Decision for C J WASTE SOLUTIONS LTD (OD2012153) and JHM TRANSPORT LTD (OD2088066)
Written decision of the Traffic Commissioner for the West Midlands for C J Waste Solutions Ltd, JHM Transport Ltd, Wendy Bittles, Philip Hunt, Nicola Leake
IN THE WEST MIDLANDS TRAFFIC AREA
IN THE MATTERS OF:
C J WASTE SOLUTIONS LTD – OD2012153
JHM TRANSPORT LTD – OD2088066
WENDY BITTLES - TRANSPORT MANAGER
PHILIP HUNT – TRANSPORT MANAGER
NICOLA LEAKE – TRANSPORT MANAGER
DRIVER CONDUCT HEARINGS FOR MORTON AND WRIGHT
BEFORE THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER MR M DORRINGTON
PUBLIC INQUIRY ON 05 MAY 2026 AT THE OFFICE OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER IN BIRMINGHAM
WRITTEN DECISION
SUMMARY OF DECISIONS MADE
The standard international operator’s licence held by C J Waste Solutions Ltd (the “operator”) under reference OD2012153 is revoked under sections 27(1)(a) [loss of good repute], 26(1)(c)(iii) and 26(1)(f). These orders of revocation take effect at 2345 hours on 30 June 2026. No order is made under section 28 of the Act.
The application made by JHM Transport Ltd for a standard national operator’s licence under reference OD2088066 was withdrawn at the public inquiry with my permission. No future application for any type of operator’s licence made by JHM Transport Ltd can be determined under staff delegations and must be referred to the Traffic Commissioner. No future application for any type of operator’s licence made by, or involving, the sole director Mr John Morton can be determined under staff delegations and must be referred to the Traffic Commissioner.
Former transport manager Mr Philip Hunt no longer meets the requirements relating to good repute set out within schedule 3 of the Act. As a result he has lost his good repute as a transport manager. It is therefore a mandatory requirement that he be disqualified as a transport manager under paragraph 16(2) of schedule 3 of the Act. That order of disqualification takes effect at 2345 hours on 14 June 2026 and will remain in force for 12 months until 14 June 2027. As a rehabilitation measure Mr Hunt must complete an in person (not virtual) transport manager CPC refresher training course.
Former transport manager Nicola Leake is given a formal written warning that will remain on her file for five years.
No further action was taken against former transport manager Wendy Bittles. She was told of that outcome in the public inquiry and the reasons for it.
BACKGROUND
As a result of a roadside stop of vehicle TW58 OTW on 18 June 2025, and the imposition of an “S” marked prohibition, a joint DVSA traffic examiner (“TE”) and vehicle examiner (“VE”) investigation was undertaken. Both the VE and TE reports were scored as “Refer to OTC” which is the most serious of scores. From those reports a decision was made to call the operator, its former transport managers and two drivers to a hearing which took place at the Office of the Traffic Commissioner in Birmingham on 05 May 2026.
PUBLIC INQUIRY ON 05 MAY 2026
Mr Leake, sole director, did not attend. Present on behalf of the operator was Mr Young, a non-lawyer. I granted him permission to represent the operator.
Only former transport manager Wendy Bittles attended. She was assisted by Mr Young after Mr Young had taken instructions over the phone from Mr Leake.
Present on behalf of the DVSA was VE Gallagher and TE Lees.
Both drivers attended and were dealt with separately under different legislation.
LEGISLATION
The relevant law is set out in the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (the “Act”) and in the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Regulations 1995.
Pursuant to the above legislation when an operator’s licence is granted the director(s) agree to fulfill, at all times, the following general undertakings (formal and binding promises):
- The laws relating to the driving and operation of vehicles used under the licence are observed; and
- The rules on drivers hours and tachographs are observed, proper records are kept and that these are made available on request, and
- Vehicles and trailers are not overloaded; and
- Vehicles operate within the speed limits; and
- Vehicles and trailers, including hired vehicles and trailers, are kept in a fit and serviceable condition; and
- Drivers report promptly any defects or symptoms of defects that could prevent the safe operation of vehicles and/or trailers, and that any defects are recorded in writing; and
- Records are kept (for at least 15 months) of all driver reports that record defects, and all safety inspection, routine maintenance and vehicle repair reports, and that these are made available on request; and
- The number of vehicles and trailers kept at each operating centre specified will not exceed the maximum number authorised; and
- An unauthorised operating centre is not used in any traffic area; and
- The licensing authority will be notified of any relevant convictions or accepted fixed penalties against the licence holder its employees or agents; and
- The licensing authority is notified within 28 days of any other changes that might affect the licence, such as changes to the maintenance arrangements, a change in financial status or legal status.
