Decision for CWM Transport Ltd OH2001165 and Transport Manager, Lisa Murphy
Written Decision of the Traffic Commissioner.
IN THE WEST OF ENGLAND TRAFFIC AREA
CWM TRANSPORT LTD (OH2001165)
and
TRANSPORT MANAGER: LISA MURPHY
WRITTEN DECISION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER
In the matter of the Goods Vehicle (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995
Public Inquiry held at Bristol on 10 July 2026
Decision
Pursuant to a finding of loss of good repute, Lisa Wood, nee Murphy, is disqualified from acting as a transport manager for twelve months and until she can demonstrate learning alongside a competent transport manager for a period of at least 3 months.
Pursuant to a finding of failure to manage drivers’ hours, tachographs, and to ensure vehicles are kept fit and serviceable, pursuant to Section 26(1)(f), the licence is revoked with immediate effect.
Pursuant to an adverse finding under Sections 27(1)(a) and (b), that there is no transport manager, no effective control and no professional competence, the licence is revoked with immediate effect.
Pursuant to an adverse finding of loss of good repute under Section 27(1)(a), the licence is revoked with immediate effect.
Pursuant to an adverse finding of loss of financial standing under Section 27(1)(a), the licence is revoked with immediate effect.
CWM Transport Ltd and Carl Wood are each disqualified from applying for or holding a goods vehicle’s operator’s licence indefinitely with leave to apply.
Background
CWM Transport Ltd is the holder of a standard international goods vehicle operator’s licence authorising the use of sixteen vehicles and ten trailers from sites in Newbury, Abingdon and Thatcham. Ten vehicles are shown as in possession. The sole director is Carl Wood. The licence was granted in March 2017. The transport manager from grant is Lisa Murphy.
DVSA began an investigation following ANPR sightings of vehicle FE66RUW apparently in use on the public road network four hundred and sixty-seven times over fifty-eight separate days between 1 December 2023 and 2 April 2024. DVSA wrote to the operator on 25 March 2024 asking for an explanation, referring at that point to the vehicle having been sighted “on a number of occasions”. Lisa Murphy responded on behalf of the operator saying that the vehicle had only been moved in preparation for, and to take it to, MOT.
DVSA carried out an unannounced fleet check on 27 January 2025. Of five vehicles and three trailers inspected, four vehicles and a trailer were prohibited. Defects included some which were serious and obvious, some of which had been previously noted on PMIs, not rectified yet the asset was signed-off as roadworthy. Follow-up investigations found significant shortcomings with maintenance arrangements. Tachograph analysis revealed multiple suspected false record events and extensive missing mileage across five vehicles. At least eight drivers were potentially involved, including Carl Wood. There were strong indications that driver cards were withdrawn during operation to disguise working time infringements and allow driving beyond legal limits.
With significant failings found across many compliance systems, the decision was taken to call the operator and transport manager to public inquiry. Six drivers were called to conjoined conduct hearings.
An application to surrender the licence was made. As regulatory action was under consideration, surrender was declined.
THE PUBLIC INQUIRY
Neither the operator nor the transport manager attended the public inquiry. I was satisfied as to good service using the most up-to-date contact details available. Two drivers attended conduct hearings and the remainder were dealt with in evidence. That decision is elsewhere and summarised below. Having heard from the two drivers, I decided to produce a written decision for the operator and transport manager based on the evidence within the papers.
Despite ten vehicles remaining specified, the operation does appear to have ceased. Nothing has been received in terms of pre-hearing evidence or submissions from the operator.
POST-HEARING
Over the weekend, transport manager Lisa Murphy made contact via the licensing team to say that she had not received any papers nor known that the inquiry was to take place until coming across it on a Google search. I noted that the contact details now were entirely different to those held on the licence or transport manager record. In the interests of fairness, I directed that, once identity was confirmed, I would accept representations received by 09:00 hours on 20 July 2026. That does not align with the 4 week notice in statute but I find that was satisfied by the original document service which was to the correct addresses as previously provided.
SUMMARY OF DRIVER DECISIONS
The vocational entitlement of Rafal Lozinski was suspended for 6 weeks with effect from 25 July 2026. This was for a number of events of driving having removed the driver card, making a false manual entry of rest when he was actually driving and for three drivers hours offences. Mr Lozinski received credit for being the only driver to engage with DVSA’s investigation positively and for being one of two drivers who attended the conduct hearing.
Lukasz Stawarz’s vocational entitlement was revoked with effect from 25 July 2026 and he is disqualified from holding same until 24 October 2027. That was due largely to an offence of using another driver’s card along with driving off-card.
Carl Wood’s vocational entitlement was suspended for 18 weeks with effect from 25 July 2026 for driving off-card.
Artur Wijata’s vocational entitlement was suspended for 12 weeks with effect from 25 July 2026. His situation was unusual in that no offences appeared to have been concealed. Had Mr Wijata attended either the DVSA interview or the driver conduct hearing, his suspension could have been shorter but, as it was, I had nothing to support a move away from the STC starting point.
Mohammadmoein Azizi’s entitlement was suspended for 4 weeks with effect from 26 September 2026. Whilst there were three blatant periods of driving off-card, it was Mr Azizi’s first job as a driver in a haulage business. Although he had not attended interview with DVSA, he had moved house and not received the invitation. It was clear that he has received no training nor support from either operator or transport manager and he had told them that he could not cope with the schedules he had been given.
Radu Cosmin Ilie’s entitlement was suspended for five weeks. The offences concealed by pulling the card were very much at the lower end being only five minutes each.
