Decision for BTW Transport LTD (OB2034896) and former transport manager Nichola Ogilvie
Written decision of the Deputy Traffic Commissioner in the North East of England for BTW Transport Ltd and former transport manager Nichola Ogilvie
NORTH EAST OF ENGLAND TRAFFIC AREA
DECISION OF THE DEPUTY TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER
PUBLIC INQUIRY HELD IN LEEDS ON 17 JULY AND 19 SEPTEMBER 2025
OPERATOR: BTW TRANSPORT LTD OB2034896
Decision
On findings in accordance with Sections 26(1)(c)(iii) 26(1)(e) 26(1)(f) and 26(1)(h and 27(1)(a) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995, I direct that the standard national goods vehicle operator’s licence of BTW Transport Ltd OB2034896 is revoked with effect from 23:45 hours on Wednesday 22 October 2025.
The operator BTW Transport Ltd is disqualified from holding or obtaining any type of operator’s licence in any traffic area, with effect from 23 October 2025 for 12 months until 22 October 2026, pursuant to Section 28(1) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995.
The director Byron Thomas Williams is disqualified from holding or obtaining any type of operator’s licence in any traffic area, and from being director of any company holding or obtaining such a licence with effect from 23 October 2025 for 12 months until 22 October 2026, pursuant to Section 28(1) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995.
The good repute of former Transport Manager Nichola Ogilivie is lost, pursuant to Schedule 3 of the Act. Under paragraph 16 of that Schedule, she is disqualified from acting as a transport manager on any operator’s licence until further order with effect from Wednesday 22 October 2025 until further order.
Introduction
BTW Transport Ltd (“the operator”) has held a standard national goods vehicle operators’ licence OB2034896 authorising the use of 7 vehicles and 8 trailers since 25 August 2020. It has the full number of 7 vehicles authorised currently in possession.
The sole director of the operator is Byron Williams (also known as Byron Thomas Williams).
The Transport Manager (“TM”) named on the licence since 9 January 2025 is Christopher George Rouse. Mr Rouse was not called to the public inquiry as a party as he was not in post at the time the matters of concern arose.
The TM named on the licence between November 2023 and her resignation on 23 September 2024 was Nichola Ogilvie. Ms Ogilvie was employed on an “internal” basis working 20 hours per week. Ms Ogilvie was called to the public inquiry to consider her good repute and professional competence.
On 30 January 2024, one of the operator’s vehicles was found to have loose wheel nuts on its presentation for annual test and an immediate and “S” marked prohibition notice was issued.
This prompted the DVSA to take a closer look at the operator’s systems and a maintenance investigation visit was conducted by Vehicle Examiner Stephen Thorpe (“VE Thorpe”) on 1 March 2024. VE Thorpe found areas of compliance that were considered unsatisfactory.
The maintenance visit investigation report (“MIVR”) recorded that the preventative maintenance inspection (“PMI”) sheets were poorly completed, with inaccuracies including reference to components not actually fitted to the inspected vehicle. There was also an absence of evidence of brake testing in the manner and frequency recommended by thew Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness (“GTMR”). The driver defect system was ineffective as a number of defects found at PMI had not been recorded by the drivers. VE Thorpe expressed concern about the effectiveness of the systems for managing wheels and tyres (as illustrated by the prohibition) and he drew attention to the above average MoT failure rate.
These findings prompted VE Thorpe to question if TM Ogilvie was exercising effective control over the licence. He highlighted that many of the deficiencies should have been apparent if the transport manager had checked the PMI sheets and other maintenance records.
A further inspection of the operator was conducted by Traffic Examiner Stafford on 24 April 2024 and whilst they found the operator to have satisfactory systems overall, he did report on some very troubling aspects. TE Stafford noted that on 15 April 2024 one of the operator’s vehicles was encountered being used without a valid excise licence, the previous licence having expired 5 months earlier in November 2023. He was also concerned that TM Ogilvie was unable to access the Tachomaster system used to monitor drivers’ hours during his visit, and she also could not provide driver training records as these were locked in an office to which she had no access. Ms Ogilvie also told TE Stafford that driver CPC records were managed by a transport manager working for another company.
Director Mr Williams and Ms Ogilvie were both interviewed under caution about the excise duty issue. Mr Williams blamed an administrative problem and said this would be addressed so there was no repetition. Ms Ogilvie said she was aware the vehicle’s excise duty was due and had send Mr Williams numerous reminders about the position. She said she did not have the ability to pay for the tax on behalf of the operator.
In response to TE Stafford’s report, Ms Ogilvie subsequently said that she had regained access to Tachomaster after a problem with the bank had been addressed. She also now had full access to the driver CPC and training records.
Since the DVSA reports, a further” S” mark prohibition was issued to the operator on 15 April 2024 with another immediate prohibition on 7 August 2024 both for trailers with defective tyres.
The vehicle involved in the encounter on 7 August 2024 was also found not to have valid excise duty. Its speed limiter was defective, and the vehicle had not at that point been specified on the operator’s licence as required.
