Decision for Chorley Travel Ltd PC2028576 and Transport Manager – Mr. Shamail Iyal Ahmed
Written Decision of the Traffic Commissioner.
IN THE NORTH WEST OF ENGLAND TRAFFIC AREA
CHORLEY TRAVEL LTD (PC2028576)
and
Transport Manager – Mr. Shamail Iyal Ahmed
WRITTEN DECISION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER
In the matter of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981
Public Inquiry held at St Helens on 23 July 2026
Decision
Under the provision of sections 17(1)(a), 17(1)(b), 17(3)(aa) and 17(3)(c) of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 (“the 1981 Act”), Operator’s licence PC2028576, held in the name Chorley Travel Ltd, is revoked with effect from 17:00 on Friday 31 July 2026.
Under the provision of Section 28(1) of the Transport Act 1985, Chorley Travel Ltd, and director Mr. Shamail Iyal Ahmed are each disqualified from holding or obtaining an operator’s licence for an indefinite period of time.
I make a finding that Mr. Shamail Iyal Ahmed has lost his good repute as transport manager. Mr. Ahmed is disqualified from acting in such capacity for any road transport undertaking for an indefinite period under the provision of paragraph 7B of Schedule 3 to the 1981 Act.
Chorley Travel Ltd holds a Standard International PSV Operator’s licence authorising five vehicles. Mr. Shamail Iyal Ahmed is both the sole director and registered transport manager. The licence was granted on 05 March 2020 and, until the issues below were uncovered, there is no known previous compliance history for the operator.
Background
On 30 August 2025 vehicle registration M16 XEC was stopped by the DVSA on Kitchen Street, Chester. The vehicle was displaying an operator’s disc in the name of Chorley Travel Ltd and the driver confirmed he was working for Chorley Travel Ltd. Analysis of the tachograph data showed some instances of driving off card, but these were not attributable to the driver on the day of the DVSA check. A DVSA investigation commenced.
Separately, this office received notification from Lancashire County Council that, on Wednesday 10th September 2025 between 0830 and 0915 at Astley Park School, it carried out compliance audits on vehicles undertaking schools contracts. A number of concerns were noted relating to PSVs operated by Chorley Travel Ltd.
Two default notices were issued by the Council:
-
In respect of vehicle FY08 XGN:
a. The vehicle was not displaying correct operator identification signs (or for PSVs, legal lettering showing the operators address) as required by relevant legislation. This is also a breach of clause 47 of appendix 6 to schedule 1 of the COTC and must be remedied within 14 days.
b. The near side sliding entry door did not open correctly from the exterior of the vehicle.
-
In respect of vehicle M16 XEC
a. The driver was unable to produce a valid driver CPC card as required by law for public service vehicle drivers operating for hire or reward. This is also a breach of clause 43 of appendix 6 to schedule 1 of the COTC and must be remedied before the driver is used again on any Lancashire County Council contract
b. The vehicle was displaying an out-of-date PSV operator’s licence disc.
As a DVSA traffic investigation had commenced, and due to the concerns raised by the council, this office requested that the DVSA also undertake a separate maintenance investigation.
On 17 December 2025 the DVSA encountered a further vehicle (LN13 HCA) again at Astley Park School. The driver stated that he was working on behalf of Chorley Travel Ltd. The vehicle was not displaying an Operator’s Licence Identity disc; the driver was unable to locate the fire extinguisher required; and the DVSA determined that the MOT certificate held for the vehicle was not suitable for a PSV being used commercially.
Investigations
On 21 January 2026 a Vehicle Examiner undertook a check of the operator’s systems to comply with maintenance requirements. The subsequent Maintenance Investigation Visit Report (“MIVR”) was concluded with a marking of “Report to OTC” – the worst scoring available.
Of thirteen areas assessed only six were considered “Satisfactory”. Two areas scored “Mostly Satisfactory” with four scored as “Unsatisfactory” and one scored as “Report to OTC”. Concerns were raised with regard to an unnotified change to the operating centre, as well as the operator’s systems for compliance in relation to: (i) Inspection / Maintenance Records; (ii) Emissions; and (iii) Wheel & Tyre Management.
On 18 February 2026 a Traffic Examiner visited the licence-holder and completed their report (“TEVR”) which considered the operator’s compliance with drivers’ hours and tachograph rules. This concluded with a rating of “Report to OTC” and a score of 21. It is noted that satisfactory findings score “0”, with a score of 1 to 5 being “Mostly Satisfactory”; 6 to 10 being “Unsatisfactory” and any score of 11 or above marked as “Report to OTC”. 21 is a score that provides reasonable cause for concern.
