Decision for Darren Robert Bushell T/A Premier Scaffolding Application OC2085230
Written reasons of the Traffic Commissioner of the North West of England for Darren Robert Bushell T/A Premier Scaffolding
IN THE NORTH WEST TRAFFIC AREA
DARREN ROBERT BUSHELL t/a PREMIER SCAFFOLDING APPLICATION OC2085230
WRITTEN REASONS OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER
PUBLIC INQUIRY HELD IN GOLBORNE ON 07 JANUARY 2025
DECISION
This application for a goods vehicle operator’s licence is refused under provision of section 13(5) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (“the Act”), as the applicant has failed to satisfy the requirements of section 13B, and 13C and of the Act.
This is an application for a Restricted Goods Vehicle Operator’s licence in the name of Darren Robert Bushell seeking authorisation for 1 vehicle and 0 trailers. Mr. Bushell is a sole trader under the trading name Premier Scaffolding. As with all applications, the burden lies with the applicant to satisfy the Traffic Commissioner that they meet all relevant statutory requirements in order to obtain a licence.
Mr. Bushell previously held Operator licence OC1144522. That licence was revoked at public inquiry in February 2018 which found that (i) the licence-holder had used an operating centre, not approved for such use, for a period of some 18 months despite being put on notice of the need to submit a variation application; (ii) no preventative maintenance inspections had been carried out within the first 15 months of the licence being granted; (iii) two inspections completed ahead of the public inquiry were outside the specified inspection period and defects identified were not rectified; (iv) no driver defect reporting was taking place; and (v) there was no forward planning in place.
The Traffic Commissioner at that time concluded that this amounted to recklessness which will have placed road safety at risk. In conclusion the Traffic Commissioner offered the following advice to Mr. Bushell should a future application be pursued:
a. To undertake an Operator’s Licence Awareness Training (“OLAT”) course, at his own expense before making any further application; and
b. To make arrangements likely to be effective to employ staff capable of supporting him in strict compliance with licence requirements.
In January 2021 a new application was made. That application was initially incomplete and further records were requested by this office. This included:
a. The required advertisement to support the operating centre application.
b. Financial evidence to support the application.
c. An explanation of steps taken to improve ability to manage transport compliance and systems to prevent recurrence of previous issues.
d. Evidence of attendance at OLAT – as per the previous Traffic Commissioner recommendation.
e. Evidence of arrangements to employ staff capable of supporting – as per the previous Traffic Commissioner recommendation.
As no response was forthcoming a reminder was issued on 17 February 2021. Again, no response was provided and the application as subsequently withdrawn by Mr. Bushell with no explanation and no further evidence.
This current application was first submitted on 29 August 2025. As before, the application was incomplete. A letter was sent to Mr. Bushell requesting further evidence to support the application. This replicated the shortcomings on the 2021 application:
a. The required advertisement to support the operating centre application.
b. Financial evidence to support the application.
c. An explanation of steps taken to improve ability to manage transport compliance and systems to prevent recurrence of previous issues.
d. Evidence of attendance at OLAT – as per the previous Traffic Commissioner recommendation.
e. Evidence of arrangements to employ staff capable of supporting – as per the previous Traffic Commissioner recommendation.
On this occasion a response was received, and advertising and financial evidence was provided. The response did not, however, offer any assurances or evidence as to how Mr. Bushell would improve transport management compliance. Furthermore, it inferred that he would not be following the recommendation to employ staff capable of supporting him, and it confirmed that he had not undertaken the OLAT course but would be willing to do so only “if the commissioner requires it”.
On 30 September 2025 the application was proposed for refusal. Correspondence was then received, referencing available assistance from a transport compliance consultant and evidence of an OLAT course completed by Mr. Bushell, and an employed family member, on 28 October 2025.
As a result the application was directed for consideration at a public inquiry.
Pre-Public Inquiry
Notices calling the applicant to the inquiry were issued on 28 October 2025, by both post and email, to the given addresses. That letter sets out the date, time and location of the hearing and included case management directions to be complied with ahead of the inquiry. Those case management directions were not complied with.
The case management directions required that Mr. Bushell provide this office, not later than 14 days before the inquiry, the following evidence:
a. Any representations or witness statements in support of the application;
b. Details of proposed vehicle maintenance systems;
c. Details of how he will comply with the laws regarding drivers’ hours including evidence of proposed systems for driver licence checks, continuous professional development and recruitment and disciplinary processes for drivers and managers;
d. Evidence as to how transport operations have been met since the previous licence was revoked in 2018; and
e. Evidence of ownership for vehicle NK66LVZ, along with date of purchase.
I understand that, on 05 January 2025, just two days head of the public inquiry, Mr. Bushell attempted to provide my office with the form confirming attendance, a vehicle registration document (V5C), and page 1 of a two-page bank statement.
Mr. Bushell was advised to prepare and present this late evidence directly to the public inquiry as the scanned images were not legible. It is noted that Mr. Bushell first accessed the electronic bundle on 29 October 2025 and therefore had a period of nine weeks to provide the evidence requested or to contact my hearing centre for assistance.
Public Inquiry
Mr. Bushell attended the public inquiry and provided limited evidence in support of the application. He provided me with the bank statement above, the V5C, and a letter from a maintenance provider confirming that vehicle NK66LVZ had been VOR’d since purchase following a failed MOT and brake issue. Further work on that vehicle was held pending the outcome of this inquiry.
