[Under appeal] Decision for Conex European Ltd (OC2073016)
Written decision of the Traffic Commissioner for the North West of England for Conex European Ltd and Philip Green, transport manager
IN THE NORTH WEST TRAFFIC AREA
CONEX EUROPEAN LTD – OC2073016
&
Mr. PHILIP KARL GREEN – TRANSPORT MANAGER
WRITTEN DECISION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER
PUBLIC INQUIRY HELD IN GOLBORNE ON 07 April 2026
DECISION:
The operator licence is revoked with effect from 23:45 on 12 May 2026 under the provisions of Sections 26(1)(a), 26(1)(b), 26(1)(c), 26(1)(ca), 26(1)(e), 26(1)(f), and of Sections 27(1)(a) and 27(1)(b) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (“The Act”).
The licence-holding company, and its sole director, Mr. Philip Green, are each disqualified, under Section 28 of the Act, from holding or obtaining an operator’s licence for a period of twenty-four months.
Mr. Philip Green has lost his good repute as transport manager and, under provision of Paragraph 16(2) of schedule 3 of the Act, is disqualified from acting as transport manager for a period of twelve months. I further direct that he is required to re-sit and pass the Transport Manager CPC qualification as a means of rehabilitation.
The application to vary the licence is refused under provision of Section 13(5) of the Act as the requirements of Sections 13A and 13C are not satisfied.
Conex European Ltd obtained its operator’s licence in May 2024 and is currently authorised for two vehicles and two trailers. In March 2025 an application was submitted to increase the authorisation to three vehicles and three trailers.
Due to a red ‘Operator Compliance Risk Score’ (“OCRS”) a review was undertaken and this identified that the company’s sole director, Mr. Philip Karl Green, may have had a relevant conviction which had not been declared on the application. A check indicates that he received a 16-year prison sentence in 2016 for drug smuggling offences. This had not been declared when he completed his application for an operator’s licence in March 2024.
A notice proposing to revoke the licence was issued to the operator on 06 March 2025 and a public inquiry was requested, as is the operator’s right. The convening of that hearing was delayed as it was thereafter notified that DVSA were undertaking a compliance investigation which could be relevant to the inquiry’s considerations.
A maintenance investigation visit was conducted by a DVSA Vehicle Examiner (“VE”) on 04 April 2025, resulting in an assessment of the licence-holder’s compliance systems scored as “Report to OTC” – the worst score available.
Of thirteen areas assessed by the VE only three were considered to be satisfactory. Eight areas were scored as “Mostly Satisfactory” with two areas scored as “Report to OTC”. The report highlighted concerns with operator systems for compliance in respect of: (i) Inspection / Maintenance Records; (ii) Driver Defect Reporting; (iii) Inspection Facilities & Maintenance Arrangements; (iv) Emissions; (v) Wheel & Tyre Management; (vi) Load Security; (vii) Prohibitions; (viii) Security; and (ix) Transport Manager / Responsible Person. Many of the shortcomings relate directly to areas critical for road safety.
Additionally, the report further identified: (i) the operator changed its maintenance provision without notifying the traffic commissioner in breach of the conditions of the licence; (ii) the operator had unlawfully used an operating centre not authorised for that purpose; and (iii) the operator had misled the DVSA regarding the parking location of vehicles – resulting in the VE commenting “As a result of some of the verbal responses made by Philip Karl Green (transport manager and director) to the statuary (sic) questions that were being put to him during the course of the maintenance investigation that were then established as being incorrect, the integrity of Philip Karl Green is at present in question”.
The licence-holder provided a written response to the DVSA findings which the VE found “covers the sections that were found to be non-compliant within the maintenance investigation report with explanations and assurances that they systems that are now in place will be compliant in the future”.
A follow up, desk-based, assessment of maintenance compliance was requested to align with an outstanding Traffic Examiner visit. This was completed on 21 December 2025 and, despite the previous explanations and assurances, was concluded with a score of “Unsatisfactory”.