On 23 September 2024 TM Ogilvie notified the Office of The Traffic Commissioner (“OTC”) of her resignation. She gave as her reasons, the inability of the operator to respect her position and maintain his obligations. She claimed that repeated requests by her for information and to adhere to policies and procedures had gone ignored. Ms Ogilvie also expressed concern about the Operator’s financial standing. Mr Williams claimed that Ms Ogilvie had resigned because of the findings of the traffic examiner’s report.
As a result of TM Ogilvie’s resignation, the operator lacked professional competence. The operator requested a period of grace, but the traffic commissioner was concerned that insufficient evidence was provided to support that request. Consequently, a direction was made on 6 November 2024 that the licence should be revoked. The Operator then made further representations, and the traffic commissioner decided the licence should be reinstated on 25 November 2024. A period of grace was granted in relation to both professional competence and financial standing (the evidence provided by the operator at the time showed a shortfall in that respect). Professional competence was subsequently restored on Mr Rouse’s appointment and the financial period of grace also ended in February 2025 after satisfactory evidence was provided.
These matters combined to prompt the decision to call the Operator and former TM Ogilvie to this public inquiry to consider if regulatory action was required.
In advance of the hearing, further information came to attention that required consideration.
First, it was learnt that on 27 March 2024, a petition to wind up the operator was presented to the High Court by a company named Rapid Rubber (Yorkshire) Ltd. (one of its nominated maintenance providers) The operator did not appear to have notified traffic commissioner of that event or its outcome.
Evidence was also received from the DVSA of a check of the Automatic Number Plate Recognition system (“ANPR”) for the Operator’s vehicles during the period when the 19-day period in November 2024 when the licence was marked as revoked. The ANPR showed extensive sightings of the vehicles on public roads during that period consistent with the operator having continued to use the vehicles despite being aware of the revocation and prior to the licence being reinstated.
The operator had previously been called to a public inquiry in March 2022. That followed a previous “S” mark prohibition issued for loose wheel nuts in 2021 and an unsatisfactory MIVR. The traffic commissioner determined that the findings justified regulatory action in the form of a curtailment for 2 weeks to 3 vehicles from the 4 vehicles authorised on the licence at the time. A further MIVR was presented in November 2022 which noted that whilst some changes had been made since the public inquiry, there was still a need for further improvement. The traffic commissioner issued a formal warning letter in response to that latest MIVR. An application to authorise the operator’s authority to 7 vehicles was granted at the same time.
TM Ogilvie attained her CPC qualification in September 2023, and she had not held any other TM appointment, hence she has not previously come to a traffic commissioner’s attention.
The Call to Public Inquiry
The operator was called up to public inquiry by letter dated 24 February 2025.
The call up letter gave notice that the grounds for regulatory action in Sections 26(1)(c)(iii), 26(1)(ca), 26(1)(e) 26(1)(f) and 26(1)(h) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (“the Act”) were to be considered as well as the statutory requirements to be of good repute, hold professional competence and to have financial standing..
Former Transport Manager Nichola Ogilvie was originally called up by letter dated 20 November 2024 to attend a public inquiry on 12 December 2024 that gave notice of consideration of the requirement of good repute and professional competence in Schedule 3 of the Act. After further information led to the call to public inquiry for the Operator, Ms Ogilvie’s hearing was rearranged for the same date, and she was informed by letter dated 24 February 2025.
A further letter was sent to the Operator at my direction on 2 April 2025 giving notice of my intention to consider the issues raised Ms Ogilvie’s resignation letter and the circumstances of the winding up petition.
The Operator failed to comply with the directions contained in the call up letter. On the eve of the hearing on 15 April 2025, the Office of the Traffic Commissioner (“OTC”) received a communication from a consultant on behalf of the operator requesting an adjournment. The operator claimed not have received the call up letter and bundle by post. It was also claimed that email correspondence had not been received even though it was subsequently confirmed the address used was correct. As there was some doubt about the evidence of postal service, I agreed to the request for an adjournment.
The case was re-listed for hearing on 17 July 2025 and the parties informed accordingly.
The Public Inquiry
The Public Inquiry commenced at heard at Leeds on 17 July 2025. The operator was represented by its director Mr Williams and its current TM, Mr Rouse. Also present to support the operator was Paul Lyon of the Road Transport Consultancy Ltd.
Former TM Ogilvie was not present, and I initially directed the hearing should proceed in her absence. I started to hear evidence from Mr Williams and the other attendees for the operator. After an hour, I was made I was made aware of an email received from Ms Ogilvie after the hearing had started attaching a fit note from her doctor stating she was unfit to attend work for a period that included the date of hearing. I then directed that the hearing should be adjourned until 19 September 2025 at this point and issued case management directions. These included directions for Ms Ogilvie to attend or provide further evidence of her inability to attend and in relation to the issues of concern. I recorded an interim decision dated 17 July 2025.
The hearing resumed today. Mr Williams, Mr Rouse and Mr Lyon all attended again as required. Ms Ogilvie was not present and had not responded to the correspondence sent to her following the adjournment on 17 July 2025. The previous fit note provided has expired.
I considered the guidance offered by the Senior Traffic Commissioner in Statutory Document Number 9 and specifically the contents of Paragraph 33 of the same, “In line with most tribunals there is a rebuttable presumption that a hearing will proceed as listed even in the absence of parties provided that: the traffic commissioner is satisfied that the party has been given the required notice, has been served with sufficient evidence, and that there are no other factors where the interests of justice require an adjournment.”
