Decision for David Butler OC2019549
Written Decision of the Traffic Commissioner.
IN THE NORTH WEST OF ENGLAND TRAFFIC AREA
DAVID BUTLER (OC2019549)
WRITTEN DECISION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER
In the matter of the Goods Vehicle (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995
Public Inquiry held at St Helens on 21 July 2026
Decision
Under the provision of sections 26(1)(e), 26(1)(f) and 26(1)(h) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 [“the 1995 Act”], this licence is revoked with effect from 23:45 on 18 September 2026.
Mr. David Butler is disqualified from holding or obtaining an operator’s licence for a period of twelve months, commencing at 23:45 on 18 August 2026, as provided for by section 28(1) of the 1995 Act.
Introduction
Mr. David Butler holds a Restricted Goods Vehicle Operator’s Licence authorising 1 vehicle. Mr. Butler operates as a sole trader, and the licence was first granted on 07 February 2019.
The VOL record for the licence holder lists a single operating centre, recorded as “Builders Yard, Denton, M34 3LY”, and preventative maintenance inspections are said to be carried out by MFS Commercials Ltd at six-week intervals.
Background
Since this licence was granted Mr. Butler has been called to attend two previous public inquiries.
The first, dated 26 March 2024, concluded with a warning and the recording of agreed undertakings for (1) the provision of finances, and (2) an independent audit of Mr. Butler’s systems for compliance.
The independent audit was received on 26 November 2024, however, this identified a significant number of weaknesses with high numbers of ‘red’ recommendations across both maintenance and drivers’ hours. Shortcomings recorded at that time included a lack of formal systems, poor record keeping, inadequate defect reporting, insufficient monitoring of PMIs and drivers’ hours, and limited evidence of effective compliance management. Despite the operator’s response claiming tachograph exemption for most work, completion of online training, and the introduction of some new procedures; concerns remained regarding the effectiveness, consistency and oversight of new systems and the operator’s ability to ensure compliance on an ongoing basis.
As such, a further public inquiry was convened on 25 February 2025. It is relevant that the presiding traffic commissioner raised concerns at that inquiry with safety inspection frequencies being stretched and an absence of effective driver defect reporting. A further warning was issued and a further undertaking agreed for an independent compliance audit during “January or February 2026”.
The operator failed to fulfil the terms of that undertaking and no audit was provided to this office. Subsequently, on 23 April 2026, a letter proposing to revoke the licence was issued due to the failure to fulfil the undertaking.
The following day a copy of an audit, dated 20 April 2026, was submitted. In explanation of the lateness Mr. Butler claimed to have been awaiting confirmation from the Traffic Commissioner as to when the audit was to be completed – this is despite the timing being recorded within the public inquiry decision letter (dated 26 February 2025). In response to the ‘Propose to Revoke’ letter Mr. Butler requested a public inquiry.
The findings of the April 2026 audit indicated that little improvement had been made by this operator despite the previous interventions of the Traffic Commissioner. Amongst the wider areas of non-compliance, it is notable that inspection frequencies continue to be extended and driver-reportable defects recorded on PMI documentation are not supported by corresponding daily walkaround records.
Accordingly, this third public inquiry was convened to consider whether undertakings and conditions are being complied with, and whether there has been a material change in the circumstances of the licence holder since the licence was granted, namely that the licence-holder may no longer satisfy the requirement to be not unfit to hold an operator’s licence and whether the maintenance shortcomings result from an absence of appropriate financial resources.
Pre-Hearing
A letter calling the operator to a public inquiry was issued by post and email to the given addresses. This set out the location, date and time of the public inquiry. It also provided a number of case management directions which included (i) the need to respond to this office to confirm who will be in attendance; (ii) a requirement to provide evidence of available finances 14 days prior to the hearing date; and (iii) a list of maintenance, traffic, and driver management documents to be provided 14 days prior to the hearing date. None of these case management directions were complied with.
Public Inquiry
The public inquiry took place on Tuesday 21 July 2026 with Mr. Butler in attendance.
I commenced by seeking to understand why case management directions had not been complied with. Mr. Butler was unable to offer any explanation and simply apologised – repeatedly - for failing to provide any response to the calling-in letter and for failing to provide the requested records.
Undertakings and Conditions
An operator’s licence is granted with undertakings and conditions. These are laid out on the application form, within declarations to be signed by the operator, and recorded on the licence itself. Section 26 of the 1995 Act invites a Traffic Commissioner to consider the appropriateness of regulatory action should those conditions not be complied with, or should the undertakings not be fulfilled.
As stated above, a first independent audit was received on 26 November 2024 highlighting a significant number of weaknesses with high numbers of red recommendations across both maintenance and drivers’ hours. Shortcomings included a lack of formal systems, poor record‑keeping, inadequate defect reporting, insufficient monitoring of PMIs and drivers’ hours, and limited evidence of effective compliance management.