Of the thirteen areas assessed it remained that only three were considered to be satisfactory. Four were scored “Mostly Satisfactory”, and six scored as “Unsatisfactory”. Whilst this demonstrated a marginal improvement concerns were raised again in relation to: (i) Inspection / Maintenance Records; (ii) Driver Defect Reporting; (iii) Inspection Facilities & Maintenance Arrangements; (iv) Emissions; (v) Wheel & Tyre Management; (vi) Load Security; and (vii) Security; (viii) Driver Training; and (ix) Transport Manager / Responsible Person. Again, many of the shortcomings relate directly to areas critical for road safety.
On 31 October 2025, a DVSA Traffic Examiner (“TE”) undertook an assessment of systems for compliance with drivers’ hours and tachograph rules. That resulted in a score of “1 – Mostly Satisfactory” which would not normally result in notice to the traffic commissioner.
Whilst the TE report was positive, the VE reports indicate a wide range of shortcomings, and a failure to make the required improvements following the initial VE assessment.
A public inquiry was therefore convened to consider Mr. Green’s conviction and the failure to declare this on application; whether the licence-holder has failed to comply with the conditions and undertakings of the licence; whether Mr. Green as transport manager was of good repute and able to ensure effective and continuous management of transport operations; and whether the licence-holder continued to meet the requirements to be of good repute and professionally competent.
Following those considerations consideration could then be given to the outstanding application to vary the licence from an authorisation of two vehicles and two trailers to five vehicles and five trailers.
Pre-Hearing
Notices, calling the operator and transport manager to the public inquiry, were issued on 24 February. These set out case management directions to be completed with, including the provision of more recent records for assessment by the DVSA. I am grateful for the provision of this information, as well as other statements, in good time for assessment and my consideration ahead of the inquiry.
Public Inquiry
The public inquiry took place on Tuesday 07 April 2026 at a temporary hearing centre at Haydock. Mr. Green was in attendance as both the sole director on behalf of the company, and as transport manager. He was supported by Mr. Paul Kimberly, a transport consultant recently engaged on an informal basis to provide advice and guidance to the operator.
At the hearing I was not impressed by Mr. Green as a witness. When addressing me in relation to a number of matters he was vague, inconsistent and – as set out below – he went as far as misleading me. In light of these issues, and noting the VE’s contemporaneous concern regarding Mr. Green’s integrity, I find, on the balance of probabilities, that aspects of his account involved deliberate misrepresentation. This finding informs the weight I am able to place on his evidence throughout this decision.
I had commenced the inquiry, as I usually do, by setting out the process, the powers available to me, and the importance of being honest. I confirmed that financial standing was satisfied and that I was content with the report from the DVSA Traffic Examiner (compliance with drivers’ hours and tachograph rules). Accordingly, my focus at the inquiry was the undeclared conviction, the maintenance reports, and the application.
Mr. Green provided a background to the business, the type of work it does and confirmed that there were two drivers – himself and another given as Mr. Dornan. I asked if Mr. Dornan was engaged as a PAYE employee and Mr. Green confirmed that he was. As is set out below, this turned out to be a false statement. This decision sets out the matters in the order they were dealt with at the inquiry.
Issues and Evidence
Undeclared Conviction
Mr. Green confirmed my understanding that he had previously been sentenced to 16 years in prison for importing Class-A drugs using a heavy goods vehicle. I was advised that Mr. Green had been convicted in October 2016 and served eight years. It was also confirmed that the conviction was not declared on the operator’s licence application, citing two separate reasons for failing to do so.
Firstly, Mr. Green felt that the matter had previously been dealt with when he addressed the conviction with a traffic commissioner in December 2021. Secondly, having previously read the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Guidance Documents, Mr. Green had been of the view that he did not have to declare any convictions that were over five years old. I have issues with each excuse.
The position from Mr. Green that the link, between his conviction and the holding of an operator’s licence, had been disclosed to, and dealt with by, a traffic commissioner is not supported in evidence. Whilst in prison Mr. Green undertook his Transport Managers CPC and applied for the reinstatement of his LGV vocational driving entitlement. On 05 November 2019 Mr. Green’s application for restoration of that entitlement was refused. Mr. Green appealed that decision to the Magistrates but that appeal was unsuccessful. It is relevant to me that, on 18 February 2020, Mr Green wrote to this office, confirming the appeal was unsuccessful, and stated “..it highlighted the importance of notifying DVLA of my incarceration”.