I am satisfied that Ms Ogilvie is aware of the pending public inquiry proceedings from the correspondence she sent on the day of the last public inquiry. I am also satisfied she has been properly alerted to the resumed hearing date and that without medical evidence or other good explanation, I am entitled to proceed in her absence. I also took account that the other parties were ready and eager for the hearing to proceed on its given date and the fact this matter has twice previously been adjourned. A further delay in the hope that Ms Ogilvie would attend in future is not in the interests of justice. For that reason, I determined that the public inquiry should proceed in the absence of Ms Ogilvie.
In Ms Ogilvie’s absence, the weight that I give to her previous written assertions must significantly diminish as I have not had the opportunity to hear from her in person. However, I do not exclude her previous evidence from all consideration, especially where it appears to be supported by other sources of evidence.
Pre-hearing Evidence
The Operator provided evidence of vehicle maintenance to the DVSA ahead of the hearing and VE Thorpe provided an updated report dated 3 July 2025. It was noted that the records did not cover the full directed that the operator had been directed to provide.
VE Thorpe commented that, “many of the original shortcomings identified again on the limited inspection reports supplied.”. He drew attention to the assurances of remedial action promised by the previous transport manager Ms Ogilvie after his 2024 inspection and noted the lack of evidence that those had either been implemented or were effective. There continued to be an absence of evidence of consistent brake testing in accordance with the guidance in the Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness. Including an absence of brake efficiency testing after brakes had been changed. Tyre management also continued to be a concern with repeated examples of tyres being presented for inspection with a minimum level of tread. There was an absence of evidence that such tyre defects or other defects seen at inspection, had been identified at driver defects checks. VE Thorpe found no evidence of auditing being carried out on the inspection reports and vehicles being returned to service with several issues from previous inspections not addressed.
Similarly, the Operator purported to comply with the direction to send evidence of driver and tachograph management to the DVSA ahead of the hearing, but TE Stafford’s supplementary report confirmed much of the information requested was not provided without explanation. The vehicle unit data for one vehicle could not be checked as the unit had only been locked into the company card in February 2025 despite the vehicle having been in the operator’s possession since 2021. Evidence was only provided of one driving licence check without any evidence that all drivers were having their licences checked at the recommended frequency. No drivers’ card data was provided and no evidence of continuing professional development for the director or transport manager was provided.
At the hearing on 17 July 2025, the operator claimed the drivers’ card data had been sent. TE Stafford provided a further statement confirming he had seen a drivers’ card download for one driver. This did not reveal any infringements; however, a full check was not possible as the vehicle unit data provided was not for any of the vehicles driven by that driver. It was also noted that 3 of the 5 vehicles driven by the driver had never been specified on the operator’s licence.
Neither the Vehicle Examiner nor Traffic Examiner was able to provide any reassurance from their examination of the recent evidence provided by the Operator that the issues identified in their 2024 investigation had been meaningfully addressed and that compliance had improved.
The Operator initially failed to comply with the direction to provide evidence of financial standing before the hearing on 17 July 2025. The financial evidence provided on the day did not show financial standing. The operator complied with the revised direction to provide financial evidence in advance of the resumed hearing. This showed that the requirement of financial standing was met over the most recent 3-month period. The evidence however did not show evidence of payments to TM Rouse in person.
The operator provided evidence of correspondence relating to the claim by Rapid Rubber (UK) Limited that led to the winding up petition. This confirmed settlement of the debt had been agreed, and the operator had paid in instalments. After the final payment in June 2024, the petition was withdrawn. The evidence provided did not bear out the assertion made in Mr Williams’ written statement to the inquiry that the operator had proved the invoices sent by the tyre company were “made up”.
At the adjourned hearing, the operator was directed to provide evidence of driving licence checks for all drivers for the period 1 February 2025 to 31 August 2025 in advance of the resumed hearing. The operator submitted evidence of driving licence checks of 6 drivers dated 6 August 2025 only. As the period in the direction spanned 7 months, I would have expected to see evidence of at least one or two other checks of licences falling around February to May 2025 if the operator had been following the guidance to check at 3-month intervals.
An updated DVSA encounter report was provided. This showed that on 4 September 2025 there had been a roadside encounter when a vehicle and trailer in use by the operator was checked for roadworthiness. There were several defects found. The tractor unit vehicle was found to have 4 separate defects that warranted immediate prohibitions (3 tyre defects and a fuel leak) as well as 2 other defects that attracted delayed prohibitions. Similarly, the trailer was found to have 4 separate defects that warranted immediate prohibitions (3 tyre defects and a defective lamp) as well as 2 other defects that attracted delayed prohibitions.
Evidence
At the initial hearing on 17 July 2025, I was informed that Mr Rouse was being paid for his transport manager duties by the Road Transport Consultancy Ltd and not by the operator itself. I was told that there was no contract between the operator and Mr Rouse at present (the agreement was between the operator and the consultant) but that this would be addressed.