The report identified a significant number of issues including an unnotified change of operating centre, a vehicle being used without a valid PSV annual test, the use of three vehicles failing to display discs, and instances of driving without a card. Additionally, the TEVR found shortcomings with (i) driver licensing and training; (ii) drivers’ hours and record keeping; (iii) working time directive; and (iv) vehicle monitoring systems.
It is of further concern to this office that the traffic examiner reports that a Section 99ZA request for records was not complied with and a request for a response to the findings of the TEVR was not responded to.
Across both reports it was found that Mr. Ahmed, transport manager, did not demonstrate the appropriate levels of control.
Many of the shortcomings relate directly to areas critical for road safety and during the vehicle examiner’s inspection an Immediate prohibition notice was issued. Furthermore, this licence-holder has a concerning encounter and test history – with a five-year initial fail rate of 60% after 15 tests. This is compared to a national average of 9.79%.
As a result, a public inquiry was convened to consider whether this operator has failed to comply with the conditions and undertakings of the licence and whether the licence holder continues to satisfy the mandatory and continuous requirements to be of good repute, professionally competent and of the appropriate financial standing.
Transport Manager Mr. Shamail Ahmed was also called to consider whether he has failed in his legal duty to ensure continuous and effective management of transport operations and whether he continues to be of the required good repute.
Pre-Public Inquiry
Whilst Mr. Ahmed is both sole director and transport manager, separate notices calling the operator and transport manager to the inquiry were issued on 05 June 2026 to the given addresses for correspondence. Operator correspondence was posted to Unit K Grove Park, PR7 5TZ, and emailed to chorleytravel@[Redacted]. Transport Manager correspondence was posted to 43 Gaskell Street, PR6 0SQ, and emailed to Siahmed@[redacted]. Those letters set out the date, time and location of the hearing and included case management directions to be complied with ahead of the inquiry.
The case management directions included the requirement to notify this office of the list of attendees, and to provide updated financial evidence for assessment ahead of the inquiry. These records were to be with my office 14 days ahead of the inquiry. Additionally, the operator was directed to provide records in respect of maintenance, drivers’ hours and driver management to the DVSA for assessment 21 days ahead of the inquiry. This would allow an updated assessment of systems ahead of the public inquiry. Those case management directions were not complied with.
On 29 June 2026 the hard copy letter calling the operator to the public inquiry (sent to Unit K Grove Park, PR7 5TZ) was returned as undelivered. The Royal Mail tag stated, “Addressee Gone Away”.
My office subsequently made efforts to seek to obtain an alternative correspondence address for the operator and, on 01 July 2026, received an email from siahmed@[redacted] confirming the postal address as being 43 Gaskell Street, Chorley, PR6 0SQ. All correspondence relating to this inquiry was thereafter reissued to both the 43 Gaskell Street address and the siahmed@ email address. No further correspondence or responses were received.
Public Inquiry
The licence-holder and transport manager failed to attend the public inquiry. I first gave consideration as to whether the hearing should proceed. I took account of the guidance issued by the Senior Traffic Commissioner at paragraph 27 of Statutory Document 9, which states
The Traffic Commissioner is entitled to expect that the party called to a hearing will submit any application for an adjournment.
I have confirmed that the calling in letters were posted to the given correspondence addresses and emailed to the given address for electronic communications. As at the date of the inquiry the addresses for the licence-holder recorded on its VOL record continue to reflect Unit K Grove Park and ChorleyTravel@[redacted] and have not been updated by the operator despite being notified of the returned post.
The Upper Tribunal reminds us within 2010/056 Mohammad Islam (reaffirmed by Ocean King [2024] UKUT 333 (AAC):
It is an established principle, that the operator licencing regime relies on trust. One important aspect of that trust is that the Traffic Commissioner must be able to rely on an operator having in place
(a) an address at which he can reliably receive important correspondence, (whether it be from the DVSA, the Office of the Traffic Commissioner, the Central Licensing Office or any other significant source), and,
(b) a system which ensures that correspondence is fully answered, within any time limit which has been set, or else within a reasonable time and that if documents are requested that they are sent.
It is incumbent on an operator to ensure that the correspondence address is kept up to date (2021/504 Andrew Hopkins and Tonna Luxury Coaches Ltd). Responsibility for any failed attempts at delivery of the recorded delivery letter falls to the operator.
I give consideration as to whether there would be merit in adjourning the hearing and offering an alternative date to the operator. I am mindful, however, of the expense and efforts already afforded in setting up this inquiry; the fact that another operator has been unable to use this slot – for example, to consider an application – and that my hearing room is currently booked up until the end of September 2026 therefore any adjournment would not be brief.