The operator provided a response which claimed tachograph exemption for most work, advised of online training being completed, and referred to the introduction of some new procedures. The commissioner assessing the report and the response retained concerns regarding the effectiveness, consistency and oversight of new systems and the operator’s ability to ensure compliance on an ongoing basis. The assessment of the Commissioner, presiding over the 25 February 2025 inquiry concluded that legitimate concerns remained in respect of stretched safety inspection frequencies and an absence of effective driver defect reporting.
The April 2026 audit identified a further range of non-compliance. A review of maintenance systems found a continuation of stretched inspection intervals, a failure to consistently include brake performance evidence within PMI records, and repeated driver-reportable defects without evidence of root cause resolution. Those driver reportable defects were not supported by corresponding daily walkaround records and only one recorded defect report since 24 June 2025 was evident, raising auditor concerns regarding the effectiveness and consistency of daily defect reporting. On drivers’ hours and working time, the auditor found no systems for downloading and analysing tachograph data.
In addition, the audit report found that the operator does not have a formal tyre and wheel management policy, a driver licence checking procedure, an eyesight testing procedure, a formal VOR procedure, nor a safety recall procedure.
The report was concluded as unsatisfactory as, whilst basic compliance systems are in place, they are not sufficiently robust or consistently applied. The report demonstrates that the licence-holder does not have proper arrangements to ensure that: (1) vehicles are kept fit and serviceable; (2) the rules on drivers’ hours and tachograph rules are observed and proper records checked; and (3) drivers report promptly any defects. Additionally, it highlights that the licence-holder has not fulfilled the statement of expectation given on application, being that vehicles would be inspected at six-weekly intervals.
The purpose of the inquiry is to afford Mr. Butler an opportunity to respond to the findings of the auditor and to provide records and evidence to demonstrate that the audit was in some way not reflective of systems, or that sufficient improvement had since been made.
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 conditions and undertakings of the operator’s licence. These compliance matters go to the very heart of road safety and fair competition.
The absence of evidence ahead of the inquiry permits the inference that the records either do not exist, are incomplete, or do not materially assist the operator’s case. Mr. Butler, in evidence, confirmed that the position identified by the audit was reflective of the reality of the situation and that whilst he accepted the failings, he would strive to improve going forward. Mr. Butler also promised to attend a future operator licence training course. When asked why the issues identified by the traffic commissioner in February 2025, and repeated within the April 2026 audit, had not been resolved, Mr. Butler again repeated his apologies but provided no evidence of even preparatory steps being taken.
He accepted that defects were not recorded in writing, that inspection intervals had been stretched because vehicles were being used for business purposes, and that he was unaware of any need to monitor or review inspection records. When I took him through the undertakings recorded on his licence he accepted that he had fallen short.
Financial Resources
Ahead of the inquiry the licence-holder was required to provide evidence of financial resources. No evidence was forthcoming. In the case of a restricted licence the financial requirements of s13D of the 1995 Act are discretionary. In this instance I find it to be a relevant consideration because inadequate maintenance compliance may indicate that the operator lacks the financial resources necessary to maintain vehicles in a fit and serviceable condition.
The failure to provide evidence of current finances ahead of the inquiry, as set out in the call-up letter, invites me – in accordance with normal evidential principles – to draw the reasonable inference that finances have not been made available because the required resources are not available. At the inquiry Mr. Butler made no attempt to provide evidence on the day or to state that, despite the absence of evidence, that required financial resources were, in fact, available to him.
Fitness
In 2013/007 Redsky Wholesalers Ltd the Upper Tribunal held that that fitness is not a significantly lower hurdle than the requirement to be of good repute. In considering the fitness of this licence-holder I have regard to the following features:
a. This is the third time the operator has been called to attend a public inquiry since the licence was granted in February 2019.
b. The case management directions have not been complied with.
c. The findings of the audit, and the evidence provided verbally at the inquiry, demonstrate that Mr. Butler has failed to make the improvements necessary to resolve the previous non-compliance.
d. Mr. Butler gave a specific undertaking to a traffic commissioner at a public inquiry and failed to fulfil that undertaking within the time-frame agreed.
e. Mr. Butler has taken insufficient steps towards remedying the issues identified by the previous public inquiry (February 2025), and repeated within the recent audit (April 2026).
Findings
The findings of the audit, which have not been disputed or supplemented with explanation or improvement, are matters that give rise to road safety concerns. I remind myself that Mr. Butler specifically requested this public inquiry following the ‘propose to revoke’ letter, yet he has taken no steps towards compliance in advance of it.