I made it clear that Mr Rouse should be paid directly by the operator going forward. I also asked if the contract position could be clarified as up to date financial evidence still did not evidence payment to Mr Rouse but there was a payment to a limited company, named Moll Transport Ltd, Mr Rouse admitted at the resumed hearing that Moll Transport Ltd was a company in his control. I made it clear that a transport manager is required to be a natural person and such an arrangement does not satisfy the requirement of a genuine link. I was told a contract between the operator and Mr Rouse had still not been drawn up although they indicated a willingness to supply the same in due course.
I asked Mr Williams about the fact that the operator had 4 changes of transport manager in 5 years and whether this had impacted on its compliance. Mr Williams said that his first transport manager had left in 2022 as she had been offered a better opportunity. I pointed out that this was just before the public inquiry in March 2022. Mr Williams then conceded that the circumstances of the public inquiry was also a factor in her departure.
Mr Williams accepted that his proposal to appoint an external and experienced candidate in Carl Davis as his new transport manager was discussed at the 2022 public inquiry and was a factor in the traffic commissioner finding the licence should be allowed to continue. Mr Davis’ appointment was also mentioned as a positive step in the maintenance investigation report of VE Stagnall in November 2022.
Mr Williams told me that it had always been his intention that Mr Davis would be a short timer appointment until Ms Ogilvie (an existing office employee) had gained her qualification and would take over as transport manager. He accepted this plan was not shared at the 2022 public inquiry. Mr Williams said that the cost of employing Ms Ogilvie was greater than that for Mr Davis and that was not a factor in his decision.
Mr Williams denied the allegations against him made in Ms Ogilvie’s resignation letter including that he failed to respect her position. Mr Williams said he did have concerns about Ms Ogilvie’s performance and felt he need to treat her carefully. He accepted that even after the DVSA reports, he had not considered any form of formal disciplinary action in relation to these concerns. Mr Williams said Ms Ogilvie’s failure to deal efficiently with involving and other matters had caused some of the operator’s financial difficulties in 2024.
In response to the concern Ms Ogilvie expressed about the operator’s financial standing, Mr Williams asserted in his written statement dated 16 July 2025 that it was “not up to a transport manager to deal with finances”. A couple of sentences later, he then claimed that, “our transport manager was also our finance manager and had control of the company finances”.
I pointed out that I had seen no evidence to support the suggestion that Ms Ogilvie was the operator’s finance manager. Mr Williams then sought to clarify he had only meant to say that Ms Ogilvie had access to the company finances to raise invoices and pay for transport related costs.
I drew attention to the failure to tax the vehicle over a 4 month period, something that Ms Ogilvie claimed was the result of her not having access to a company payment card as she mentioned in her DVSA interview under caution and also in her letter to the DVSA dated 30 May 2025 on behalf of the operator (that Mr Williams admitted he had seen and approved before dispatch). Mr Williams denied in his oral evidence that Ms Ogilvie did not have access to the card. Questioned about whether she was an authorised signatory or merely had use of his card, Mr Williams appeared confused although he settled on the version that Ms Ogilvie was authorised by the bank. He was unable to provide any documentary evidence in support of his assertions about the degree of Ms Ogilvie’s responsibility. I also pointed out to Mr Williams that Ms Ogilvie’s concerns about the operator’s financial position were borne out as the evidence provided to the traffic commissioner at the time showed a lack of financial standing.
Mr Williams was also vague on the precise date that he became aware that a vehicle was being used without a valid vehicle excise duty payment. However, he accepted that he was made aware at some point and had asked for the position to be corrected.
Mr Williams had previously claimed that the reason he had been unaware of the initial date for the public inquiry in April 2025 is that someone was intercepting his email correspondence and he suggested this was Ms Ogilvie. I asked him at the latest hearing if he had further investigated the matter and had any evidence to support the allegation. Mr Williams recounted an incident where a driver appeared to have heard about the revocation of the licence in 2024 as soon as it happened and he suggested only Ms Ogilvie could have known that. He offered no evidence to support that account.
In relation to the winding up petition, Mr Williams said he was unaware that he was required to notify such events to the traffic commissioner. This is despite the fact the licence had come under traffic commissioner scrutiny a mere 2 years earlier. Mr Williams thought that as the debt had been paid, it was not relevant. I highlighted that the winding up petition had threatened the end of the company and that the matter was also relevant as it involved a failure to pay a maintenance supplier.
In Mr Williams’ written statement dated 16 July 2025, he asserted the operator had “proved” that the tyre provider had been making up invoices and he inferred this was why the winding up petition had been withdrawn.
In adjourning the public inquiry on 17 July 2025, I took the opportunity to direct that written evidence should be supplied on this point. The evidence subsequently provided gives a very different picture to Mr Williams’ statement. The operator in fact conceded that monies were due and reached a settlement in the sum of £7,000. The operator paid this in instalments and the claimant then withdrew the winding up petition after receiving final payment. Mr Williams said he had not intended to give a misleading impression in his witness statement. I also noted that the emails from the period April to June 2024 about this matter were copied to Mr Williams in person and there was no sign that Ms Ogilvie was involved. This further undermines Mr Williams’ claim that Ms Ogilvie had some significant responsibility for the company finances.