I further note that the transport manager correspondence was issued to the postal and email addresses confirmed by Mr. Ahmed as accurate on 01 July 2026, and the operator correspondence was reissued to those addresses. The call up letters are also added as correspondence on the VOL system, which was last accessed by Mr. Ahmed on 25 June 2026 @ 03:39am. I am therefore satisfied that Mr. Ahmed – being director and transport manager – is aware of this inquiry and has not sought to respond to the letters or comply with any of the case management directions. Nor has an adjournment been requested.
It is noted from checks on Companies House that the Confirmation Statement for the business is overdue. This coupled with the failure to respond to this important correspondence from this office is indicative of weak corporate governance and neglect.
I conclude that good service has been made, and that Mr. Ahmed has purposefully absented himself from these proceedings. I consider that it is not in the best interests of the public or the regulated industry to adjourn this case and determine that the hearing proceeds with a decision made on the basis of the best available evidence before me.
Consideration
Good Repute
The allegations from the council and the findings from the DVSA examiner reports are of grave concern and go to the very heart of road safety and fair competition. I note that the maintenance visit was an announced visit, yet an immediate prohibition was issued at the fleet check. One of the reasons for the prohibition was that the emergency door could not be opened in one operation. It is relevant that the findings of the DVSA at the Astley School encounter included that a fire extinguisher could not be located by the driver. The combination of these two matters gives me very serious concern as to this operator’s ability to safely transport any person, let alone schoolchildren.
As set out within the DVSA examiner reports, this licence-holder’s systems fall well short of requirements, I do not aim to repeat those here. Whilst those short-comings have a negative effect on good repute, there are a number of specific features that go directly towards the issue of trust:
a. Mr. Ahmed advised the DVSA that Unit K, Grove Park was vacated in May 2025 following the termination of its lease. In an undated response to the February 2026 MIVR, Mr. Ahmed stated that immediate steps would be taken to rectify this by way of a variation application on VOL. No such application has been made. There has now been a period of some 14 months of an unauthorised place being used for the parking of vehicles with no action to rectify the issue.
b. The Traffic Examiner identified a wide range of instances where vehicles were being used without a driver card. In each case Mr. Ahmed asserted that he was using the vehicle for personal use. No evidence was provided to support those assertions.
c. Mr. Ahmed failed to comply with a request for records made under s. 99ZA of the Transport Act 1968. It transpired that the reason he could not comply with that request was that the vehicle unit records had not been downloaded for 913 calendar days. No explanation for that failure to download was forthcoming.
d. The operator failed to provide a response to the TEVR within the allocated 14 days despite being reminded by email.
The failure to attend prevents the operator and transport manager from challenging the evidence or providing mitigation. I am therefore left with no evidence that would cause me to doubt the accuracy of the council and DVSA evidence, which I accept.
Trust is a fundamental requirement of the licensing regime. This operator’s shortcomings, and failure to attend this inquiry and be held accountable for those shortcomings has created a significant absence of trust.
Finanical Standing
The calling in letter put the licence-holder on notice that I was concerned that the absence of proper systems might be caused by a failure to have appropriate financial standing. Directions to provide the most recent financial records were not complied with. In the absence of any financial evidence, I am unable to be satisfied that the requirement for financial standing continues to be met.
Transport Manager’s Good Repute and Professional Competence
The calling-in letter directed that Mr. Ahmed as Transport Manager, was to attend this hearing. The reason for doing so was in order to understand the degree to which he was capable of ensuring effective and continuous management of operations and whether the concerns raised might affect his good repute as transport manager.
The transport manager is responsible, in law, for the continuous and effective management of transport services. The evidence provided demonstrates that Mr. Ahmed has failed in that duty. The evidence includes prohibitions, a below average pass rate at MOT, missing inspection records, stretched inspection frequencies, absence of systems for wheel and tyre management, lack of driver training records, and ineffective systems for monitoring drivers’ hours and working time directives.
As a CPC Qualified Transport Manager Mr. Ahmed is also expected to be aware of, and to comply with, all conditions of the operator’s licence. He failed to ensure the notification of material changes to this office including changes of address and operating centre.
Findings
Good Repute
I consider the question posed by the Upper Tribunal in 2009/225 Priority Freight namely: how likely is it that this operator will, in future, operate in compliance with the operator’s licensing regime?” In this case I answer in the negative. I find, on the balance of probability, that the allegations of the Council and the findings of the DVSA are entirely accurate. The failures identified are extremely serious and create a direct risk to both road safety and fair competition.