As the Upper Tribunal reminds us, at paragraph 13 of NT/2013/82 Arnold Transport & Sons Ltd, “Actions speak louder than words”:
“The attitude of an operator when something goes wrong can be very instructive. Some recognise the problem at once and take immediate and effective steps to put matters right. Others only recognise the problem when it is set out in a call-up letter and begin to put matters right in the period before the Public Inquiry takes place. A third group leave it even later and come to the Public Inquiry with promises of action in the future. A fourth group bury their heads in the sand and wait to be told what to do during the Public Inquiry.”
At the public inquiry Mr. Butler offered nothing beyond apologies and some promises of future improvement. He offered no explanation as to how those improvements might be implemented and had no plan for taking forward the recommendations of the audit. I also noted that no work had commenced to make improvements despite the passage of time. The failure to provide records in advance of the inquiry has prevented the operator from providing a version of records that might challenge or balance the evidence above. It has also prevented the operator from setting out whether it has improved compliance systems since the audit, and to what degree they might have been successful in doing so. Whilst that alone might invite me to make adverse findings, the testimony from Mr. Butler confirmed that the shortcomings existed and that no remedial action had been taken.
In consideration of the evidence I conclude by recording adverse findings under the following provisions of the 1995 Act:
a. Section 26(1)(e) – The licence-holder made a statement of expectation that has not been fulfilled, namely that the vehicles used under provision of the operator’s licence would be inspected at six-week intervals.
b. Section 26(1)(f) – The operator has failed to fulfil general undertakings of its operator’s licence, namely, (1) to have proper systems to ensure motor vehicles and trailers, including hired vehicles, are kept fit and serviceable, and (2) to have proper systems to ensure drivers report promptly defects or symptoms of defects that could prevent the safe operation of vehicles.
c. Section 26(1)(f) – The operator failed to fulfil a specific undertaking of its operator’s licence, namely, to arrange for an independent audit of compliance systems to be completed during February or March 2026.
d. Section 26(1)(h) – That since the licence was granted there has been a material change in the circumstances of the licence holder, namely: (1) that I am no longer satisfied that Mr. Butler is ‘not unfit’ to hold an operator’s licence; and (2) that I am no longer satisfied that the provision of the facilities and arrangements for maintaining the vehicles in a fit and serviceable condition is not prejudiced by reason of the operator having insufficient financial resources for that purpose.
This is not an operator without some positives. The OCRS is green, there has been a single roadside encounter with DVSA which was clear, and performance at annual test is on a par with the national average. These positives are, however, insufficient to balance the negative findings above. It is relevant that this operator has now attended three public inquiries and yet issues remain in respect of matters which are critical to road safety. 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”. The failure to ensure adequate improvement demonstrates clear and deliberate non-compliance which compromises road safety.
Whilst I recognise that this is a Restricted licence holder, through 2013/007 Redsky Wholesalers Ltd the Upper Tribunal invites me to consider the question posed 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. This operator has been afforded previous opportunities to improve and has not done so. I therefore cannot conclude that the same opportunity now will yield a different outcome.
I therefore make a direction under the provision of sections 26(1)(e), 26(1)(f) and 26(1)(h) that this licence be revoked with effect from 23:45 on 18 August 2026. This short period of time is to allow the orderly cessation of transport operations.
I note that revocation under s.26 is a discretionary matter, but I conclude that this is the appropriate action. A suspension or curtailment would result in an operator I do not trust and who, evidence shows, cannot comply with the requirements of an operator licence remaining on the road. I do not consider that to be in the interests of the public or other, compliant, operators.
Disqualification
Having revoked the licence for the reasons set out above, I have considered whether it is appropriate to disqualify Mr. Butler from holding or obtaining an operator’s licence and, if so, for what period. In doing so I have had regard to the guidance at paragraph 108 of Statutory Document No. 10. This is not a case involving an isolated lapse or a single compliance failure. Rather, it demonstrates persistent and repeated shortcomings over a prolonged period, despite two previous public inquiries, clear regulatory intervention, independent audit recommendations, warnings, and the opportunity to improve. The operator has failed to deliver the necessary improvements and has failed to engage meaningfully with the regulatory process. I am satisfied that a period of disqualification is necessary both to mark the seriousness of the conduct identified and to protect the integrity of the operator licensing regime. Taking account of all the circumstances, including the absence of adverse DVSA encounter evidence and the operator’s acceptance of the deficiencies identified, I conclude that a disqualification period of twelve months is justified and proportionate. That period should provide sufficient time for Mr. Butler to demonstrate a genuine commitment to compliance and to put in place the knowledge, systems and resources necessary to satisfy a Traffic Commissioner that he can be trusted to operate compliantly in the future.
David Mullan
Traffic Commissioner for the North West of England
21 July 2026