Mr Williams was then asked about potentially the most serious issue, namely the unauthorised use of vehicles during the period when the licence was revoked. Mr Williams confirmed that he had received the notification that the licence was revoked on 6 November 2024 and that he had understood this meant he should stop operating vehicles. Mr Williams said he felt he had no option but to continue operating as otherwise he would lose his business. He said he considered it was unfair that the licence was revoked and that he had not been given notice (although he accepted, he had received the traffic commissioner’s previous correspondence that contained such warnings). Mr Williams said he had sought Mr Lyon’s assistance at that point and lodged an appeal with a stay request. He confirmed that he was advised he should stop using the vehicles until a stay or other authority was granted, but he decided to continue doing so anyway. Mr Williams accepted the ANPR sighting were when the vehicles were being used on a road without licence authority.
Mr Williams accepted the other shortcomings identified in the DVSA reports in 2024 but said these were mainly due to Ms Ogilvie’s performance.
Mr Williams and Mr Rouse were asked about the latest evidence from the DVSA. In relation to the traffic examiner’s updated report, I had drawn attention to his claim that he had not seen any drivers’ card data from the operator. I asked for this to be clarified by the operator by the resumed hearing.
TE Stafford subsequently provided an update dated 15 August 2025 that confirmed he had now seen one drivers’ card download. The card did not disclose any significant infringements, but the examiner was concerned that the main vehicle driven and 2 other vehicles recorded on the card were not specified on the operator’s licence.
Mr Rouse expressed surprise that TE Stafford claimed only to have seen one card as he believed more evidence had been sent. Neither Mr Williams nor Mr Rouse claimed to recognise the vehicles mentioned. The driver works full time for the operator, and they could not explain why the vehicles appeared in his data.
TE Stafford had also previously stated he had only been provided with one driving licence check despite the operator asserting that it now checked all drivers’ licence at 3-month intervals. Again, I took the opportunity afforded by the adjournment of the hearing on 17 July 2025 to direct further evidence be provided. I made it clear that I wanted to see evidence of all checks over a 7-month period. The evidence supplied only related to checks carried on 6 August 2025 and provided no evidence of the frequency of checking. I noted there was no check for Mr Williams himself, who had confirmed he drove occasionally for the business. Mr Williams appeared surprised that he should be the subject of a check himself and Mr Rouse sought to claim that he had not been checked as he no longer drove. I was not convinced by these replies. Further in the absence of the unequivocal evidence that should be present (and that the operator had the opportunity to produce), I find it is more likely than not that driving licence are not being consistently checked with the recommended frequency.
In relation to VE Stagnall’s updated report, the operator again questioned the fact that brake test print outs were said to be absent as it insisted they had been provided. Despite the issue being raised at the first day of hearing on 17 July 2025, the operator took no steps to provide further evidence on this point in readiness for the resumed hearing 2 months later.
Mr Williams was asked about the apparent continued failure of drivers to report tyre tread depth as first discussed in the maintenance investigation report of April 2024. Mr Williams sought to explain that the vehicles were used in difficult environments and were vulnerable to tyre damage. I pointed out this issue related to tread depth and not damage. Mr Williams said it was difficult to get the drivers to comply.
In that regard, I asked about the recent prohibitions. Mr Williams confirmed the driver had competed a “nil” return defect form during his walk round check that morning. Mr Williams has issued the driver with a warning as a result. I expressed concern that the driver had been dealt with so leniently when it appeared he had missed a series of significant safety critical defects. I was not told of any other efforts by the operator or TM Rouse to investigate the matter.
I heard from Mr Lyon at the end of the evidence. He first became involved with the operator in November 2024 following the revocation. He had since assisted the operator to find a new transport manager in Mr Rouse and to try to implement new systems and procedures. Mr Lyon considered that Mr Williams was receptive to advice. Mr Lyon has become involved in driver training as he considers Mr Williams might be too close to them to deliver robust messages – a feature not uncommon in small businesses. Mr Williams and Mr Lyon said they were committed to continuing to work together and would offer an undertaking in that regard. I was also invited to consider offers of undertakings to arrange an independent audit and for regular laden roller brake testing.
In closing Mr Williams asked me not to revoke the licence as that would lead to the closure of the business. The business is the sole source of income for Mr Williams and his young family. Any other regulatory action that had a meaningful impact on the transport operation would also be potentially fatal to the continuation of the business as it is a highly competitive field and rival business would fulfil the vacuum caused by the operator’s absence.
Mr Williams said that with Mr Lyon’s help, he is making sure that everything gets done properly and he feels the operator’s compliance is going in the right direction.
Mr Williams was invited to comment on the consequences of a disqualification order. He said that if the current business ended as a result of revocation, he could not see a situation where he would be financially able to re-enter the industry within the foreseeable future.
Findings of fact
Based on the evidence set out above, I formally record the following findings of fact in relation to the discretionary provisions for regulatory action:
- The operator has received several prohibitions including three “S” marked immediate prohibitions in 2024 and further prohibitions in September 2025. This satisfies the grounds for regulatory action in Section 26(1)(c)(iii) of the Act.
- The operator’s driver was issued with a fixed penalty notice for an insecure load on 12 July 2024. This satisfies the grounds for regulatory action in Section 26(1)(c)(a) of the Act.
