Decision for CLEAN DESIGN & BUILD LTD (OK2028875 )
Written decision of the Traffic Commissioner for the South East and Metropolitan area for CLEAN DESIGN & BUILD LTD
PUBLIC INQUIRY
OK2028875 CLEAN DESIGN & BUILD LTD
6 OCTOBER 2026
GOODS VEHICLES (LICENSING OF OPERATORS) ACT 1995
GOODS VEHICLES (LICENSING OF OPERATORS) REGULATIONS 1995
TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER’S WRITTEN DECISION
TC DECISION
The request to surrender Licence OK2028875 is refused.
Pursuant to adverse findings under section 26(1)(b), (c)(iii), (ca), (f) and (h) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995, Licence OK2028875 CLEAN DESIGN & BUILD LTD is revoked with effect from 23:45 on Monday 12 October 2026.
CLEAN DESIGN & BUILD LTD, Nicola Mason and Gary Wayne Mason are disqualified from holding or obtaining an operator’s licence or being engaged in the management, administration or control of an entity that holds or obtains such a licence for a period of 4 years with effect from 23:45 on Monday 12 October 2026, as provided for by section 28(1), (4) and (5) of the 1995 Act.
REASONS
Background
The full history is set out in section A of the electronic hearing bundle, and I do not repeat it here. The Inquiry was listed for hearing on 6 October 2026. The Operator failed to comply with the original case management directions deadline. Exceptionally I granted a short extension to 16:00 hours on 27 September 2026 to submit documentation. On 24 September 2026 at 20:22 hours CE Transport Law Ltd confirmed that they were instructed and requested until Tuesday, 29 September 2026 to serve statements or representations. Those representations were the first time OTC became aware that nobody would be attending on behalf of the operator and effectively I was being asked to deal with the matter on the papers. Accordingly, I have done so including considering the representations signed by Gary and Nicola Mason and the evidence bundle submitted on 27 September 2026.
Consideration & Findings
At paragraph 21 in the written representations there is reference to Gary Mason and Nicola Mason being involved in health and family matters which are a “major cause of stress”. No supporting medical evidence has been produced. As that is the reason they are not attending a public inquiry it is surprising. They are fully aware that a decision will be made in their absence. From reading the representations I have a lot of questions and their absence prevents me from undertaking a proper inquisitorial process. The representations as drawn are not compelling. They raise as many questions as they answer. I set out several examples below.
Mr Mason states it was always his intention to step away from this business and leave Nicola Mason to run it (paragraph 4 representations). He claims Covid allowed him to have some respite and so he continued working in the business. This intention was never disclosed during the application process. Gary Mason was the sole director named on the application and it was Gary Mason who did the operator licensing awareness training and attended the new operator seminar. If the intention was effectively to handover the application to Nicola Mason that should have been disclosed as it would bring greater focus on her training and experience. I am entitled to know whom I’m regulating.
Gary Mason held himself out as a director throughout the application process and thereafter. At my request, OTC hearing centre added a letter signed by Mr Mason as director dated 15 July 2020 (electronic bundle page 204/205). Companies House identifies Mr Mason having resigned as a director and PSC on 31 July 2019 and from that date and time Nicola Mason was the only director and PSC. Without wider explanation this licence was obtained based on a significant number of false declarations. The case summary clearly identified this as an area I would delve into and yet there is no explanation at all for the backdating reasons and false declarations in the representations.
The operator relies on Julie Mason’s email address falling out of use several years previously as a reason for the delays/failures to respond to OTC/DVSA (paragraphs 8 and paragraph 20 of the representations). I am asked to accept that the resultant failures to respond to e mails were innocent and not deliberate. I cannot accept that. Even today Julie Mason remains the only VOL service user and it is her username, password and e mail that receives all notifications. Notifications go to that e mail address alone. This includes the continuation checklist reminder notification dated 10 July 2025. The 2025 continuation form (page 28) shows Julie Mason, and her email address is the contact address, and it was not amended at continuation. It also failed to amend the correspondence address, yet Gary Mason says challenges in receiving post were known. The call in was sent by e mail and post to addresses confirmed as accurate when the continuation checklist was uploaded to VOL by ‘Julie Mason’ on 17 July 2025 at 17:06 hrs.
Every VOL change from the start of the application up until today is done though the account linked to that e mail address. Usernames and passwords must not be shared, but even if they are the e mail address was not changed. If there is a communication from OTC waiting for an operator on VOL, notification only goes by e mail that there is a document or message waiting to the operator admin self-service user Julie Mason. If her email address was inactive or defunct then none of the notifications would have been received. This fact undermines paragraph 18 of the representations where the Operator suggests if VOL communications were sent they were dealt with promptly. It cannot be true by the very nature of how VOL communications work. I find as a fact that delays or failure to respond, whether to OTC or DVSA were done with the full knowledge of the operator; deliberate acts.
