (OK2077129) authorising the operation of 7 vehicles and 7 trailers. Ms Josu was the Transport Manager on that licence from 11 March to 21 May 2025. Despite having 2 vehicles specified, I was assured that this operator uses only 1 vehicle and the hired trailer, therefore only employing 1 driver.
At the operator’s invitation, I removed Unit AB, Botany Way, Purfleet RM19 1SR from the record. I was told that it is no longer available to the operator. That change should have been notified some time ago as per the condition on the licence and its statements of intent. As a result, notice of review was not required in this case, rather it was the operator’s acceptance of the circumstances which led to and necessitated its application to replace the remaining Operating Centre with Yard 3, Orchard Farm Estate, Brentford. Unfortunately, the operator repeated its previous error in failing to identify allocated parking spaces, albeit in a smaller site. I therefore allowed additional time and provided assistance by requesting a contract/licence which identified the proposed Operating Centre rather than a general area, for the purposes of sub-paragraphs (1) & (2) of paragraph A1 of the Schedule. Instead, I was presented with a plan of the much wider site with a few vehicles illustrated in the bottom corner of Yard 3. For the reasons touched on by the Upper Tribunal in Veltrans Green Ltd [2024] UKUT 444 (AAC), I was not satisfied as to the suitability of what was proposed. Unlike in that case, this operator could have been in no doubt as to the basis of my concerns and the actions required. To the operator’s credit, it accepted that the Hireco site was similar to that described in the above appeal case. It is a truck stop rather than a suitable Operating Centre.
Determination
Based on the evidence summarised above I was satisfied that I should record the adverse decisions under the following sections of the Act: 26(1)(b) – conditions on licence to notify changes, in this case relating to maintenance, the Operating Centres and to meet the licence requirements, 26 (1)(c)(iii) – Prohibitions, 26(1)(ca) – Fixed Penalty Notices, 26(1)(e) – statements relating to inspection intervals, by the stated contractor, 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), 26(1)(h) – material change.
As the Upper Tribunal explained in 2013/082 Arnold Transport Ltd, the grant of an operator’s licence does not mean that an operator can then proceed on the basis that the requirements that must be met to obtain a licence can then be forgotten. The legislation requires that a standard licence l be revoked if at any time it appears that the licence-holder is no longer (i) of good repute, (ii) of appropriate financial standing or, (iii) professionally competent. It goes on to remind operators that operator’s licensing is based on trust. There is an overwhelming general public interest in holding operators to their obligations as cutting corners all too easily leads to unsafe operations. There is a stark warning that if an operator’s actions cast doubt on whether they can be trusted to comply with the regulatory regime they are likely to be called to a Public Inquiry at which their fitness to hold an operator’s licence will be called into question. Here, the Tribunal refers to the adage that “actions speak louder than words”.
A number of the above findings related to historic failings identified by the Examiners, but worryingly others were not only present but, as I described, remained to be addressed even after the steer given and the time allowed between the two hearing dates. The same error was made in assessing the suitability of a proposed site. I was in no position to even allow interim authority without the evidence of availability and technical suitability. That required me to conclude that, whilst there is evidence of ad hoc access to parking at the remaining site, this does not amount to an effective and stable establishment in the ordinary sense, and I made that adverse finding under 27(1)(a).
In that context, I proceeded to consider the issue of repute, starting with the question posed by the Upper Tribunal - whether the operator can be trusted to ensure future compliance, as per 2009/225 Priority Freight Ltd.
A significant element in that assessment was the position and ability of the Director and the Transport Manager. As the Upper Tribunal explained in the Arnold Transport appeal, Director fitness forms an essential element in the determination of the operator’s repute. I have identified the areas of concern above. Ms Josu indicated that she wished to extricate herself from other commitments to concentrate on compliance by this operator. That has yet to materialise into action. The way in which Mr Burca carried out his duties did not amount to effective or continuous management, partly because the Director failed to equip him with the update from Amazon bit also due to his ignorance of the Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness. The fact that risks have altered due to a change in operations is a matter of luck rather than effective management on his part. I was unimpressed by a number of his responses and gave consideration as to whether I should record formal fundings under section 27(1(b). I found that unnecessary but only due to the fact that this licence would be revoked. His repute has been severely tarnished and was left in no doubt as to the hurdle on application.
On that assessment and the number of outstanding actions to address weaknesses in management, I concluded that future compliance was unlikely without significant changes. By way of explanation, I refer to the Upper Tribunal in 2014/008 Duncan McKee and Mary McKee and 2006/277 Fenlon - 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. Sadly, this operator was not spurred by the intervention to take sufficient action by the date of the second hearing. As a result, I concluded that it should be removed from the industry, and I recorded a loss of repute under section 27()(a). Those positives noted are reflected in the decision not to disqualify. The revocation date is set so as to allow a new application but there is no guarantee of grant. The licence will be revoked from 23:45 of 12 November 2025. The operator and its Director must take immediate steps to address the deficiencies if a new application is to be successful. That application will need to be referred to a Traffic Commissioner.
R Turfitt
Traffic Commissioner
18 September 2025