- The operator has not fulfilled the statements it made on applying for the licence that its vehicles would be inspected at the 6-week intervals and in relation to the identity of its maintenance providers. This satisfies the grounds for regulatory action in Section 26(1)(e) of the Act.
-
The operator has not fulfilled the undertakings it signed up to when it applied for the licence, namely, that its vehicles and trailers would be kept fit and serviceable, to ensure 6 weekly inspections and to ensure drivers report defects promptly with appropriate records kept. This satisfies the grounds for regulatory action in Section 26(1)(f) of the Act.
- The failure to notify the change of maintenance provider also amounts to a material change satisfying the grounds for regulatory action in Section 26(1)(h) of the Act.
I find that some of the issues that arose were caused by Mr Williams’ decision to appoint a newly qualified and inexperienced transport manager in Ms Ogilvie. This was despite the fact that at the public inquiry in 2022 (and in the subsequent DVSA report) it was made clear that the appointment of the previous transport manager Mr Davis was seen as a positive step in ensuring future compliance. I am satisfied if the traffic commissioner had known that the plan was for Mr Davis to act on an interim basis only until replaced by Ms Ogilvie, he would have been less reassured about the trust to be put in the operator. I consider it more likely than not that Mr Williams understood this at the time and that he chose not to share that information at the public inquiry. Whilst I have not seen any evidence of a financial benefit to the operator in appointing Ms Ogilvie instead of Mr Davis, I consider Mr Williams’ decision was more likely than not motivated by some form of expediency and was not in the best interests of either the operator as a licence holder nor Ms Ogilvie herself.
Whilst I make no adverse finding in relation to the operator’s current professional competence, I am concerned that it came to the most recent public inquiry still without evidence that a contract was in place with Mr Rouse as transport manager. Further the arrangements for paying Mr Rouse were contrary to the expectation of direct payment that I set out on 17 July 2025.
The circumstances of the first public inquiry being vacated and the second hearing being adjourned on 17 July 2025 mean that the operator was given an extended opportunity to prepare its case and produce evidence in support of its various assertions. I also issued clear directions to assist the operator to understand what would assist. Despite this, the operator still came to the public inquiry without important evidence and badly prepared to answer my questions. For example, Mr Williams and Mr Rouse appeared surprised when I asked them detailed questions about the contents of the vehicle examiner’s statements dated 3 July 2025 and 15 August 2025. I was left with the impression that they had not been read by Mr Williams or Mr Rouse.
I find these repeated failures to understand and comply with directions are relevant to the question of good repute and ultimately to whether I can trust the operator and Mr Williams.
I find the operator deliberately continued to use a goods vehicle for commercial benefit on public roads for a period of 5 months between 1 November 2023 and 15 April 2024 when its vehicle excise duty expired and it was untaxed.
The most serious matter of all is the admission that Mr Williams consciously and deliberate allowed the operator’s vehicles to continue in use for 3 weeks when he knew the operator’s licence had been revoked on 6 November 2024. Despite the fact that Mr Williams was contesting that decision, he also knew that he had no authority to continue using the vehicles. Mr Williams does not address this issue in his written statement before the public inquiry, and I was not convinced that his oral evidence showed any real contrition or understanding of the gravity of his actions.
Statutory Document No. 1 states that “traffic commissioners are entitled to conclude that a person does not have the required repute where they have decided to operate without authorisation particularly in the face of warnings not to.” I do not consider that the fact the revocation was being challenged or that it was later set aside to be hugely relevant. The law provides an established route for operators who feel aggrieved by a decision to revoke, to appeal and seek a stay. What they cannot do however is simply ignore the order and continue operating regardless. That is what the operator and Mr Williams have done here. On that basis I find that goods repute is lost and the grounds for revocation in Section 27(1)(a) of the Act are established. I also make a finding that good repute is lost in the light of the operator’s other conduct described above including the operation of a vehicle without tax, the failure to comply with directions and the misleading contents of Mr Williams’ written statement to the public inquiry.
Determination
BTW Transport Ltd & Director Byron Williams
Having reached the findings of fact above, I have considered the balancing exercise and weighed the positive and negative features by reference to the guidance in the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document Number 10.
I treat as a positive feature the fact that some improvements have been made to systems and procedures. I also give the operator some limited credit for its decision to engage Mr Lyon as a transport consultant to improve Mr Williams’ understanding of his obligations as a licence holder. Mr Williams has also attended OLAT training and Mr Rouse is booked to go on a TM refresher course in the next month.
These factors must be balanced with the significant list of negative features:
- The decision by Mr Williams to allow a vehicle to be used knowing it was not taxed and also to continue operating vehicles knowing that the licence had been revoked were deliberate acts by the operator that led to an unfair commercial advantage.
- There are a substantial number of previous prohibitions including “S” mark prohibitions. This includes prohibitions issued whilst the public inquiry was in progress. The prohibitions evidence road safety critical defects on vehicles and trailers in service and include prohibitions issued at MOT.
- The operator continues to have a high prohibition rate. At 42%, it is nearly twice the national average.
- The evidence clearly indicates continuing ineffective management control and insufficient or no systems and procedures in place to prevent operator licence compliance failings.