On Thursday 09 December 2021, following his release and a new application, Mr. Green appeared before a traffic commissioner for the consideration of his application for LGV vocational entitlement. Again, the application was refused, however, the traffic commissioner did conclude that if Mr. Green does not reoffend or give cause for concern about his driving standards then his LGV driving entitlement could be restored on 18 March 2022.
In evidence Mr. Green claims that he had a conversation with the traffic commissioner, following the conclusion of the driver conduct hearing, where the commissioner “told me that my conduct in prison had been impeccable, and he acknowledged the significant achievements I had made under challenging circumstances. He specifically noted that the level of support I had received was exceptional… The Commissioner then stated clearly that if an application for a goods vehicle operator’s licence came across his desk in the future, he would not hesitate to sign it off.”
The written decision of the traffic commissioner does not align with this version of events. The Legal framework quoted by the commissioner refers only to the Road Traffic Act 1998, and does not reference the 1995 Act which deals with operator licensing. All references within the decision sheet refer to Mr. Green as a driver and relate solely to vocational entitlement. There is no evidence to substantiate Mr. Green’s claim that any reference was made to operator licensing, let alone a positive decision on a theoretical application that was not before the commissioner.
The second reason for failing to declare the conviction was given that Mr. Green had read the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s statutory document and concluded that any conviction over 5 years did not need to be declared. It is possible that Mr. Green read Paragraph 2 of Document 0, which sets out the requirements of Section 8(4) – to provide further information. This is set out as “including” particulars of notifiable convictions that have occurred during the preceding five years “and” relevant activities carried out at any time before the application. Emphasis is my own.
If so, Mr. Green failed to continue to read the guidance which set out what relevant convictions and activities are. Mr. Green accepted that he had misinterpreted the guidance, and the conviction should have been declared on application.
DVSA Maintenance Reports
As detailed above, a vehicle examiner with the DVSA undertook a maintenance investigation visit in April 2025 which was concluded as “Report to OTC”. Only three of thirteen areas for assessment were considered to be “Satisfactory”.
Operating Centre
The findings relating to the operating centre, and the evidence presented by Mr. Green at the public inquiry give me cause for concern. At the time of the visit there were two approved operating centres. The first was Hillhouse Industrial Estate. DVSA inquiries identified that Conex European Ltd was not on the authorised tenant list, and its vehicles had not been logged as attending the site in the previous three months. The second approved centre was given as Phoenix Motors. This was confirmed by the site owner as being used for repairs, but not as an operating centre.
Mr. Green advised the VE that vehicles had, in fact been parked, at a separate location within Hillhouse Industrial Estate – a plot owned by Sid Hill Transport Limited. The DVSA were redirected to that location but found no vehicles present. A representative from ‘Sid Hill’ confirmed that, due to issues with Conex European Ltd, the agreement for parking had been rescinded.
During the DVSA interview with Mr. Green it had been mentioned that the operator was considering a move to Preese Hall Farm in the Weeton area. The VE, of his own volition, then visited that address where he found three of the operator’s vehicles parked (including one not authorised for use under the licence).
At the public inquiry Mr. Green provided inconsistent evidence of the arrangements. He disputed the comments recorded as being attributed to Phoenix Motors and Sid Hill motors, but no such challenge was made when Mr. Green first responded to the DVSA report. Mr. Green initially stated that he had visited Preese Hall Farm for work purposes and decided that it would be a good location, but this was not supported by the photographic evidence which clearly shows the company’s three vehicles carefully and purposefully parked up. Mr. Green then changed his position to state that the vehicles had only been there for a few days before the DVSA visit.
Mr. Green also presented me with a report on Environment Agency findings which he claimed explained the decision to move out of Hillhouse Industrial Estate – but this does not explain the initial decision to move to a separate location within that estate, and it does not align with the evidence provided to DVSA from Sid Hill and the Hillhouse Industrial Estate management.
It was accepted by Mr. Green that whilst he did make an application to change the operating centre from Hillhouse Industrial Estate to Preese Hall Farm, vehicles were parked there ahead of time. It was further identified that Phoenix Motors remains listed as an operating centre despite Mr. Green’s acceptance that the site is not suitable.
Having considered the documentary evidence, the photographs, and Mr. Green’s shifting explanations, I find, on the balance of probabilities, that his statements regarding the use of Preese Hall Farm were a deliberate misrepresentation designed to obscure the unauthorised use of that site as an operating centre.