EVIDENCE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION
In reaching my decision I have taken into consideration all of the evidence contained in the electronic bundle and all of the oral evidence I heard in the public inquiry.
In reaching my decisions I have also taken into account the submissions made by Mr Young.
BURDEN AND STANDARD OF PROOF
The burden of proof is upon the DVSA/OTC to prove any allegations that have been made. The standard of proof is the civil law standard; the balance of probabilities. In other words what is more likely than not to have occurred.
FINDINGS OF FACT
All of my findings of fact have been made after applying the above burden and standard of proof to the evidence I have taken into consideration. For the avoidance of any doubt all of my findings of fact can be taken to start with the words “It is more likely than not that…”
Mr Leake had made the conscious decision not to attend the public inquiry. The call up letter dated 23 March 2025 (43 days before the public inquiry) was sent to the correspondence postal address recorded on VOL and to the email address that Mr Leake had been using to communicate with the caseworker before the date of the call up letter. It is more likely than not that it was delivered to those two addresses. In consideration of the Upper Tribunal appeal cases of Philip Drake UKUT 2023 0098 AAC and Ocean King Ltd UKUT 2024 0365 AAC, I was satisfied that the operator had been properly served with at least one copy of the calling letter for the public inquiry and that he was aware of it.
No application to adjourn the public inquiry was made until 0758 hours on the day of the public inquiry when an email was received from Mr Young (page 442 of the Master bundle) by the caseworker. That email contained his letter of 29 April 2026 (see page 443 of the Master bundle) within which the application to adjourn was made, a skeleton argument (see page 446 of the Master bundle) and some documentation (pages 451 of the Master bundle onwards).
At no point had any evidence from the sole director, Mr Leake, been received to support the application to adjourn.
I took into account the written request for an adjournment and the oral submissions made by Mr Young for an adjournment in the public inquiry. After retiring to consider my decision I gave a reasoned oral decision to refuse the request. Mr Young took detailed notes of that oral decision.
Unbeknown to me at that point in time was that fact that I was going to hear evidence from Wendy Bittles that explained Mr Leake’s intention to never attend the public inquiry on 05 May 2026. She gave unequivocal evidence on two occasions upon that issue. She told me, twice, that upon receipt of her calling in letter (also dated 23 March 2026) she contacted Mr Leake and asked him about the evidence to be submitted in response to it. She twice stated that Mr Leake told her that the case would be adjourned and that she was not to send any evidence to the DVSA or to my office.
Wendy Bittles was a credible, cogent and persuasive witness of fact. I had absolutely no reason to disbelieve what she told me. I find as fact that Mr Leake had instructed her in the manner she stated.
The calling in letter for Wendy Bittles was sent to her by post and email. I am therefore satisfied that she received it, and read it, very shortly after it was sent. I therefore find that her conversation with Mr Leake about sending evidence in response to the calling in letter happened shortly after the calling in letter was sent.
What is clear from her evidence, and I find as such, is:
- Mr Leake was aware of the public inquiry from a very early stage otherwise he would not have told her that it was going to be adjourned and;
- Mr Leake had no intention of attending the public inquiry; and
- Mr Leake had no intention of complying with the case management directions that attached to the calling in letter.
Pulling everything together I find that Mr Leake deliberately tried to force my hand on the day of the public inquiry by instructing Mr Young to make a last minute application to adjourn the hearing when Mr Leake had already decided, weeks beforehand, that he was not going to attend. As per my oral decision to refuse the adjournment request; there was no persuasive reason before me to adjourn the public inquiry and it was in the interests of justice to proceed in the absence of Mr Leake.