FINDINGS OF FACT
There has been widespread breaches of drivers hours rules including a large number of falsified records. The operator accepted in response to the DVSA investigation that they had not run missing mileage reports. In fact, vehicle units had not been downloaded at all. That is a fundamental and very serious failure. Section 26(1)(f) is made out in relation to drivers hours and tachographs and I attach significant weight.
Maintenance is no better. The SIPCAT identifies that brake performance testing was a rarity. Nearly 2 in 5 inspections were carried out late, some by a week or two, others by 12 – 16 weeks. The vast majority of PMIs identify driver-reportable defects with no associated driver defect report. Dangerous defects are identified at PMI. Safety-critical defects are identified with rectification such as “needs investigation – VOR” or “advised rebook” yet the roadworthiness declaration is signed the same day. Vehicle CF68CNN is inspected on 4 January 2025. A defect is found “eml light on”. Rectification is shown as “plugged in diagnostics and it has a fault unable to clear re gen required”. The vehicle is prohibited for the same defect three weeks later. The purpose of a “preventative maintenance inspection” seems to have passed by this operator unscathed. Section 26(1)(f) is further made out in relation to vehicles being kept fit and serviceable. I attach significant weight.
The condition of the vehicles on fleet inspection was shameful. Four of five vehicles and one of three trailers were prohibited. Section 26(1)(c)(iii) is made out and again I attach significant weight.
Not one PMI is fully compliant. The operator did not attend and so did not hear drivers tell me that they had repeatedly reported defects but no action was ever taken. Those comments were unsolicited hearsay but appear supported by the other evidence. This operation had become a shambles.
The investigation was triggered by a vehicle in use for several months without an MOT. The transport manager’s explanation that the movements were purely in relation to MOT preparation were clearly a barefaced lie with the vehicle having been sighted 467 times across 58 days in a 4-month period. The initial visit in January found a vehicle not to be taxed and to have been used on the roads without tax for several months. It is clear that there has been no effective management of compliance systems in this operation at all.
In relation to the legislation cited in the call-up, I can see no evidence of a breach of licence conditions and Section 26(1)(b) is not made out.
CONSIDERATION AND DETERMINATION
I turn to Ms Murphy’s good repute as transport manager. She has submitted representations. She tells me that her relationship with Mr Wood, [REDACTED] failed in February 2025. She tells me that she had asked for further support as transport manager but that had been denied. The DVSA maintenance report identifies that Ms Murphy was appointed a director of the business, that having effect from December 2024. She resigned on 17 February 2025. I note from Companies House that both changes were recorded promptly. There does appear to have been a period when the couple became overwhelmed by the expansion of their business. I do give them both credit for realising that and standing down. But a transport manager qualification is a powerful tool and needs to be managed. Ms Murphy did not take action to identify the many falsifications nor to ensure that vehicles were properly maintained. As transport manager, it is not obvious what she did actually contribute. The false statement in response to DVSA’s request for an explanation of the use of a vehicle without MOT is inexcusable for a transport manager. I find her good repute is lost. Rehabilitation needs practical not classroom support. Section 27(1)(a) is made out.
Finally, I turn to the good repute of the operator and the action that must be taken. I look first at the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document No 10 on proportionality. Helpful starting points can be found in Annex 3. The actions here are clearly deliberate – it was planned and permitted negligence: It had significant road safety and fair competition impact. It was supported with a lie on behalf of the company in respect of the untested vehicle.
I look for positive features. Without attendance of any party, they are hard to find. The only one is the winding down of the business. In the circumstances, that can be seen as a strong positive if it happened straightaway, and I have no evidence to contradict that.
The two leading questions in the cases of Bryan Haulage (No.2) (2002/210) and Priority Freight (2009/225) are somewhat irrelevant in this case but it is helpful to answer them in relation to the parties’ future involvement in transport operations.
No, this is not an operator I could trust to be compliant in the future even had it not ceased operations. And yes, it posed such a risk to road safety and fair competition that it deserved to be brought to an end. Repute is lost and revocation mandatory.
Disqualification is not automatic but nor does it require any additional feature. The issue here is that Carl Wood has not attended the public inquiry where I have found serious fundamental failures of compliance. Before he can be permitted to operate again, explanations are essential. The only action I can take to ensure that happens is to disqualify this operator and director until they satisfy a Traffic Commissioner that any future operation can be compliant.
No financial evidence was provided. Section 27(1)(a) is made out in relation to financial standing. Revocation is mandatory.
DECISIONS
Pursuant to a finding of loss of good repute, Lisa Wood nee Murphy is disqualified from acting as a transport manager for twelve months and until she can demonstrate learning alongside a competent transport manager for a period of at least 3 months.
Pursuant to a finding of failure to manage drivers’ hours, tachographs, and to ensure vehicles are kept fit and serviceable, pursuant to Section 26(1)(f), the licence is revoked with immediate effect.
Pursuant to an adverse finding under Sections 27(1)(a) and (b), that there is no transport manager, no effective control and no professional competence, the licence is revoked with immediate effect.
Pursuant to an adverse finding of loss of good repute under Section 27(1)(a), the licence is revoked with immediate effect.
Pursuant to an adverse finding of loss of financial standing under Section 27(1)(a), the licence is revoked with immediate effect.
CWM Transport Ltd and Carl Wood are each disqualified from applying for or holding a goods vehicle’s operator’s licence indefinitely with leave to apply.
Kevin Rooney
Traffic Commissioner
20 July 2026