- The DVSA evidence indicates ineffective analysis procedures in place to detect falsification, drivers’ hours and/or Working Time Directive infringements.
- There has been ineffective or insufficient driver training with insufficient or ineffective monitoring and disciplinary procedures in place. The facts of the recent prohibition indicate this is still an issue.
- The recent updated evidence from the DVSA examiners indicate that there have been insufficient or ineffective changes made to ensure future compliance.
- The operator has repeatedly failed to fully comply with directions issued by the traffic commissioner to produce evidence and records for the public inquiry.
- The matters above indicate that the operator has failed to heed the warning implicit in the outcome of the previous public inquiry in March 2022.
I consider the negative factors far outweigh any positive factors. I have considered the starting points for regulatory action in Statutory Document 10. The unauthorised use of the vehicles is so serious that I consider it brings the starting point firmly out of the “serious” category to “severe”.
I have considered the test set out by the Upper Tribunal in “Priority Freight 2009/225” of whether I can trust the operator to be compliant in future. Mr Williams’ actions in wilfully ignoring the traffic commissioner’s decision to revoke the licence in November 2024 and continue operating is such that I cannot have any confidence in the operator being compliant under his control. Additionally, I have taken account of the several examples given above where his evidence to the public inquiry has been disingenuous and misleading. He has also repeatedly failed to comply with directions even after he was given the opportunity following the adjourn met of the public inquiry on 17 July 2025 to produce evidence that may well have assisted his case. I give him some limited credit for engaging Mr Lyon to provide guidance and assistance which included an introduction to Mr Rouse as transport manager. However, the recent DVSA evidence and my findings in relation to the continuing issues with compliance indicate that Mr Lyon and Mr Rouse are having little impact in influencing the operator’s approach.
I answer the “Priority Freight” question in the negative and have gone on to ask the question of whether the operator deserves to be put out of business, as directed by the decision in “Bryan Haulage (No.2) 217/2002”. I am in no doubt of the far-reaching consequences of the revocation of the licence both for the operator’s business and for Mr Williams as its sole director personally. This is a case however where the operator has enjoyed a competitive advantage from operating an untaxed vehicle over several months. Most seriously, the operator enjoyed a competitive advantage by flouting the traffic commissioner’s revocation decision in November 2024 and continuing to operate without authority for a 3-week period. I am also concerned about the high prohibition rate and the incident as recently as 4 September 2025 when a vehicle and trailer were issued with no fewer than 8 immediate prohibition for road safety critical defects. Combined with the DVSA evidence about the continuing lack of effective systems in relation to vehicle maintenance and driver management, I also have serious concern about the roadworthiness of the operator’s vehicles and the road safety implications if it is allowed to continue to operate.
For these reasons, I consider it is proportionate and necessary to direct the revocation of the licence despite the consequences that will flow for the business.
Turning to the question of disqualification, as the operator has only a single director in Mr Williams, I consider it is appropriate to approach the issue as one for both the company and its individual director.
I have applied a balancing exercise, and the features identified above in relation to regulatory action are equally pertinent to the question of disqualification. The negative features outweigh the positives, and I consider a period of disqualification is justified.
In deciding upon the length of the disqualification, I have taken account of paragraph 108 of the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document Number 10 which states that for an operator’s first Public Inquiry, consideration of a disqualification period of between 1 and 3 years may be appropriate rising to 5 to 10 years for more serious cases that may include previous public inquiry history.
Some of those latter aspects are present here. There has been a previous public inquiry in 2022 where the regulatory action taken appears to have been ineffective in securing future compliance. There are also the serious circumstances of the current public inquiry including the evidence of unauthorised use. I have also commented on Mr Williams’ evidence that at times was disingenuous. I consider that when challenged with difficult facts, he has a propensity to say the first thing that enters his mind to excuse or minimise the conduct alleged. That does not inspire confidence but is distinct from the behaviour of an individual who engages in calculated deception such as falsification of records.
Mr Williams has also taken some steps to seek external advice and guidance. That is a positive step, but I give him limited credit for it as I am not satisfied by the evidence that he has listened or understood the advice he has been given. As stated above, the involvement of Mr Rouse and Mr Lyon has not succeeded in influencing the step change in Mr Williams and the operator’s approach to compliance that was needed for this licence to continue.
I consider a period of disqualification is necessary for Mr Williams to reflect on the events that led to the loss of the licence and to seek further education on how to run a compliant operation.
I do not exclude the possibility of rehabilitation and a future application for an operator’s licence being allowed after the passage of time, if Mr Williams can show that he now fully understands that is needed to be compliant and is equipped to deliver that compliance. At the very least he can be expected to show that he has support from an experienced transport manager, if not a co-director or other partner with a good track record of operator licence compliance. Mr Williams will need to show that he can be trusted to heed both the guidance he is offered from his own advisors and more importantly the directions of the traffic commissioner.
After careful consideration, I have determined that the period of disqualification for the operator and its director can be limited to 12 months. Any return to holding an operator’s licence after that time would need to be supported by evidence of the steps, I have set out above.
I defer the effective date of the revocation and disqualification orders for 28 days to allow proper notice to be given and for the operator to make arrangements for the orderly wind down of the transport operation.
