Decision for Bristol & West Scaffolding Ltd (OH1076414)
Written decision of the Deputy Traffic Commissioner for the West of England for Bristol & West Scaffolding Ltd
IN THE WESTERN TRAFFIC AREA
BRISTOL & WEST SCAFFOLDING LTD (OH1076414)
DECISION OF THE DEPUTY TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER
Decision
The Restricted Goods Vehicle Operators Licence (OH1076414) in the name of Bristol & West Scaffolding Ltd is revoked.
Revocation to take effect from 12 noon on 12 June 2026.
Regulatory History
The operator holds a restricted goods vehicle operator’s licence authorising 2 vehicles. The licence was originally issued 16 January 2008.
On 3 October 2008 following an unsatisfactory maintenance investigation where it was found that PMI’s had not been fully completed, the Traffic Commissioner issued a no further action letter.
A public inquiry was held on 31 May 2012 following the company receiving 2 convictions which had not been notified to the Traffic Commissioner (details of which can be found in the case summary).
At the public inquiry, the Deputy Traffic Commissioner curtailed the licence from 3 to 2 vehicles from 1 June to 30 September 2012. Authorisation was not returned to 3 vehicles after the curtailment therefore the operator has been operating with authorisation for 2 vehicles since then.
Background to the Public Inquiry
A vehicle examiner spoke to the director of Bristol & West Scaffolding Ltd on 6 November 2025 regarding a vehicle which had been impounded on 4th November 2025 and was found to be on the insurance policy of Bristol & West Scaffolding Ltd. The director Mr White indicated that there had been plans to operate the vehicle on an infrequent basis. There was no evidence of a hire agreement or company card locked into the impound vehicle unit. The examiner also asked why the other vehicle, CL56DSL, specified on the licence was registered to another company (who do not hold an operator licence). Mr White produced evidence that CL56DSL had been sold. Vehicle CL56DSL was removed from the licence on 3 December 2025.
Subsequent to this, a DVSA investigation was carried out into this operator on 17 December 2025. The traffic examiner carrying out the investigation noted the following issues:
- No formal company training and staff handbook available
- Drivers occasionally work for other companies without the knowledge of the operator.
- Vehicle WU17 VZC not downloaded for 1752 days.
- Driver cards not downloaded within 28 days – Barry White’s card not downloaded for 1226 days; Billy Hayes downloaded on 7 November 2025 but had not previously been downloaded & Darren Watson’s card downloaded on 7th & 15th November 2025.
- No infringement reports or missing mileage reports produced. No evidence of any analysis of drivers’ hours.
- No disciplinary proceedings in place.
- No system in place to monitor the Working Time Directive
- Vehicle WU17VZC MOT and vehicle excise expired in October 2025 – the operator was unaware of this.
- Maintenance provider changed a number of years ago but change not notified.
At the visit the examiner noted that some of the Driver Defect Report sheets were not fully completed and all show NIL Defects. The company are not carrying out gate checks to ensure drivers are carrying out effective walk round checks.
In response to DVSA, Mr White accepts the shortcomings and explains that he has now employed the services of compliance contractor, Shaun Keaney, to manage the drivers’ hour compliance.
The Call to Public Inquiry
The call up letter dated 16 March 2026 was sent to the operator. The call up letter specified the following issues:
- you have breached the conditions on your licence, namely that the company may have failed to notify a change of maintenance arrangements.
- your vehicles or drivers have been issued with prohibition notices by DVSA or the police in the past five years.
- you or your drivers have been issued with relevant fixed penalty notices in the past five years.
- the following statements you made when applying for the licence were either false or have not been fulfilled:
- that you would notify the traffic commissioner within 28 days of any changes to the maintenance arrangements.
- that safety inspections and/or maintenance and repair work would be carried out by G T Commercials.
- you have not honoured the undertakings you signed up to when you applied for your licence, namely,
- that your vehicles would be kept fit and serviceable.
- that you would observe the rules on drivers’ hours and tachographs and keep proper records.
- since the licence was issued, there has been a material change in the circumstances of its holder, namely that the company may no longer be of the appropriate fitness or have sufficient financial resources to hold the licence.
Additionally, the operator was notified that due to the matters listed above, the traffic commissioner was also concerned that the company may not have sufficient financial resources to hold an operator’s licence for the number of vehicles authorised. The operator was advised that it had to show evidence of access to an average of £4800 over the last 3 months.
The Public Inquiry
The Public Inquiry was scheduled to be held at the Office of the Traffic Commissioner for the West of England, Jubilee House, Croydon Street, Bristol, BS5 0GB on 06/05/2026 commencing at 10:30am.