Maintenance Arrangements
In a similar vein, the DVSA examiner found that the operator had specified Hibbert Vehicle Services as its maintenance provider but had two contracts with a new provider – Phoenix Motors (Wigan) Ltd – not yet notified to the traffic commissioner. Additionally, it transpired that Phoenix Motors and a further company, Archway Travel & Haulage, had been undertaking maintenance inspections. This change in maintenance arrangements had not been notified to the traffic commissioner within 28 days as per the conditions of the operator’s licence.
Compliance Systems
The report was further critical of: (1) maintenance records not being completed; (2) inspection intervals not being adhered to; (3) only 50% of inspections having a brake test/assessment; and (4) an absence of systems for wheel management, tyre management, driver defect reporting, driver training, emissions and security. The report also concluded that Mr. Green, as transport manager, had been unable to provide evidence of continuous professional development and was not undertaking effective and continuous management of transport services.
On 21 December 2025 the DVSA completed a follow up Desk-Based Assessment of the compliance systems for maintenance. Some improvements were noted. The operating centre and maintenance provider had been corrected however criticism of maintenance records remained. Additionally, the systems for wheel management, tyre management, driver defect reporting, driver training, emission and security all remained unsatisfactory or advice was considered necessary. Criticism for Mr. Green as transport manager was also reaffirmed.
Assessment of records further indicated that, at a roadside encounter dated 20 November 2024, a fixed penalty notice had been issued to Mr. Green for failure to use a tachograph record sheet or driver card, and an immediate prohibition of a trailer for an excessively worn brake pad. Mr. Green stated that he was shocked by the prohibition, but I do wonder why one would be shocked that an operation – with no systems for wheel or tyre management, ineffective maintenance systems and inadequate brake testing – would find itself in receipt of a prohibition for brake components.
In evidence Mr. Green was unconvincing as to the steps taken to improve. Questions regarding the driver defect reporting system did not receive adequate clarification and I am concerned as to the effectiveness of any training or advice given to the current or previous drivers. I was advised that following the DVSA assessment Mr. Green changed his maintenance provider, Phoenix Motors, due to the shortcoming identified. There was a contract now with a new provider, given as Skelmersdale Truckstop. When I inquired why Phoenix Motors remained specified on the VOL account, I was then informed that, in fact, Skelmersdale were not proving to be as reliable as hoped, and Mr. Green was now seeking to make amends with Phoenix Motors. Again, the evidence received was inconsistent and unconvincing.
The evidence provided was also largely unsubstantiated. Mr. Green gave an outline of improvements he said were made but provided little by way of records in support. I give some credit for the Fleet2C system, but other improvements simply are not demonstrated. A “Corrective Action Plan” was simply that, a plan. This is despite the passage of time since the initial DVSA investigation. I was told of a driver manual, but this was not provided before the inquiry and could not be located by Mr. Green during it. I was advised of additional training delivered by Mr. Green, but this gives me little confidence as I question his proficiency – being the transport manager and the other driver. I was advised of the support received from Transport Consultant Mr. Kimberley and, again, I question how effective this might be considering Mr. Kimberley confirmed at the hearing that he had yet to meet the other driver, Mr. Dornan.
Driver Employment and Control
That Mr. Kimberley was yet to meet Mr. Dornan (being one of just two drivers) is a particular concern as Mr. Dornan appears to operate in isolation. He, and the vehicle allocated to him, undertake a separate piece of work to Mr. Green. Mr. Green gave unsatisfactory evidence as to how often he meets with Mr. Dornan and, as a result of the inquiry, I am not satisfied that there is sufficient oversight or control.
When reviewing financial records it was noted that a number of people had been paid by way of bank transfer. When Mr. Green was asked about this he confirmed these included payments to some previous drivers. He states that they had been temporarily engaged on a self-employed basis. Employment was not pursued as those drivers did not work out and were no longer used. I was advised that Mr. Dornan would, however, likely work out and become an employee. This contradicted the earlier evidence that Mr. Dornan was engaged as a PAYE employee. When I inquired further it was admitted that Mr. Dornan had not, in fact, been engaged as a PAYE employee, but had been paid as a self-employed driver. What gave me further cause for concern was that Mr. Green advised me that he had previously read what he referred to as some ‘pros and cons’ of such arrangements on social media.
