Decision for BRC Haulage Ltd (OF1139016)
Written decision of the Deputy Traffic Commissioner in the East of England for BRC Haulage Ltd and former Transport Manager Christine Winter
IN THE EASTERN TRAFFIC AREA
BRC HAULAGE LTD (OF1139016)
&
FORMER TRANSPORT MANAGER CHRISTINE WINTER
WRITTEN DECISION OF THE DEPUTY TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER
The decision regarding the former transport manager was announced orally at the conclusion of the hearing therefore this document records only a brief confirmation of that part of the decision.
OUTCOME
The Standard National Goods Vehicle Operators Licence OF1139016 held by BRC Haulage Ltd is curtailed indefinitely to authorisation for 1 vehicle under sections 26(1)(b), 26(1)(c), 26(1)(ca), 26(1)(e) and 26(1)(f) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 with effect from 24/08/2026.
The former Transport Manager Christine Winter to receive a written warning however retains her good repute under Schedule 3 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995.
Additional undertakings accepted from the Operator:
- An independent audit to be carried out within 6 months (by 24 February 2027).
- Evidence demonstrating continued financial standing to be provided in 6 months (by 24 February 2027).
Background
BRC Haulage Limited hold a Standard National Goods Vehicle Licence since 03/08/2015 and are authorised for 2 vehicles, with 1 in possession. The director on the licence is Robert Canavan. Paula Canavan was also named as a director on the licence since grant until her removal on 11/03/2026. This is also reflected on Companies House.
The licence has the following compliance history: On 05/01/2023, vehicle RC19 BRC was subject to a roadside stop where multiple defects were found. An S marked prohibition was issued for an engine malfunction lamp not working. Following the prohibition a joint maintenance and traffic inspection visit was arranged by DVSA which was conducted on 27/02/2023, director Paula Canavan was in attendance. The maintenance investigation found shortcomings with:
· Inspection/ maintenance records
· Driver defect reporting
· Inspection facilities and maintenance agreements
· Vehicle Emissions
· Load Security
· Prohibitions assessment
· Transport Manager Assessment
· Drivers’ hours and records management
During the preparation for the report, it was noted that the company had been convicted at Northampton Magistrates Court on 09/06/2021 of charges of illegal waste activity, resulting in a fine. No further action was taken against the DVSA investigations.
Ms. Christine Winter was the nominated Transport Manager (TM) from 31/07/2024 until 30/11/2025. Following the departure of Ms. Winter, a GV81 application was submitted on 30/12/2025 to nominated Emma Puleston to the licence as the Transport Manager. Ms. Puleston was later accepted onto the licence on 25/03/2026. However, it was noted that she had also previously held the position from 20/12/2022 until her removal on 19/01/2023.
Basis of Referral to a Public Inquiry
A Maintenance Investigation Visit Report (MIVR) was conducted on 18/02/2026, the outcome was unsatisfactory. Out of the 13 sections analysed by the Vehicle Examiner (VE), 4 were marked as unsatisfactory and 2 were marked as Report to OTC. The concerns can be summarised as follows:
Inspection and Maintenance Records: Tyre ages were not frequently recorded and there was little evidence of brake testing with the occasional extension into the next ISO week. The VE was unable to analyse any of the forward planning, VOR and safety defect and recall systems as there was no TM in place at the time of the MIVR.
Vehicle Emissions: There was no evidence of a vehicle emissions system.
Wheel & Tyre Management: The operator was unable to demonstrate an effective in service wheel security monitoring system or an effective in-service tyre monitoring system.
Load Security: The operator was unable to demonstrate an appropriate load security arrangement or effective training to staff and drivers.
Prohibition Assessment: Vehicle RC19 BRC received an immediate prohibition on 21/01/2026 due to the condition of the tyres ‘seriously underinflated tyres, overload likely on other tyre, nearside position, outer axle 4’.
Another immediate prohibition was given for ‘insecure load with evidence or likelihood of movement, causing or likelihood of danger, load in tipper above the height of the fixed sides.’
BC69BRC also received an immediate prohibition on 10/07/2024 for ‘deep cuts in tyre and cords or cords exposed nearside axle 2’.