Former Transport Manager Nichola Ogilvie
Ms Ogilvie must accept responsibility for the adverse findings made above in respect of the operator’s compliance for the period when she was in post as transport manager.
I have not had the opportunity to hear from Ms Ogilvie in person but do have some evidence from her in the form of her interview with the DVSA in 2024 and the letter of resignation she sent to the traffic commissioner on 23 September 2024.
I note that Ms Ogilvie accepted that she had known one of the operator’s vehicles was being used after its vehicle excise duty had expired. It appears that this situation persisted for several months. Although Ms Ogilvie claimed this was due to Mr Williams’ failure to make payment despite several reminders from her, it does not appear that she did anything to stop the vehicle being used or to report the situation to the traffic commissioner.
It is also clear from the DVSA evidence that she was not effectively managing drivers’ hours and tachograph analysis. Ms Ogilvie claimed in her response to the TE’s initial report that this was partly because she had lost access to the Tachomaster analysis software after a “bank error” meant the operator’s subscription was not paid. Again, there is no evidence she took any action to formally raise that issue with Mr Williams or to consider referring her concerns to the traffic commissioner.
Whilst I give Ms Ogilvie some credit for her eventual decision to resign as transport manager, this was 6 months after the DVSA visits from when the seriousness of the non-compliance should have been evident to her.
The Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document Number 3 contains a reminder (citing 2003/258 J D Cowan & A Fenny) that if, “a transport manager finds themself overridden by the operator or their agent to the point at which the transport manager no longer has the requisite continuous and effective responsibility, the transport manager must first notify the operator in writing and then, if the matter is not resolved, is expected to take appropriate action In certain cases this may even include resignation, rather than remain nominated and attempt to carry on their duties when being expressly prevented from doing so by their employer.”
As indicated above, I do not accept Mr Williams’ attempts to shift blame on Ms Ogilvie for all the operator’s failures. I consider it more likely than not that he did fail to give Ms Ogilvie the support that a transport manager is entitled to expect of an operator. On the other hand, the inadequacies in relation to vehicle maintenance records and driver management also indicate Ms Ogilvie was not doing her job to the standards expected.
Statutory Document Number 3 sets out the general responsibilities of a transport manager as including:
- “to manage, audit and review compliance systems, including in-house or contracted out maintenance, to ensure that they are effective;
- to implement effective fleet management functions to ensure safe operation and review any shortcomings such as prohibitions and/or annual test failures;
- to ensure that relevant changes are notified in accordance with operator licence requirements.”
Based on the evidence of the DVSA examiners, Ms Ogilvie’s responses to them at the time and in the absence of any further evidence from her during this public inquiry, I find little evidence that she effectively discharged those responsibilities.
Before reaching a decision on whether Ms Ogilvie’s good repute is lost (and consequently that she should be disqualified), I have balanced the positive and negative features of her individual position.
The shortcomings in the compliance of the operator at the time when she was transport manager were significant and represent a weighty negative factor. It is also a negative factor that she has failed to engage with the public inquiry process. There is limited explanation for this in the medical evidence provided after the start of the public inquiry hearing. However, Ms Ogilvie was given an opportunity to renew that evidence or to provide her evidence by alternative means and she had not responded further.
I balance these negative factors with the fact that Ms Ogilvie was a newly qualified and inexperienced transport manager. I also take account of the context that she was appointed to the post by her existing employer in circumstances that suggest it was expedient for the operator and not necessarily in Ms Ogilvie’s best interests. It is evident she did not have appropriate support from Mr Williams. Finally, I treat as a positive the fact that she did (albeit belatedly) remove herself as transport manager.
Having balanced these matters, I consider the shortcomings revealed in Ms Ogilvie’s approach as transport manager are such that it is proportionate to find that her good repute is lost.
I have moved on to consider the length of the disqualification that must follow. I have considered the guidance offered by Statutory Document 10. I face the difficulty that Ms Ogilvie’s failure to engage with the public inquiry process means that I have not heard any further explanation from her about the matters above. Nor have I had the opportunity to hear from Ms Ogilvie about her current and future intentions in terms of rejoining the industry and any proposed rehabilitative measures.
For those reasons, I do not consider I have sufficient information to direct a disqualification for a finite period as I am unable to fully assess what that period should be. I therefore direct a disqualification until further order. I make it clear it is not my intention that Ms Ogilvie should remain disqualified indefinitely or for an extended period. However, if she wishes to have the disqualification removed or reduced to a finite period, Ms Ogilvie will need to provide further information and answer traffic commissioner questions (potentially involving further hearing).
The disqualification will take effect in 28 days’ time. If Ms Ogilvie wishes to make relevant representations before that date to explain her absence from the hearing on 19 September 2025 and/or in relation to her position as transport manager, I will consider setting aside the direction until those representations have been considered.
Transport Manager Christopher Rouse
Mr Rouse as the current transport manager on the licence was not formally called as a party to the public inquiry as he was not in post when the matters arose that led to the operator being called in originally. As such, I do not make any formal adverse findings about his good repute and professional competence.
Gerallt Evans
Deputy Traffic Commissioner
21 September 2025