The calling in letter for former transport manager Philip Hunt dated 23 March 2026 was sent by recorded post and email to the last correspondence addresses that were recorded on VOL at the time they were sent. I am satisfied that it is more likely than not that they were delivered to those addresses and that it was more likely than not that he received at least one of those letters. I have again considered the appeal cases of Philip Drake UKUT 2023 0098 AAC and Ocean King Ltd UKUT 2024 0365 AAC. Having done so I am satisfied that he was served with his calling in letter and was aware of the public inquiry. Thereafter it was a matter for him if he wanted to attend. No application to adjourn was made by Mr Hunt and there was no persuasive reason to adjourn his case on my own volition. It was in the interests of justice to proceed in his absence.
The calling in letter for former transport manager Nicola Leake dated 23 March 2026 was sent by recorded post and email to the last correspondence addresses that were recorded on VOL at the time they were sent. I am satisfied that it is more likely than not that they were delivered to those addresses and that it was more likely than not that she received at least one of those letters. I have again considered the appeal cases of Philip Drake UKUT 2023 0098 AAC and Ocean King Ltd UKUT 2024 0365 AAC. Having done so I am satisfied that she was served with her calling in letter and was aware of the public inquiry. Thereafter it was a matter for her if she wanted to attend. No application to adjourn was made by Nicola Leake and there was no persuasive reason to adjourn her case on my own volition. It was in the interests of justice to proceed in her absence.
The evidence of VE Gallagher was only challenged on one material point; whether a fraudulent PMI sheet dated 04 October 2025 had been presented to the VE. From the oral evidence I was satisfied that Mr Griffiths, the maintenance provider, had not signed that document himself but another person within his workshop had undertaken the maintenance of that vehicle and signed it as Mr Griffiths. The signature was therefore false as it purported to be Mr Griffiths’ signature and it purported to show that Mr Griffiths had completed the repair work (when he had not) but that was not conduct that the operator was involved in directly or indirectly. I therefore attach no evidential weight to this issue.
The other evidence from the DVSA was not challenged, or materially challenged. I regard that evidence to be credible, cogent and highly persuasive and I have accepted it as such. As a result all of the allegations made within it are found to be proven.
I repeat all of the proven allegations and I adopt them all as my own findings of fact. Principle amongst those findings of fact are the following:
- VRM TW58 OTW was specified on this operator’s licence on 11 September 2024 and removed from the licence on 30 June 2025.
- VRM TW58 OTW and its trailer correctly received an “S” marked prohibition on 18 June 2025 (see pages 156 onwards in the Master bundle). The “S” marking demonstrated a significant failure in maintenance. In addition two immediate prohibitable defects were also identified and each one of which posed a real risk to road safety.
-
The driver of this vehicle was Mr Thomas Wright. From his PACE interview and from Mr Leake’s PACE interview I find that:
- This operator had acquired vehicle TW58 OTW from another operator.
- Mr Wright was the sole driver of this vehicle from 11 September 2024 to 30 June 2025.
- The vehicle was undertaking work for the operator.
- Mr Wright took instructions from Mr Leake.
- Mr Wright submitted weekly invoices to the operator for his services as a driver.
- The operator paid those invoices .
This operator operated vehicle TW58 OTW for at least the period of time that it was specified on this operator’s licence (11 September 2024 to 30 June 2025).
The operator was sent, by the DVSA, a section 99 producer letter dated 09 July 2025 requiring it to submit vehicle unit data from 03 March 2025 to 27 June 2025 for several vehicles including VRM TW58 OTW and driver card data for drivers including Thomas Wright. A section 99 letter refers to section 99 of the Transport Act 1968 (as amended) and it is an offence not to comply with a request made by the DVSA under that section of statute.
No vehicle unit data was ever produced for TW58 OTW because the vehicle unit was not locked into this operator until 31 July 2025 (see page 273 of the Master bundle). That meant the operator could not download any vehicle unit data before 31 July 2025. The vehicle unit for TW58 OTW should have been locked into this operator from at least 11 September 2024 when it was first specified on this operator’s licence.
No driver card data was ever produced for driver Thomas Wright despite him driving for this operator from 11 September 2024 to 30 June 2025 (292 days).
The operator was clearly not undertaking any, or any effective, analysis of drivers hours compliance for this vehicle and its sole driver.
The transport managers specified on the operator’s licence during the reference period of 03 March 2025 to 27 June 2025 were Nicola Leake (specified on the licence15 June 2018 and removed 01 August 2025) and Philip Hunt (specified on the licence 10 June 2024 and removed 01 August 2025).