Transport Manager/ Responsible Person Assessment: At the time of the MIVR a TM was not authorised on the licence, and the delegated tasks were given to inexperienced members of staff with little or no supervision. The operator stated that an application for a new TM had been submitted at the time of the investigation.
The Examiner stated that at the time of the review, the operator had very few established procedures and seemed to be unaware of the procedures that should be in place. Mrs. Canavan was corresponding with the examiner, despite resigning as a director but it was noted that this was due to personal circumstances.
A response from the new TM, Emily Puleston was received on 16/04/2026 following the investigation. Ms. Puleston confirmed that she was not nominated on this licence at the time of the MIVR therefore, could not advise further on the matters for BRC Haulage Limited.
It was explained in the response that some documents were not provided during the investigation, but the vehicle file had since been found and which included procedures 5 6 and maintenance invoices. The director, Mrs. Canavan ‘presumed she did not need to bring these items and had no Transport Manager in place to advise them’.
The TM explained that going forward a vehicle file has been put into the vehicle which includes a tyre procedure and a retorque log and the tyre age will be monitored by the TM. It has been requested that brake testing will be conducted at every PMI and will be conducted at the correct ISO week.
A response was received on 23/04/2026 from Directors, Robert and Paula Canavan. The response stated that documents were available, but they were in the lorry with a handbook and policies, but it was not realised that the examiner would want to see these and are now available to be analysed.
As a new TM had been accepted onto the licence, all paperwork had been updated, and new policies had been implemented. The response stated that all tyre invoices are kept at home and a new tyre procedure with a retorque log has been implemented. The following had also been introduced:
- All daily walk around checks have been updated along with new toolbox talks.
- Vehicle emissions and anti-idling policies have been updated along with toolbox talks.
- Safe loading and tipping procedures have been updated.
- Following the roadside stop, all drivers have been spoken to about the importance of safe driving and maintaining a good standard of working.
The Examiner acknowledged that the newly appointed TM provided assurances indented to address the above issues, but it was too early to determine whether the assurances would be effectively implemented in practice.
The operator had been without a Transport Manager prior to the engagement of the new TM, but it was noted that the previous Transport Manager has not been fulfilling the expected duties before resigning in November 2025, it was suspected by the examiner that the lack of effective management contributed to the previously recorded roadside prohibitions.
The Call to Public Inquiry
Both the operator and former TM were called to public inquiry by call up letters dated 30/06/2026.
The operator’s call up letter specified concerns in relation to sections 26(1)(b), 26(1)(c), 26(1)(ca), 26(1)(e), 26(1)(f) and 26(1)(h). They also included standard directions including for the operator to provide financial evidence sufficient to assess the operators financial standing and resources.
The former TM’s call up letter specified concerns about her good repute and professional competence.
The Public Inquiry
The public inquiry was held in Tribunal Room 1 at the Office of the Traffic Commissioner, Eastbrook, Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge, CB2 8BF on 11 August 2026 at 10am.
In attendance at the PI were:
Robert Canavan (Director)
Paula Canavan (former Director)
Christine Winter (former TM)
Catherine Gilder (solicitor representing Ms Winter)
Prior to the hearing I had been informed that Mr Canavan had previously suffered a REDACTED. I agreed that reasonable adjustments should be made to the hearing process and that Mrs Canavan could offer assistance to Mr Canavan in answering and/or clarifying answers as necessary and that breaks could be given as and when required.
The Evidence
After opening the hearing and explaining the purpose of the PI and the standard of proof required for me to make findings of fact, I commenced with dealing with Ms Winter. I explained the concerns and invited Ms Gilder to call evidence from Ms Winter.
Ms Winter was taken to the witness statement she had submitted prior to the hearing, and she confirmed the contents and adopted this as her evidence.
Ms Winter explained she had been a TM for many years however this had been her first appointment as an external TM. She had known Mrs Canavan was looking for a TM and as they were an experienced operator she felt she could take the position.
She explained the systems she had used and the frequency of her visits. She fully accepted that there had been areas of her work which fell below the required standards, and she had not maintained continuous and effective control as required.
In relation to the multitude of missing documents which the operator had been unable to provide the VE during the investigation, she confirmed that she was no longer TM at that time of the inspection however she had checked her records and she had been able to provide some copies of required documents. Indeed, she had sent these as attachments to her submitted statement.