Whilst these findings are, in themselves, of considerable significance I do give added weight to the operator’s failure to respond or to attend this public inquiry. In its decision on 2006/277 Fenlon, the Upper Tribunal stated:
“It has been said on many occasions that trust is one of the foundation stones of operator licensing. Traffic Commissioners must be able to trust operators to comply with all the relevant laws, rules and regulations because it would be a physical and financial impossibility to police every aspect of the licensing system all day and every day. In addition, operators must be able to trust other operators to observe the relevant laws, rules and regulations. If trust between operators breaks down and some operators believe that others are obtaining an unfair commercial advantage by ignoring laws, rules or regulations then standards will inevitably slip and the public will suffer.”
I go on to consider the question posed by the Upper Tribunal in 2002/217 Bryan Haulage namely, is the conduct such that the operator ought to be put out of business? I answer this in the positive. The negative features of this case are well laid out above and I have no positive features against which to balance.
In conclusion I find that the operator has lost its good repute. I further find that there is little to no distinction to be made between the licence holding company, and Mr. Ahmed as the sole director. Therefore Mr. Ahmed has also forfeited his good repute.
Financial Standing
In respect of Section 14ZA(2)(c) I make adverse findings as the licence-holder has failed to provide me with evidence that it continues to satisfy financial standing.
Transport Manager Good Repute
I find Mr. Ahmed has failed in his duty to ensure continuous and effective management of transport services. This has led to a very distinct and credible risk to road safety and, in particular, the safety of school children entrusted to the care of this operator. As transport manager he has also failed to ensure that the operator continued, at all times, to comply with the conditions and undertakings of its operator’s licence. I also consider the fact that he has failed to attend this public inquiry. I have considered whether a finding that he is no longer of good repute would be disproportionate and I conclude that it would not.
‘Professional Competence’
With Mr. Ahmed no longer meeting the requirement to be of good repute, and subject to a mandatory order of disqualification, it follows that this licence-holder no longer has a transport manager meeting the requirements of section 14ZA(3)(a) and, itself, no longer meets the requirements of 14ZA(2)(d).
Decision
Having made the findings above, I direct that this Standard International PSV Operator’s licence is revoked under the following provisions:
a. Section 17(1)(a) – The licence-holder no longer satisfies the requirements of sections 14ZA(2)(b) [to be of good repute]; 14ZA(2)(c) [to have appropriate financial standing]; and 14ZA(2)(d) [to be professionally competent].
b. Section 17(1)(b) – The transport manager no longer satisfies the requirement of section 14ZA(3)(a) [to be of good repute].
c. Section 17 (3)(aa) – that any undertaking recorded in the licence has not been fulfilled, namely that the licence-holder shall make proper arrangements so that: (a) the laws relating to the driving and operation of vehicles used under the licence are observed; (b) the rules on drivers’ hours and tachographs are observed and proper records kept; and (c) vehicles, including hired vehicles, are kept in a fit and serviceable condition.
d. Section 17(3)(c) - That a prohibition has been imposed with respect to a vehicle owned or operated by the holder of the licence.
I consider prompt revocation to be proportionate as the materials before me demonstrate that this is an operator that may pose a threat to road safety and should not be carrying passengers. I allow a short period of just seven days for notice of this decision to be communicated and vehicles to be taken off the road. The revocation shall therefore take effect at 17:00 on Friday 31 July 2026.
Disqualification
This is a serious case showing persistent operator licence failures with inadequate response. Having revoked the licence and found that good repute is lost, the issue of disqualification is a discretionary matter. I am conscious of the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s guidance at paragraph 65 of Statutory Document 10 that such a direction is a potentially significant infringement of rights and should not be routinely ordered. I must, however, balance this against the multitude of failings identified in this case and the road safety risk that is presented.
I conclude that a period of disqualification is appropriate and I make no distinction between Chorley Travel Ltd and Mr. Ahmed as its sole director. Given the multitude of failings and the fact that this operator did not attend the public inquiry I consider that an indefinite disqualification is appropriate. Unlike a specific period of disqualification, it is open for Chorley Travel Ltd, and Mr. Ahmed (director), to apply to have the disqualification lifted, and good repute to be restored, but they will be required to appear before a Traffic Commissioner for such an application to be considered.
Further, having concluded that Mr. Ahmed (transport manager) has lost his good repute I am required, under direction of paragraph 7B(2) of Schedule 3 of the Act, to make an order of disqualification. For the same reasons as above I direct that Mr. Ahmed is disqualified from acting as a transport manager for any road transport undertaking for an indefinite period.
David Mullan
Traffic Commissioner for the North West of England
23 July 2026