Given Mr. Green’s admission that he had researched self‑employment arrangements in advance, I find, on the balance of probabilities, that the arrangement with Mr. Dornan was entered into deliberately and Mr. Green’s earlier assertion that Mr. Dornan was a PAYE employee was a deliberate misrepresentation intended to avoid scrutiny of driver oversight and control.
Findings
Undeclared Conviction
For the following reasons I make an adverse finding under provision of Section 26(1)(e), namely that the licence-holder made, or procured to be made, for the purposes of his application for a licence, a statement of fact that, whether to his knowledge or not, was false.
It is an undisputed fact that Mr. Green’s conviction was not declared within Conex European Ltd’s application for a goods vehicle operator’s licence. I have identified four potential reasons for this. Firstly, that this was an unintended oversight; secondly that this was intention omission for purposes of obtaining an operator’s licence; thirdly that this was a purposeful omission by Mr. Green on his misinformed view that it did not need to be declared as per his reading of the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s guidance; or finally that it was a purposeful omission as Mr. Green felt it had already been declared and dealt with.
I find on the balance of probability that that it was intentional for the purposes of obtaining an operator’s licence. I make this finding for a number of reasons:
- Mr. Green has been dishonest in his engagement with the DVSA Vehicle Examiner during the operating centre assessment, and again with me during the public inquiry. I do not believe him to be sincere and find that his evidence cannot be taken at face value.
- Accordingly, I do not believe that there was any assurance provided by the traffic commissioner in December 2021 and the evidence certainly does not substantiate Mr. Green’s assertion.
- On any reading of the legislation the conviction is a relevant conviction being a imprisonment term exceeding three months, and the detail of the conviction is – in my consideration – such information that is likely to affect the good repute or fitness of any applicant.
- There was the clear motivation of the obtaining of an operator’s licence.
- Mr. Green provided two different reasons for the omission, stating both that he felt it was already declared and that it didn’t need to be declared. These are contradictory and are unlikely to exist side-by-side.
- The declaration does not lend itself to accidental omission, the question about convictions is answered by selecting ‘Yes’ or ‘No’.
- Mr. Green had already received correspondence from a Traffic Commissioner in 2019 stating “This conduct is entirely inconsistent with the expectations of a professional driver. Removing him from the industry for a very considerable period is inevitable”. His appeal against this decision was unsuccessful, and a further application was refused, albeit the driving entitlement was granted following a further period of rehabilitation. Mr. Green would have been wise to the difficulty that such a conviction might cause to a successful application.
- Mr. Green has previously acknowledged the need to ensure licensing bodies, at that time the DVLA, were aware of his imprisonment.
Regardless, Section 26(1)(e) of the 1995 Act makes provision for regulatory action in the circumstances that that “the licence-holder made, or procured to be made, for the purposes of…. his application for the licence,… a statement of fact that, whether to his knowledge or not, was false, or a statement of expectation that has not been fulfilled”. Emphasis is my own.
Accordingly, the false declaration in itself, regardless of intent, is such that regulatory action is discretionary. It is my considered view that – regardless of knowledge – the omission had a material affect on the decision to grant the application without further detailed consideration. That I consider the omission to be intentional is a matter that goes to the justification and proportionality of the type of regulatory action I might take.
The issue of intent is, further, a matter that affects good repute which I consider below.
Maintenance Systems
The evidence before me is such that I make adverse findings under the following legislation
- 26(1)(a) – that a place in the traffic area to which the licence relates has, at a time when it was not specified in the licence as an operating centre of the licence-holder, been used as an operating centre for heavy goods vehicles authorised to be used under the licence
- 26(1)(b) – that the licence-holder has contravened any condition attached to the licence, namely the failure to notify changes to maintenance arrangements within 28 days of their occurrence
- 26(1)(c) – that during the past five years there has been a prohibition of the driving of a vehicle of which the licence holder was the owner when the prohibition was imposed.
- 26(1)(ca) – that during the past five years there has been a fixed penalty issued to the agent or servant of the licence-holder
- 26 (1)(e) – that the licence-holder made, or procured to be made, for the purposes of (i) his application for the licence…a statement of fact that, whether to his knowledge or not, was false, or a statement of expectation that has not been fulfilled; namely (1) that the applicant had no convictions to declare; (2) stating that vehicles would normally be kept at the authorised operating centre; and (3) that maintenance would be undertaken by Hibbert Services.