I have accepted, from the evidence before me in the PACE interview of Mr Leake, that Nicola Leake was not removed from the operator’s licence in error when Mr Hunt was appointed as transport manager. I have therefore stepped back from finding that she was responsible for the failure to check and ensure compliance with drivers hours during the DVSA reference period (3 March to 27 June 2025).
Mr Leake failed to manage, effectively or at all, compliance with drivers hours and tachograph rules and regulations.
Mr Leake failed to manage, effectively or at all, the transport manager responsible for ensuring that vehicle TW58 OTW had its vehicle unit locked into the operator from the date the vehicle was specified on the operator’s licence (11 September 2024) and he failed to manage, effectively or at all, the transport manager responsible for ensuring that the vehicle unit was being downloaded, the data analyzed, and that the driver card data for driver Thomas Wright was being properly checked for compliance with the drivers hours rules.
The Transport Tribunal, as it was then, made it clear in the appeal case of Alison Jones TA Jones Motors L56 1999 that the director of a company that holds an operator’s licence must “constantly monitor and supervise” the people to whom responsibility has been given or delegated. That appeal case made it clear that “constantly monitoring and supervising” did not mean taking things at face value or on trust, it meant checking, scrutinizing and challenging. There was, I find, no constant monitoring or supervising undertaken by Mr Leake in relation to those people (beside himself) responsible for VRM TW58 OTW.
For the whole of the reference period from 03 March 2025 until 27 June 2025 the following undertaking was breached on each and every day:
“The rules on drivers hours and tachographs are observed, proper records are kept and that these are made available on request”
That undertaking was further breached because no data was “made available upon request” when the request was made in the s.99 letter from the DVSA dated 09 July 2025.
I also remain to be satisfied that road safety was not put at risk during that reference period because it has not been shown by the operator that driver Thomas Wright was taking proper breaks and rest periods. The rules that relate to drivers hours are there to protect driver and road safety. Breaching the rules risks tired drivers being on the road. If an operator cannot show compliance, in accordance with the above undertaking when a request has been made by the DVSA, then I am bound to view the matter seriously and reach a finding that road safety was being put at risk.
Neither the operator nor transport manager replied to the MIVR. They therefore failed to avail themselves of the opportunity to demonstrate what they planned to do to ensure compliance going forward.
The calling in letter for the operator contained detailed case management directions (see pages 19 and 20 of the Master bundle) in relation to the maintenance related documents that had to be sent to VE Gallagher. None of those documents were submitted to the VE and as a result no supplemental statement from the VE could be produced to show me whether the operator was compliant as at the date of the public inquiry.
The best evidence before me in relation to maintenance compliance was the MIVR, SIPCAT and prohibition history.
The prohibition on 18 June 2025 for TW58 OTW and its trailer proved that that vehicle and trailer combination put road safety at risk. Page 294 of the Master bundle details the operator’s encounter history; 11 stops and 7 prohibitions of which six were immediate in nature and one was “S” marked. That is a roadside prohibition rate of 63% and is a very strong indicator of the condition of this operator’s vehicles when they are in service on a daily basis. The very high number of “immediate” prohibitions means, and I find as such, that vehicles/trailers are in service in an unroadworthy condition and that road safety was put at risk as a result.
The prohibitions received by this operator demonstrate a clear breach of the following undertaking on the operator’s licence:
“Vehicles and trailers, including hired vehicles and trailers, are kept in a fit and serviceable condition”
At page 310 of the Master bundle is the data for this operator’s initial fail rate at MOT. From 11 MOTs there was an initial failure rate of 27% against the national average of 12%. An MOT is the one day of the year, known about in advance, when a vehicle must meet the bare minimum standard of roadworthiness. Such a high initial failure rate at MOT demonstrates (a) the vehicles were not receiving effective maintenance and (b) by failing an MOT the vehicle has been found to be in an unroadworthy state. In turn that means the vehicle will have been in service on a public road in at least that state of un-roadworthiness previously to the MOT. You do not put your vehicle into a pre-MOT service and expect it to come out of that service in a worse condition. In other words, the failure items at MOT are not likely to be the result of any pre-MOT maintenance inspection but are likely to be faults present previously to any pre-MOT check which were not picked up/rectified at any pre-MOT maintenance check.
