Decision for Darren Sheen
Written decision of the Deputy Traffic Commissioner in the West Midlands for Darren Sheen, transport manager
IN THE WEST MIDLANDS TRAFFIC AREA
DARREN SHEEN TRANSPORT MANAGER
Linked – Fusion Engineering (Staffordshire) Ltd OD2050406 licence revoked 19 December 2025
DEPUTY TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER’S DECISION
Decision
Pursuant to adverse findings under sections 26(1)(b), (c)(iii), (e), (f) and (h) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (GVLOA 1995) in relation licence OD2050406 formerly held by Fusion Engineering (Staffordshire) Ltd whose licence was revoked on 23:45 hours on 19 December 2025. Mr Darren Sheen has lost his good repute as a transport manager pursuant to Schedule 3 paragraph 1 of the GVLOA 1995. Under paragraph 16(2) of that Schedule, he is disqualified from acting as a transport manager on any operator’s licence for a period of two years with effect from 23:45 hours on 20 February 2026
Background
This inquiry was called to consider the repute of transport manager, Mr Darren Sheen, It was listed for 2.00pm on 27 January 2026 and followed my decision of 15 December 2025 to revoke the standard goods vehicle operator licence no OD2050406 held by Fusion Engineering (Staffordshire) Ltd under sections 26(1)(b), (c)(iii), (e), (f) and (h) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (GVLOA 1995), a copy of which is annexed to this decision. As part of my earlier decision, I disqualified the operator and Mr Sheen as its sole director from obtaining an operator’s licence for two years. The reasons for the revocation and disqualification were that the operator had lost its good repute as an operator due to a number of shortcomings relating to maintenance, driver defect, load security and driver responsibilities. It had also failed to demonstrate that it had sufficient financial resources.
Although Mr Sheen was the transport manager for the operator at the time of the revocation, he had not been called to the inquiry. However, in the light of my decisions for the operator and director, I was of the view that he should be called to an inquiry to consider his repute as a transport manager.
The history of this matter is summarised in my decision of 15 December 2025, and I need not repeat this. The call-up letter of 22 December 2025 [7-17] notified Mr Sheen of the extent and nature of the inquiry and that if it was decided that he was no longer of good repute then it would be necessary to disqualify him from acting as a transport manager under paragraph 16(2) of Schedule 3 of the GVLOA 1995.
On the afternoon before the inquiry (26 January 2026) Mr Sheen emailed the Office of the Traffic Commissioner (OTC) as follows:
Dear Traffic Commissioner,
I am writing regarding my scheduled appointment.
Unfortunately, due to my REDACTED
I apologise sincerely for any inconvenience this may cause and would be grateful if the appointment could be rearranged or if you could advise on the next appropriate steps. I am committed to cooperating fully and will attend as soon as I am medically able to do so.
Thank you for your understanding and consideration.
Darren Sheen
Mr Sheen was asked to provide evidence of his inability to attend prior to the hearing but he did not do so. I delayed the start of the hearing until 2.15pm to provide a final opportunity for Mr Sheen to attend the hearing. In his absence, I proceeded with the hearing and reserved my decision.
Determination
Having regard to the findings in my decision of 15 December 2025, I find that Mr Sheen has lost his repute as a transport manager. In particular, I find that he was responsible as a transport manager for the failings and shortcomings of the operator since his appointment as its transport manager on 29 May 2025 and included a failure to demonstrate that any of the promises made in his response of 29 May 2025 [165-175] to the DVSA maintenance investigation visit report materialised. Moreover, Mr Sheen, as the transport manager and sole director of the company failed to comply with clear directions sent by the OTC for the inquiry including a failure to give any indication that the operator may have financial standing. It is also the case that in relation to the DVSA traffic examiner’s visit report Mr Sheen provided a statement of 19 May 2025 [189-190] which sought to avoid all responsibility as a director and operator for the failure to record a vehicle on his licence by stating: “… at the time, I was not the nominated Transport Manager …”. He did not acknowledge that he was that operator’s sole director at the time.
Finally, as a result of Mr Sheen’s responsibility as a sole director of an operator that has been found to have breached a number of provisions of the GVLOA 1995 as found in my decision of 15 December 2025, I am of the view that Mr Sheen in his role as transport manager has not demonstrated continuous and effective management of an operator’s licence. On this last point I refer to the Upper Tribunal decision in LA & Z Leonida t/a ETS [2014] UKUT 0423 (AAC) which noted that:
-
- … it does not matter whether an operator’s licence is held by an owner operator, a partnership or a limited company because in each case the person or persons responsible for managing the business bear the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that the road transport aspect of the business operates in compliance with the regulatory regime. That means that they cannot plead ignorance or put the blame on the transport manager because they are required to have sufficient knowledge of the regulatory regime to ensure compliance in general and the proper performance of the transport manager’s duties in particular.
In the light of the above, I find that Mr Sheen has lost his repute as a transport manager. Having reached this decision on repute I turn to the question of disqualification under section 28 of the GVLOA 1995. I have regard to the paragraph 65 of Statutory Document 10 which notes:
- “… Disqualification is a potentially significant infringement of rights96 and the Upper Tribunal has indicated that whilst there is no ‘additional feature’ required to order disqualification it is not a direction which should be routinely ordered.97 There may be cases in which the seriousness of the operator’s conduct is such that a traffic commissioner may properly consider that both revocation and disqualification are necessary for the purposes of enforcing the legislation.98 … The case law indicates a general principle that at the time the disqualification order is made that the operator cannot be trusted to comply with the regulatory regime and that the objectives of the system, the protection of the public and fairness to other operators, requires that the operator be disqualified.99 A clear example of this is when an operator fails to attend a public inquiry after an application to adjourn the hearing has been refused.100
In my view, the need for trust applies as much to transport managers as it does to operators. Further, in my earlier decision I noted that Mr Sheen as the operator’s sole director (and current transport manager) had failed to acknowledge his responsibility in any of the failings found. Instead, he had sought to suggest that they were not his fault because he was not the transport manager at the relevant time. I explained that it was unacceptable in trying to pass the blame onto another as noted in Leonida, and in any event that it did not explain the more recent failings. The failings in the MIVR and TEVR involved matters relating to road safety including e.g. inadequate maintenance and driver control and this too went to my decision towards disqualification. I take the same view and approach in considering Mr Sheen as a transport manager as I did with him as the operator. Accordingly, I disqualify Mr Sheen from acting as a transport manager for two years. This will provide sufficient time to him for reflection on the events leading up to his disqualification and to how he may do things differently and in compliance with the regulatory regime should he choose to return to being a transport manager in the future.
Finally, as noted above, Mr Sheen did not provide the evidence requested to support his application to adjourn the hearing prior to the hearing. In the circumstances, I will delay my decisions for a period of seven days to give Mr Sheen the time and opportunity to send to the OTC full and substantiated evidence as to why he was unable to attend and give evidence to the latest hearing on 27 January 2026. If he does not provide such evidence after seven days, then my decisions will come into effect.
10 February 2026
Dr Paul Stookes
Deputy Traffic Commissioner