- 26(1)(f) – as evidenced by the findings of the DVSA at MIVR and DBA – that any undertaking recorded in the licence has not been fulfilled; namely (1) the requirement to have proper systems to ensure Motor Vehicles and trailers, including hired vehicles, are kept fit and serviceable; (2) the requirement to have proper systems to ensure drivers report defects promptly and in writing; and (3) the requirement to keep maintenance records for a period of 15 months.
The evidence provided by the DVSA within its April 2025 report highlighted a wide range of failings. That indicated use of an unauthorised place as an operating centre, a failure to notify that change, and the change of maintenance arrangements within 28 days as per the conditions of the licence. Additionally, the assessment of records further flagged that a range of undertakings on the licence had not been fulfilled.
Some improvements were made in advance of the follow-up desk-based audit in December 2025, but insufficient progress had been made. The result was a long-term failure to comply with undertakings. A particular concern is that these had been highlighted to the operator and the operator had provided a response initially considered by DVSA to provide acceptable assurance. However, as per the words of the Upper Tribunal in NT/2013/82 Arnold Transport & Sons Ltd – actions speak louder than words. Insufficient action was taken.
As at the date of the public inquiry further improvements are noted, a plan of action had been developed, a transport consultant had been engaged, a new management system had been implemented. By Mr. Green’s own admission he was learning. The inquisitorial process, however, identified significant concerns. There was an absence of tangible evidence that improvements had been put in place, and less evidence to show that these were effective. As at the date of the inquiry it remained that undertakings were not being complied with – almost a year on from the initial DVSA assessment.
Good Repute - Operator
I make an adverse finding under s.27(1)(a) that the operator no longer satisfies the requirement to be of good repute.
I make this finding on consideration of three elements: (i) Mr. Green’s conviction; (ii) my findings in regard to the maintenance shortcomings; and (iii) Mr Green has misled both myself and the DVSA examiner. These elements are jointly and severally such that I consider loss of good repute to be a justified conclusion.
Paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 3 of the 1995 Act states
In determining whether an individual is of good repute, a traffic commissioner shall have regard to any matter but shall in particular, have regard to –
- Any relevant conviction of the individual or of his servants or agents; and
- Any information in his possession which appears to him to relate to the individual’s fitness to hold a licence
This conviction is relevant, in that it meets the definition contained within the act, consisting of a prison sentence exceeding three months and, additionally, I consider the fact that the offence involved the use of a HGV to smuggle Class-A drugs into the country to be relevant and material to Mr. Green’s fitness to hold a licence. This, in itself, is such that I find loss of good repute to be a justified and proportionate conclusion.
The maintenance shortcomings are wide ranging and long standing. This licence was granted in May 2024. Almost two years later, and after two separate reports from the DVSA, proper systems for compliance are yet to be established or shown to be effective. I accept that the unlawful use of an unauthorised operating centre has now been resolved, but the inconclusive arrangements with the maintenance provider, the absence of effective oversight, and the absence of proper systems are such that I can no longer be satisfied that this is an operator that is able to comply on a continuous and ongoing basis. The findings within the DVSA reports speak for themselves, and whilst improvements were noted within the Pre-PI Assessment, the operator has failed to provide me with adequate assurance at the public inquiry.
A component of that failure to provide adequate assurance comes from the fact that I do not trust Mr. Green and I do not accept his evidence as credible. He misled the DVSA during the April 2025 investigation leading to the examiner to declare that “the integrity of Philip Karl Green is at present in question”. During the inquiry he made a statement regarding the employment status of Driver Dornan which turned out to be false. This was only identified by the inquisitorial process and Mr. Green was unable to explain why he misled me. As stated above, I am entirely satisfied that Mr. Green was aware of the traffic commissioner concerns on self-employed drivers and purposefully misled me as a result. The significance of this cannot be overstated. Section 39 of the 1995 Act sets out that any person found guilty of knowingly making a false statement for the purpose of obtaining the issue of an operator’s licence, or obtaining the variation of a licence (noting that there is a live variation application under consideration) is liable on summary conviction to a fine up to level 4 on the standard scale.