The VE confirmed to me that no MOTs had been undertaken since the MIVR so the MOT data at page 310 of the Master bundle is the best evidence before me as to MOT performance.
Looking at the MIVR as a whole, but specifically the prohibitions and MOT history before me, the lack of response to the MIVR and the lack of maintenance documents being sent to the VE, so an up to date picture could be presented to me, I am more than satisfied that as at the date of the public inquiry the following undertakings were being breached:
- “Drivers report promptly any defects or symptoms of defects that could prevent the safe operation of vehicles and/or trailers, and that any defects are recorded in writing”; and
- “Records are kept (for at least 15 months) of all driver reports that record defects, and all safety inspection, routine maintenance and vehicle repair reports, and that these are made available on request”; and
- “Vehicles and trailers, including hired vehicles and trailers, are kept in a fit and serviceable condition.”
Turning now to the case management directions in the calling in letter that relate to drivers hours and tachograph evidence. Again, the operator failed to supply the TE with the evidence that was requested. As a result there is no up to date supplemental statement from the TE to show whether the operator is now compliant.
The operator did supply some traffic related evidence at pages 416 onwards in the Master bundle. However, that evidence only related to one vehicle, PX18 UTT, and one driver Mr Morton. As at the date of the public inquiry vehicle SB18 DVG was still specified on the licence but no evidence in relation to that vehicle, or any of its driver(s), is before me despite former transport manager Wendy Bittles telling me in evidence that vehicle SB18 DVG was soley being used whereas vehicle PX18 UTT was only being used “as and when”.
It is also not clear what reference period the evidence for PX18 UTT relates to. What is clear is that there are very serious and serious breaches of the drivers hours rules identified. There are two instances where the analysis showed that a £300 fixed penalty (the maximum) would likely have been imposed at the roadside, two instances where a £200 fixed penalty would likely have been imposed at the roadside and three instances where a £100 fixed penalty would likely have been imposed at the roadside. In total seven fixed penalties would, in all likelihood, have been imposed.
If this operator was compliant with drivers hours and tachograph rules and regulations then no fixed penalties should ever be capable of being imposed at the roadside never mind seven for one driver driving one vehicle.
From the evidence before me I find that the following general undertaking was being breached right up to the date of the public inquiry because the rules on drivers hours and tachographs were not being observed and all of the records requested had not been made available on request:
“The rules on drivers hours and tachographs are observed, proper records are kept and that these are made available on request”
Pulling everything together I am satisfied that Mr Leake had failed to manage effectively, or at all, compliance with the undertakings detailed in this decision, he had failed to manage effectively, or at all, staff to whom responsibility for compliance had been delegated and that included in particular former transport manager Mr Hunt. Mr Leake had decided shortly after the calling in letter was received that he was not going to attend the inquiry and he decided, by positive instruction to Wendy Bittles the transport manager at the time, that evidence requested by my office in the calling in letter/case management directions was not going to be sent. As a result of Mr Leake’s failings road safety had been put at real risk.
There were some positives brought to my attention, the letter at page 155 of the Master bundle, the co-operation shown with the TE and VE, the attendance at a voluntary interview under caution, a consultant had been instructed to assist the operator, a new maintenance provider had been instructed, driving licence checks were in place and Wendy Bittles told me that toolbox talks had been completed with drivers when she was transport manager.
BALANCING EXERCISE
Looking at this operator, as at the date of the public inquiry, I have given as much credit (evidential weight) as I can for the positives. Those positives are given meaningful weight but not serious or significant weight. I have then balanced that meaningful weight for the positives against the weight I have given to the negative findings. Those negative findings carry significant evidential weight. The negatives outweigh the positives and consideration of regulatory action is required.
CONSIDERATION OF STATUTORY DOCUMENT NUMBER 10, ANNEX 4
I have then considered Annex 4 of statutory document 10 issued by the Senior Traffic Commissioner for Great Britain.
I have repeated all of my findings, including those that relate to the credit I have given to the operator. Having done so the following negative and positive features are present:
Positive:
- Operator co-operated with the enforcement investigation
Negative:
-
Deliberate or reckless acts by the operator or drivers that led to an undue risk to road safety.