Although Ms Winter was unable to speak for the operator as to why these had not been available at the time, it was clear that at least to some extent, systems of recording such as VOR, DDR etc had been in place.
Ms Winter made further admissions that she had omitted to check for safety defect recalls and that AdBlue monitoring was difficult as it was drawn straight from an IBC tank without an external monitoring system.
We dealt with the apparently late PMI’s and again Ms Winter had produced evidence to show that although there may have been some short delays, the PMI’s were conducted in the correct ISO week.
Dealing with training, Ms Winter explained that Mr Canavan was a highly experienced driver and operator and she had erroneously trusted that he had the knowledge required. She had now changed her practice regardless of the apparent experience of drivers and operators.
Ms Winter confirmed she still works as a TM on other licences, and she went on to explain in some detail the changes she had made in order to bring her practice up to the required standard.
Ms Gilder made her closing submissions on behalf of Ms Winter. Overall, I found that Ms Winter had failed to maintain continuous and effective control although the evidence she had provided before the hearing had shown the situation was, perhaps, not as bad as first thought. I found her to be a credible witness who now had a good knowledge of what was required to act in the capacity of TM.
The inquiry then turned to the evidence of the operator. As anticipated, Mr Canavan’s REDACTED were such that Mrs Canavan answered most of the questions on his behalf.
The operator went through the history of the company and explained this was a small family business. They now operated 1 vehicle. Until Mr Canavan’s REDACTED he had been driving however more recently, they had decided to employ a driver.
In evidence, I was informed the new TM had made a number of positive changes and she continued to do so. These included the use of R2C for walkaround checks which were now far easier to keep track of and audit.
They had previous thought only 4 laden brake tests were required per annum however since the appointment of the new TM they had moved to laden testing at every PMI as recommended in the DVSA Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness.
The operator fully accepted there had been a number of systems which were inadequate however they explained the new systems and changes they had made. These included voluntarily reducing the inspection intervals to 6 weeks, monitoring of AdBlue which was now purchased from a monitored system at the filling station, the purchase of a calibrated torque wrench and use of a log and fully implemented driver training including toolbox talks, safe driving and load security.
In terms of record keeping, the operator was assisted by the evidence provided by Ms Winter although they fully accepted that it had been their responsibility to keep records in a readily available system.
The operator further conceded that in recent years, their duty to notify the Traffic Commissioner promptly of changes had not always been upheld.
In evidence the operator accepted that prohibitions and fixed penalties had been issued in the last 5 years however with their new systems they were confident of no repeats.
I was concerned about 2 other issues which we dealt with next. Firstly, the conviction for illegal waste deposits. In evidence I was provided with an explanation. Whilst acknowledging the conviction, the operator explained that this was not a case of permanent waste deposits. They had unloaded the waste to the site for operational purposed before re-loading it. They accepted this was illegal and had paid the fines.
I asked about notification and the operator accepted they had not notified the Traffic Commissioner as required. They had discussed the matter with their then TM who had assured them she would make the notification. There was an acceptance that a serious matter such as this remained the responsibility of the operator and they should have personally made the notification.
Secondly was the financial standing which had been calculated as being insufficient even for the 1 vehicle they were currently operating.
REDACTED.
At the conclusion of the hearing, I agreed to hold my decision in abeyance, granting the operator a period of grace of 7 days to provide further financial evidence. I understand further evidence was provided to the caseworker within the period of grace, and this was forwarded to me on 20/08/2026.
Although not strictly complying with the requirements, the evidence showed that in the month preceding the PI, the operator had access to sufficient funds. I remained somewhat concerned about the heavy use of credit however the bank statements showed there to be a viable business.
Overall, my assessment of the evidence of the operator was that they had fallen into noncompliance over the past few years. I found that there were contributing personal factors, not least the changes that were necessitated following Mr Canavan’s REDACTED. The operator had made considerable improvements and continued to do so with the assistance of their new TM, and I considered them to have the potential to return to compliant operation.
I then asked the operator about the effect of various regulatory sanctions and whether they were prepared to offer any additional undertakings.
Findings of Fact
At the conclusion of the evidence, I made the following findings of fact in relation to the transport manager:
- Ms Winter had failed to maintain continuous and effective control of the transport operation during her time as TM.