The director Barry White attended the public inquiry in good time and was unrepresented. At the outset of the inquiry, I asked Mr White about the directions contained in the call up letter as no maintenance records or financial information had been received. Mr White informed me that he had delegated the tasks of complying with those matters to a transport consultant Mr Kearney and apologised if required evidence had not been sent. Mr Kearney was not in attendance at the inquiry.
The Evidence
I commenced the hearing by putting each of the multiple failings identified by the DVSA maintenance investigation to Mr White. He accepted all of the failings without hesitation.
Mr White seemed unable to provide any real explanation for the failings although he suggested he had been going through some difficult personal issues during the past 2 or 3 years. In light of this I asked for the hearing to go into private session.
In private session, Mr White explained that [redacted].
Going back into open session, I took Mr White through some of the failings to ascertain what his level of knowledge was and what changes he had made.
He explained that he had a digital downloader for driver’s cards however he simply hadn’t used it which is why the evidence showed such long periods since the last download. He offered no explanation as to why the vehicle unit had not been downloaded for 1,752 days and was unable to tell me the maximum number of days allowed between downloads of either the vehicle unit or driver cards.
Mr White accepted he did not have records to comply with WTD and although he was aware his drivers occasionally worked for other operators, he did not seem to understand the risk this posed if he was not keeping records until I prompted him with scenarios.
He has now engaged the services of a transport consultant who deals with downloads and analysis of driver’s hours although he did not think WTD hours were being monitored.
When I asked him about the use of vehicle WU17 VZC with expired excise and MOT, he candidly admitted he had let the forward planning slip but he now had a planner chart both at home and in the office.
Mr White went on to inform me that he had changed the maintenance provider between 8-10 years ago but still had not notified the Traffic Commissioner. This was simply down to a lack of knowledge of the regulatory requirements.
In summary, whilst there had been some evidence of improvements and systems being put in place, Mr White demonstrated a concerning lack of knowledge and awareness of what was required.
I asked Mr White about the prohibition which resulted from a roadside encounter with the DVSA on 26/02/2026. He began explaining that DVSA had accepted they made a mistake regarding the ABS system however I had to remind him I was referring the S-marked prohibition involving the missing panel on the side of his vehicle. He accepted this and informed me the driver had been disciplined for this however was unable to explain why this had not been identified in the driver walkaround check. He accepted he was not monitoring the checks however he had now started doing unannounced gate checks.
We moved on to questions about training and the operator confirmed that the consultant had delivered a series of toolbox talks on 05/01/2026 which I had seen evidence of. I queried how thorough and in depth these were as it appeared that 5 talks had been covered in a short space of time. Mr White assured me these would be ongoing however was not able to provide details of when the next ones would be delivered or their frequency.
Given the concern I had expressed about his lack of knowledge, Mr White assured me he would attend all training in future. I was unable to place much weight on his assurance as I had noted that he had assured the DVSA examiner he would attend the OLAT course however I had seen no evidence of that.
I turned to the issue of the missing financial evidence. Mr White was able to provide me with a photograph taken from a computer screen which appeared to show the company bank account. It showed only a few days of the month of April 2026 and I was not satisfied that I could accept it as evidence however even from this snapshot, I noticed the account was overdrawn for the majority of the period it showed. Mr White assured me that he had other sources of finance which could be used to support the operation however no evidence of this was made available to me.
At the end of the substantive evidence, I concluded that Mr White’s knowledge of the regulatory requirements of holding the licence fell far below the required standards.
I then explored the effect on the operation of various regulatory actions. Mr White informed me that the operator had 3 employees. He urged upon me a lenient approach and assured me if a warning was given he would ensure everything about the operation was brought up to the required standard.
In terms of curtailment, Mr White agreed that curtailing the licence from 2 to 1 vehicle would have no real impact as the operation was running on 1 vehicle.
A suspension even for a relatively short period would have what Mr White described as a catastrophic effect as he would have to continue to pay the employees who were all on PAYE and he would have to continue to pay rent and insurance and all outgoings associated with the operation with no income.
Mr White agreed that a revocation would bring the business to an end with the associated redundancies.
I afforded Mr White the opportunity to offer additional undertakings if he felt it appropriate. I was mindful that Mr White was not legally represented and as he seemed unsure of what he could offer I made suggestions based on what was missing from the evidence and what he might consider as an operator he would need to demonstrate to show regulatory compliance. Mr White offered undertakings to provide evidence of maintenance records for the past 6 months, original or certified copies of bank statements for the past 3 months and an independent audit within 6 months. I noted that 2 of these were requirements which should have been sent no less than 14 days before the hearing.