-
Ineffective management control and insufficient systems and procedures in place to prevent operator licence compliance failings
-
Insufficient procedures in place to ensure appropriate use of tachograph by drivers
-
Road safety critical defects on any vehicle or trailer in service
-
High prohibition rate
-
Low average first time pass rate at MOT
I have then placed this operator into the “Severe to Serious” category for consideration of regulatory action which is defined as “Persistent operator licence failures with inadequate response or previous public inquiry.”
DECISIONS AND REASONS
I have then asked myself the Priority Freight question which, after repeating all of my findings, I have determined is proportionate to answer in the negative; from the evidence before me (and lack thereof in relation to up to date full traffic evidence and up to date full maintenance evidence) I do not trust Mr Leake (and therefore this operator) to be compliant in the future. I have then asked myself the Bryan Haulage question which, from the facts of this case as I have found them to be, I have determined is proportionate to answer in the affirmative because Mr Leake’s conduct is such that this operator ought to be put out of business. This operator has lost its good repute and it is therefore a mandatory requirement that I revoke this operator’s licence under section 27(1)(a) of the Act. The revocation of this licence will take effect at 2345 hours on 30 June 2026 to allow for a smooth winding down of the business.
The question of appropriate financial standing is nuanced and exceptional circumstances are present. I have taken into account Mr Young’s explanation that relates to his expert area of practice. I have looked at the previous bank statements and have decided to make no determination on this issue.
Turning to the good repute of the former transport managers. I have accepted that Nicola Leake was, in error, not removed from the licence when Mr Hunt became the transport manager. She is therefore issued with a written warning for her failure to ensure that she was stood down from her statutory responsibilities by being formally removed from the licence as transport manager.
In relation to Mr Hunt. On his watch as transport manager all of the serious and road safety related (maintenance and drivers hours) issues arose in relation to vehicle TW58 OTW, its trailer and driver Mr Wright occurred. For those long standing and serious failings I have determined that Mr Hunt was no longer able to satisfy the requirements set out in schedule 3 of the Act that relate to good repute and as a result he lost his good repute as a transport manager. Since he has not engaged at all with the public inquiry process there is no evidence before me to demonstrate that he has restored his good repute as a transport manager as at the date of the public inquiry. As a result, and as at the date of the public inquiry, Mr Hunt is not of good repute as a transport manager and it is therefore a mandatory requirement that I disqualify him as a transport manager pursuant to paragraph 16(2) of schedule 3.
In this case I will defer the coming into force of my decision until 2345 hours on 14 June 2026. From that time and date Mr Hunt is disqualified as a transport manager for 12 months (the minimum statutory period) until 14 June 2027.
As a rehabilitation measure, should Mr Hunt want to make an application to the Traffic Commissioner to restore his good repute at the end of his disqualification period, Mr Hunt is required to complete an in person (not virtual) transport manager CPC refresher course and to provide proof of the same.
No further action was taken against Wendy Brittles, former transport manager, for the reasons I gave in the public inquiry.
Turning next to my discretionary powers as they relate to the operator. I repeat all of my findings of fact and remind myself of the credit I have given for the positives in this case. Having done so I have determined that it is proportionate to revoke this operator’s licence under each of the following sections of the Act:
26(1)(c)(iii) For the prohibitions this operator has received including, in particular, the “S” marked and 2 x immediate road safety related prohibitions for TW58 OTW and its trailer on 18 June 2025; and
26(1)(f) The breaches to the general undertakings, that I have quoted in this written decision, right up to the date of the public inquiry.
Revocation under section 26(1)(c)(iii) will take effect at 2345 hours on 30 June 2026. Revocation under section 26(1)(f) will take effect at 2345 hours on 30 June 2026.
I have given very careful consideration to disqualifying this operator and Mr Leake under section 28 of the Act. This is an absolute borderline case but I have decided, just, to step back from taking that regulatory action.
The file will be noted that no application by this operator, or by or involving Mr Leake, can be processed under staff delegations and must be referred to a Traffic Commissioner together with a copy of this written decision.
Finally, I received correspondence recently regarding a request for a period of grace to cover the loss of professional competence since the operator has been without a transport manager since 29 April 2026. As a result of this licence now being revoked on 30 June there is no need for me to consider that application.
Traffic Commissioner Mr M Dorrington
28 May 2026.