The result of these two occasions in which Mr. Green misled officials is such that I have little confidence in his other evidence. He provided written assurances of progress but delivered little; he claimed an agreement with a former traffic commissioner to approve an operator licence application, but the evidence does not substantiate that claim. The effect of these findings is that I cannot place reliance upon Mr. Green’s unsupported assertions. Where his account conflicts with the available evidence, I find, on the balance of probabilities, that his version represents deliberate misrepresentation. Honesty is a fundamental component of good repute and, as Mr. Green is the sole director of the licence-holding company, it follows that I do not trust the company.
Good Repute - Transport Manager
I make an adverse finding under section 27(1)(b) of the 1995 Act in that the Transport Manager no longer meets the requirement to be of good repute.
The conviction which is relevant to Mr. Green director, is equally relevant to Mr. Green Transport Manager. Additionally, it is noted that the Transport Manager Application form, completed by Mr. Green, also failed to declare the conviction.
Mr. Green, in his capacity as Transport Manager, is responsible for the effective and continuous management of transport services. The evidence provided by DVSA, and the evidence obtained at the public inquiry, satisfies me to the civil standard that he has failed to do so.
Finally, the finding that I do not trust Mr. Green on account of him misleading the DVSA and myself is a matter that cannot be distinguished between Mr. Green director and Mr. Green transport manager. It was the individual that misled both, and it follows that it is the individual that has lost my trust.
CONCLUSION
On consideration of the guidance provided by the Senior Traffic Commissioner on starting points for regulatory action, as set out at Annex 4 of Statutory Document 10, I place this case within the category of “severe”.
This is not a case which is completely absent of positive features. This operator achieved a “mostly satisfactory” assessment of compliance with drivers’ hours and tachograph rules, has a 100% pass at MOT (although trailers are not included and this is where the prohibition was found), OCRS is currently Amber, and the DVSA pre-PI assessment confirms “measurable improvements” along with CPC refresher and OLAT, as well as the introduction of some systems.
These positives fail, however, to balance the significant volume of negative features. There have been persistent operator licence failures with an inadequate response. The case is pushed into the ‘Severe’ category on account of the deliberate acts which provided this operator with a commercial advantage, undermining fair competition – a matter consistently emphasised by the Upper Tribunal. These include the failure to declare the conviction and the use of an unauthorised operating centre – each of which facilitated the obtaining of an operator’s licence and the continued operation of that licence. The maintenance reports highlight absence of systems and controls, extended PMI frequency, and the operator’s five-year history includes a prohibition and a fixed penalty notice issued to Mr. Green who was at the time the driver, transport manager and director. My conclusion that Mr. Green is not a person I can trust is of significant relevance to my balancing exercise.
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? I answer in the negative. For the reasons given above I do not trust Mr. Green and I do not consider it likely that he is capable of operating in compliance with the licensing regime.
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. When balancing the positive and negative features of this case I consider any action short of revocation would be perverse in all the circumstances.
The operator licence is therefore revoked with effect from 23:45 on 12 May 2026 under the provisions of Sections 26(1)(a), 26(1)(b), 26(1)(c), 26(1)(ca), 26(1)(e), 26(1)(f), and of Sections 27(1)(a) and 27(1)(b) of the Act. This delayed revocation is set to allow a short period of time to facilitate the orderly closure of transport services.
Disqualification
Having found that Mr. Green has lost his good repute as Transport Manager I am obliged to declare that he is unfit to manage the transport activities of any transport operation. I apply the minimum disqualification period of one year and set a rehabilitation measure that he is required to sit and pass the TM CPC examination before he can again be nominated as a Transport Manager. I find that this is a proportionate period to reflect on the failings identified and for the poor choices made in his engagement with DVSA and this office.
In respect of the licence holder, and its sole director Mr. Green, I take account of the guidance provided by the Senior Traffic Commissioner at Paragraph 108 of Statutory Document number 10. This is the operator’s first public inquiry, but it is a serious case. I consider that a 24-month disqualification is justified and proportionate, sitting mid-range of the recommended starting point.
For the purpose of completion, the variation application is refused.
David Mullan
Traffic Commissioner for the North West of England
13 April 2026