- The evidence she presented to me demonstrated that the situation was not as bad as first though and that she had made improvements since.
In relation to the operator, I made the following findings of fact:
- They had breached the terms of the licence by failing to notify the Traffic Commissioner of matter affecting repute contrary to section 26(1)(b) of the Act.
- Their vehicles or drivers had been issued with prohibition notices in the past 5 years contrary to section 26(1)(c) of the Act.
- The operator or drivers had been issued with relevant fixed penalties in the past 5 years contrary to section 26(1)(ca) of the Act.
- Statements made when applying for the licence had not been fulfilled contrary to section 26(1)(e) of the Act, namely:
- Vehicles and trailers would be inspected at the stated interval.
- Christine Winter would be TM responsible for the vehicles on the licence.
- BRC Haulage Ltd would abide by any conditions on the licence.
- Undertakings had not been honoured contrary to section 26(1)(f) of the Act, namely:
- Vehicles and trailers would be kept fit and serviceable
- Vehicles and trailers would not be overloaded.
- They would keep records for 15 months of DDR’s, safety inspections and routing maintenance and make them available for inspection on request.
- Drivers would promptly report defects/symptoms that could prevent safe operation of vehicles, and any defect would be promptly recorded in writing.
I stopped short of making a finding in relation to financial standing in light of the new evidence provided and my decision to accept a further undertaking in relation to continuing financial standing.
Decision
Having heard all of the evidence from the operator and former transport manager I concluded that this was an operator which had fallen far below the expected standards of compliance. I was aware of some of the circumstances which may have led to this. They included Ms Winter being nominated for the first time as an external TM at a time when this operator required far greater scrutiny than she had given them. I was also aware that Mr Canavan’s REDACTED must have had a destabilising effect on the running of the operation.
I balanced this against the evidence that a driver had now been employed which would make it somewhat easier for the operator and current TM to maintain control. The new TM appeared to have implemented more robust and compliant systems and overall, the operation appeared to be improving.
In terms of the criminal conviction, I determined that whilst serious, it was now somewhat historic, and no further allegations of a similar nature had been made. In terms of the operator’s explanation, I accepted this offence was not likely to have been at the upper end of seriousness of similar offences based on the sentence imposed.
In terms of positive and negative features as suggested in the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document 10, I concluded the following negative features were present:
- Number of previous prohibitions
- Ineffective management control
- Insufficient driver training
- Road safety critical defects
In terms of positive features, I concluded the following were present:
- Sufficient and effective changes made
Taking account of these features, I concluded this was a case in the Serious to Moderate range.
Importantly, I asked myself the question ‘can this operator be trusted to run a compliant operation in the future?’. Although this was a very finely balanced case, I was just persuaded that I could trust the operator in future. This was based on recent improvements and the undertaking I had been offered.
As a result of my findings and conclusions I determined that the operator licence OF1139016 held by BRC Haulage Ltd should be curtailed to 1 vehicle indefinitely and I accepted the following undertakings:
Undertakings
The operator will provide original or copies (verified by the issuing bank or building society) of financial evidence in the name of BRC Haulage Ltd covering the period November 2026 to January 2027 to the Office of the Traffic Commissioner at Cambridge by no later than 24/02/2027. This must show that the operator has continued to meet the required level of available finance throughout the period by reference to an average balance, dependant on the rates applicable at that time. Rates to be found in the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document No. 2 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/traffic-commissioners-finance-march-2019 Where originals are not available each statement must be stamped and authenticated by the bank/building society.
The operator undertakes to identify an independent body to carry out an audit of transport safety and compliance systems. The audit will assess the systems for complying with maintenance and drivers hours requirements, and the effectiveness with which those systems are implemented. The audit should cover at least the applicable elements detailed in the guidance on Operator Compliance Audits available at: www.gov.uk/government/publications/operator-compliance-audits
A copy of the report together with the operator’s detailed proposals for implementing the report’s recommendations is to be uploaded to the licence record via the Vehicle Operator Licensing self-service account, or, if the operator does not have a self-service account, emailed to notifications@vehicle-operator-licensing.service.gov.uk by 24/02/2027 as set out in TC’s decision.
Rakesh Sharma
Deputy Traffic Commissioner
23/08/2026