The operator has failed to comply with all the case management directions, even with the extension. No financial resources evidence has been submitted. Whilst finance was healthy earlier in the year that doesn’t mean it is now. Operators remove sometimes significant amounts of capital for many reasons and in this case, there has been a decision to wind down a business. The request to surrender the licence does not obviate the need to send in finances to a public inquiry.
Maintenance records have been sent in, but they are self-serving after failing to comply with a desk-based assessment. It has essentially bought it some time to try and put any previous compliance failings in order. There is an admission that there has been an absence of brake performance testing and there is evidence that work has been done on the brakes with no subsequent brake performance test once the brakes are bedded in. Only one roller brake test report was submitted with the records and that was dated 24 September 2026 - two weeks after its previous PMI on 10 September 2026 and also done after the original deadline to submit records to OTC.
Conclusion
I do not accept the positives listed at paragraph 24 of the representations. The only one that I can give any weight to is the 100% MOT pass rate but that is neutral as it is the one day of the year when an operator knows DVSA will see its vehicles. The other suggested positives are undermined by my findings above to a significant degree. There has been a gross breach of trust dating back to 27 November 2019 (when the application was uploaded to VOL) and ongoing as of writing this decision.
There were safety management issues with the previous licences linked to Gary Mason (pages 55 – 56d) of the electronic bundle. The application for this licence was due to be heard at public inquiry in March 2020 but instead was effectively done as a PI via correspondence due to Covid. The promises made and training undertaken should have ensured this operator stated and stayed compliant. It failed – again – another gross breach of trust.
My findings mean it is not appropriate to accept surrender because that comes with the tacit acceptance of the failings were not through any deliberate intent to obfuscate or undermine safety. This case sits squarely in the SEVERE category for STC Statutory Document No. 10 The Principles of Decision Making & the Concept of Proportionality Annex 4. My findings make it inevitable that if there was an intention to continue in business, I could not trust this operator moving forward, regardless of which Mason is the director. Revocation of this licence due to the acts and omissions of Gary and Nicola Mason is the only appropriate and proportionate outcome.
Disqualification
The legal principles behind disqualification are cogently set out in Statutory Document No. 10 paragraphs 65 - 69. In summary, whilst disqualification is not something that routinely follows revocation, it must be considered in appropriate cases. Whilst no additional feature is required, a party is entitled to know why they are being disqualified. In my judgement on the facts of this case disqualification is appropriate and necessary to maintain confidence on the operator licensing regime. The aggravating features which make it a disqualification case are:
-
I am entitled to know who I am regulating. This was misrepresented from before the licence was granted all the way through to 22 September 2025.
-
The operator has lied to me at this public inquiry through false representations. There has been a deliberate attempt to avoid DVSA and/or OTC scrutiny. The operator has clearly had access to and utilised the Julie Mason email address throughout. This must be the case through its admission that it received VOL communications in a timely way – which are simply e mail notifications advising the Operator to access VOL. There is no other explanation.
-
The ongoing unsafe operation of vehicles despite assurances in 2019/2020. Those assurances were key to grant after the serious failings identified by me when revoking the earlier Licence in December 2018 (page 55 – 56d electronic bundle).
-
My 2018 decision includes at paragraph 11 (page 56c) “…Mr Mason has attended a previous Public Inquiry and had numerous warnings. This Licence was only granted after assurances were given as to compliance moving forward…..”. Mr Mason has failed to modify or improve his behaviours for years. Mr Mason has basically said whatever is necessary to get a Licence each time and then carried on doing what suits him regardless.
In terms of the length of disqualification this may be a first public inquiry for this licence, but it is not for this limited company or Gary Mason. As a third public inquiry after numerous warnings the starting point is more than 4 years. I started, some may say mercifully, at 5 years and have reduced it by one year simply because the parties did finally engage albeit at the last second, saving some tribunal time. In the absence of oral evidence from Nicola Mason, I see no good reason to impose a different level of disqualification against her. It is open to any party to apply to vary or cancel a disqualification order as per paragraph 70 of Statutory Document No. 10. However, the starting point from Nicola Mason would be to demonstrate that she would not be “fronting” for Gary Mason if the order were varied such as to permit her to make an application at all.
It goes without saying that even at the end of the disqualification that does not mean any new licence will issue to any of those named in this decision. There will be detailed scrutiny of all the paperwork, and a hearing would be inevitable for any future application.
MISS SARAH BELL
TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER FOR GREAT BRITAIN
Issued: 8 October 2026