On the basis of this evidence I am satisfied that, on the balance of probability, the vehicle has not been used without an operator’s licence and financial resources are available. Unfortunately for Mr. Bushell, that was the limit of positive features.
Mr. Bushell advised me that he had not properly read or take account of the February 2018 public inquiry decision. The subsequent applications had been completed by a friend and Mr. Bushell admitted to signing the current application declaration without reading it or giving it proper consideration.
He provided limited verbal evidence of systems for maintenance and provided no material evidence. This is disappointing as he tells me that he currently runs two 3.5t vehicles and these are maintained by the same proposed maintenance provider – as such evidence ought to have been available. I was also made aware of proposed engagement with a transport consultant, but no confirmation of what that arrangement would entail beyond regular visits.
The same can be said in regard to the need to have proper systems for managing drivers, drivers’ hours and working time records – limited verbal evidence and no material evidence.
Consideration
Whilst on paper Mr. Bushell might appear dismissive and flippant, in person I found him to be amicable and conscientious. This appears to be a person currently out of their depth and in need of support. I can fully understand the decision given in 2017 and I fear little has changed since then. Mr. Bushell has since obtained an OLAT certificate but clearly needs additional support. He tells me that the 2021 application was withdrawn because work did not materialise, but he should have notified this office. He obtained assistance in preparing this more recent application but failed to follow that through until long after the deadline for providing material for public inquiry. The evidence that was provided on the day was completely inadequate.
As stated above, in the case of an application the burden lies with the applicant to satisfy the Traffic Commissioner that all mandatory requirements are satisfied. In this instance the applicant has been put on notice of my concerns.
“Section 13B - Fitness”
The applicant’s previous revocation is a matter of concern and his failure to adequately communicate with this office has continued from the 2021 application right up to the day of this inquiry. The failure to comply with case management directions, and the failure to act on the 2017 advice from the presiding commissioner, give me no confidence that this is an applicant that I can currently trust to comply with the licensing regime. That he signed the declaration without considering its contents or understanding its importance, is a further relevant fact.
“Section 13C – Compliance with Undertakings and Conditions”
The calling-in letter set out my case management directions which included the requirement to provide evidence that this applicant has proper arrangements to comply with the requirements of Section 13C. These are often referred to as the requirement to comply with the conditions and undertakings of the operator’s licence. It includes, among other things, arrangements to comply with the laws regarding drivers’ hours and the facilities and arrangements to maintain vehicles in a fit and serviceable condition.
The calling-in letter set out my case management directions which included the requirement to provide evidence that this applicant has proper arrangements to comply with the requirements of Section 13C. These are often referred to as the requirement to comply with the conditions and undertakings of the operator’s licence. It includes, among other things, arrangements to comply with the laws regarding drivers’ hours and the facilities and arrangements to maintain vehicles in a fit and serviceable condition.
Decision
This application for a Restricted Goods Vehicle Operator’s licence is refused under provision of Section 13(5) as the applicant has failed to satisfy the following requirements:
a. Section 13B – The traffic commissioner must be satisfied that the applicant is not unfit to hold an operator’s licence.
b. Section 13C – The traffic commissioner must be satisfied that the applicant has the appropriate arrangements to meet the requirements to hold an operator’s licence.
“Section 13B - Fitness”
I give the direction in respect of Section 13B in consideration of 2013/007 Redsky Wholesalers Ltd which sets out that Fitness is not a significantly lower hurdle than good repute and links fitness to trust. That decision invites a Traffic Commissioner to consider the ‘Priority Freight Question’ in cases relating to Restricted licences. The question, posed in 2009/225 Priority Freight is, “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. As set out above, this is an operator with long standing issues, and the failure to comply with directions from this office is such that I have little positive features against which to balance.
I do note, in the positive, that Mr. Bushell has attended OLAT training and has indicated an intention to engage a transport consultant. This does not, however, outweigh the negative features or satisfy the concerns set out above. I therefore do not consider the applicant has satisfied me that it is fit to hold an operator’s licence.
“Section 13C – Compliance with Undertakings and Conditions”
In respect of Section 13C I make adverse findings as the applicant has failed to provide me with evidence that the requirements are met. The burden lies with it to satisfy me that it meets the relevant statutory requirements, and it has failed to do so. I note particularly the failure to provide sufficient evidence of facilities, systems or procedures to comply with the requirements of section 13C despite being put on notice of the requirement to do so.
Section 13(5) of the 1995 Act directs that, if the traffic commissioner determines that any of the requirements that the commissioner has taken into consideration are not satisfied the commissioner must refuse the application (emphasis is my own). Accordingly, this application is refused.
It remains open for Mr. Bushell to reapply. I ask him to give careful consideration before doing so. Like all businesses he has a choice to either use smaller vehicles which are out of scope of operator licencing (noting that he remains responsible for their safe use) or he can choose to use larger vehicles. Should he opt for the latter, then he is required to enter the occupation of road transport operator and accept all the responsibilities that this brings. He must prepare himself for those responsibilities and ensure he is equipped to submit a fully completed application first time, provide evidence of rehabilitation, and provide adequate evidence of proper systems for compliance. I reiterate the previous advice of the previous traffic commissioner that Mr. Bushell should make arrangements to employ or engage those capable of supporting him in strict compliance with licence requirements.
David Mullan
Traffic Commissioner for the North West of England
07 January 2025