Findings of fact
At the conclusion of the hearing, having heard and considered all available evidence including the Operator’s full admissions I made the following findings of fact on the balance of probabilities:
-
The Operator had breached the terms of the licence by failing to notify the Traffic Commissioner of any changes in the maintenance and safety inspection arrangements (section 26(1)(b) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995)
-
The Operator’s vehicles or drivers have been issued with prohibition notices by DVSA or the police in the past five years (section 26(1)(c)(iii) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995);
-
The Operator or drivers have been issued with fixed penalties in the past 5 years (section 26(1)(ca) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995)
The following statements made when applying for the licence were either false or have not been fulfilled (section 26(1)(e) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995):
- You would notify the Traffic Commissioner within 28 days of any change to maintenance arrangements.
- Safety inspections, maintenance and repairs would be carried out by GJ Commercials.
The Operator has not honoured the undertakings signed up to when applying for the licence (section 26(1)(f) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995), namely:
- that your vehicles [and trailers] would be kept fit and serviceable;
- that you would observe the rules on driver’s hours and tachographs and keep proper records;
- Since the licence was issued, there has been a material change in the circumstances of its holder, namely the company may no longer be of appropriate fitness or have sufficient financial resources to hold the licence (section 26(1)(h) of the Goods Vehicles (Licencing of Operators) Act 1995)
Assessing the Seriousness of my Findings
In determining the overall seriousness of this case I considered the following features to be positive:
- The Operator co-operated with the enforcement investigation
- There was an above average first time MOT pass rate
I then considered the following to be negative features:
- The Operator was reckless leading to undue risk to road safety
- There was evidence of continuing and persistent offending
- Ineffective management control and no systems to prevent operator licence compliance failings
- No analysis to prevent driver hours and WTD infringements
- Insufficient changes made to ensure future compliance
- Insufficient procedures to ensure appropriate tachograph use by drivers
- Road safety critical defects (S-marked prohibition)
- Evidence of previous public inquiries
Based purely on the above assessment I concluded that this was a serious case. I then had to take account of the lack of evidence to show the operator had sufficient financial resources to ensure the provision of facilities for maintaining vehicles in a fit and serviceable condition was not prejudiced by reason of insufficient financial resources.
I have given this case considerable thought before reaching a decision. I am not unsympathetic to the personal situation Mr White found himself in following the breakdown of his marriage, his own health concerns and the death of his mother. Whilst I have taken account of those matters, It was clear that Mr White’s lack of knowledge and much of the lack of regulatory compliance preceded those matters and has continued thereafter.
Decision
I asked myself the question – How likely is it that this operator will, in future, operate in compliance with the Operators’ Licensing regime? (the ‘Redsky Wholesalers’ question). In light of the continuing areas of non-compliance and concerning lack of knowledge of the regulatory regime I concluded it was unlikely.
Moving on to the ‘Priority Freight’ question – Is this an operator I can trust to be compliant in the future? I concluded the answer was no. In light of the fact the Operator has previously been to public inquiry together with the lack of knowledge and lack of evidence of sufficient finances I determined that I am unable to trust that he would comply in the future.
As Mr White confirmed that a revocation would put the company out of business, I asked myself the ‘Bryan Haulage’ question – Is the conduct such that the operator ought to be put out of business. This was a difficult question because I did not conclude that Mr White had deliberately set out to cause or contribute to unnecessary risk nor that he deliberately set out to run a non-compliant operation. However, the failings in this case were serious and persistent and from his lack of knowledge even on the day of the Public Inquiry, I felt that the inescapable conclusion was that revocation was the only proportionate and appropriate regulatory outcome which would afford protection from the risks associated with this operation. For this reason I answered the question in the affirmative.
I therefore determined that the Restricted Goods Vehicle Operators Licence (OH1076414) be revoked. Revocation shall take effect from 12 noon on 12 June 2026.
Final Considerations
I carefully considered whether to order the Operator to be disqualified under section 28 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995. I have decided on balance not to order disqualification. Whilst there were serious and ongoing failings, a concerning lack of knowledge and awareness and lack of evidence of the required finances on the part of the Operator, I found no bad faith or dishonesty. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that the Operator will be able to remediate these concerns and bring his knowledge up to the required standard in the future.
Rakesh Sharma
Deputy Traffic Commissioner
06/05/2026