Decision for David William Dyer (OG1031692)
Written decision of the Deputy Traffic Commissioner in Wales for David William Dyer
IN THE WELSH TRAFFIC AREA
PUBLIC INQUIRY
DAVID WILLIAM DYER - OG1031692
GOODS VEHICLE LICENSING OF OPERATORS ACT 1995 (“the Act”)
HEARD AT THE PUBLIC INQUIRY ROOM, PONTYPRIDD, ON 5th MARCH 2026
Decision
“Fitness” to hold the Restricted Operator’s Licence is lost and revocation of the licence is directed with effect from 10th April 2026 in respect of;
- Breach of undertakings in respect of records, vehicle maintenance and driver defect reporting (sec. 26(1)(f)),
- Breach of condition to notify change in legal entity and maintenance arrangements (sec.26(1)(b)),
- Prohibitions issued against the licence (sec.26(1)(c)(iii)),
- Material change – loss of fitness (sec. 26(1)(h))
David William Dyer is disqualified from holding or applying for an operator’s licence for 12 months with effect from 10th April 2026.
Background
David William Dyer is a sole trader currently holding a restricted goods vehicle operator’s licence with authorisation for 5 vehicles and 0 trailers.
Checks of Companies House show that Mr. Dyer is also the sole director of limited company DWD Waste Services Ltd, incorporated on 17/01/2024 and with full accounts submitted as recently as June 2025.
At annual test on 24/04/2025, vehicles EY63FRP and RH04HSE were both subject to numerous S-marked prohibitions. This triggered a DVSA maintenance investigation, undertaken on 03/06/2025 by Vehicle Examiner Mark Davies.
Out of 13 areas assessed, 7 were marked unsatisfactory and 4 were marked as ‘Report to the Office of the Traffic Commissioner (OTC)’.
The shortcomings identified were as follows:
- 39% of PMIs found to be stretched from specified 6-weekly intervals. 100% of records non-compliant due to no brake assessments carried out on any of the three specified vehicles.
- No roadworthiness declaration present on records with mileages between PMIs not accurately recorded, if recorded at all.
- No forward planning, VOR or safety defect and recall system in place.
- Examiner states that PMI records not readily available when requested. Only made available when operator’s brother attended and presented records that were scantly completed, indicating that they may have been drafted that afternoon.
- No driver defect reporting system in place. Evidence of driver-responsible defects being found at PMI.
- Clear evidence of inadequate maintenance standards. Vehicles maintained inhouse by operator with no evidence of CPD training. Brother attends to assist with vehicles with no evidence of any training or experience in the maintenance of goods vehicles.
- Questions raised as to whether the facilities at operator’s home address are satisfactory. Equipment present to inspect undersides of vehicles via ramps, however Examiner notes that area is overgrown and no evidence present of vehicle use in this area for some time.
- No system in place to monitor vehicle emissions and AdBlue usage.
- No evidence of effective wheel and tyre management policy or procedure in place. No evidence of training being undertaken in this area.
- Mechanical prohibition rate of 50% against a 23.21% national average. Annual test failure rates of 60% (initial) and 53% (final) against 10.56% and 7.13% national averages. Multiple issues found such as missing wheel nuts, suspension, exhaust and emissions issues and steering.
The operator responded to the MIVR with an explanation and assurances that were deemed unsatisfactory and insufficient.
In response to a “propose to revoke” letter, the operator requested a public inquiry.
Public Inquiry
The call-up letter was issued on 12th January 2026 and cited the concerns raised in the MIVR and warned of the potential outcomes.
The operator attended with a companion and indicated that he was ready to proceed with the hearing.
He addressed me with regard to the reports and the concerns raised and made submissions at the conclusion of the hearing.
Findings of Fact
I find as a fact that the operator has traded in the wrong legal entity from early 2024, when his limited liability company was established, through to November 2025. As stated by VE Davies;
“The legal entity is not correct. David William Dyer is the operator and the legal entity is listed as a sole trader on VOL. However, David William Dyer is also the sole director of limited company DWD Waste Services Limited, of which the company number is 15419269. Mr Dyer confirmed when questioned that he operates GN10CPX and RX04HSE as part of this business. The nature of the business on companies house is stated as ‘Remediation Services and other waste management services’. The vehicles specified on the operator’s licence are 2 waste tankers, used in connection with sewage, and a Skip carrying vehicle, for other waste. There is no Operators licence associated with DWD Waste Services Limited. This company was incorporated on 17 January 2024”.
The operator has continued to operate on a sole trader licence whilst trading as a limited company. When completing the licensing checklist at renewal of the operator’s licence in March 2024, Mr Dyer stated that the business’s current account balance over the previous 3 months was “£70k”. In reality, these funds were in the account of the limited company, a separate legal entity that did not hold an operator’s licence. The renewal of the licence was therefore based on a false statement of fact.
The condition of vehicles inspected at the fleet check was wholly unsatisfactory and demonstrates poor standards of maintenance and control. 3 vehicles were inspected. 2 S-marked prohibitions were issued indicating significant failings in preventative inspection regime and 1 I-marked prohibition, indicating immediate concerns for road safety.
The MOT failure rate is unacceptably high. The initial failure rate is 60%, the final failure rate is 53.33%. I observe that the MOT pass is the minimum standard a vehicle should attain at least once per year before being safe on the public roads.
Regarding the Preventative Maintenance Inspection (“PMIs”): “The SIPCAT compliance summary shows 39% of the PMI’s carried out late, 100% of the PMI’s are not compliant.”
“There are no brake assessments carried out on any PMI. Additionally, the majority of the PMI’s are not signed as roadworthy, the name of the inspector is also missing on many PMI’s, there are missing roadworthy declaration dates and tyre pressures are never recorded. Vehicle RX04HSE and EY63FRP do not have any odometer readings recorded on the PMI’s, with one exception on the PMI dated 27.03.25 on EY63FRP, and RX04HSE dated 16.03.24.”
“The records for GN10CPX do have mileages recorded, but these mileages do not match the actual mileage of the vehicle, which was obtained by analysing the vehicles tachograph data. This raises concern with the authenticity of these records.”
Regarding driver defect reporting, the VE states, “There are rarely defects recorded on the PMI records, which is not consistent with the condition of the vehicles when looking at the annual test history.” Neither is it consistent with the prohibition and MOT failure history.
The MIVR raises serious concerns about the integrity of the records produced by the operator. The VE refers to the fact that PMI records requested in the morning of the unannounced visit were produced by the operator’s brother, Steven Dyer, in the evening:
“The records, as reported above, have very little detail on them, raising concern, especially as these weren’t available when requested. Most of these records have Steven Dyers signature on them, and where mileages are recorded, these do not match the actual mileage of the vehicle. David Dyer was interviewed in accordance with PACE on 30.07.25, and was unable to provide any explanation as to why mileages were either missing or incorrect. I strongly suspect this is because the PMI records were created in reaction to my request for the records on my initial unannounced visit in the morning. No brake test reports are available to support that the inspections were carried out, and some tachograph data shows no vehicle movements on the some days where inspections were allegedly carried out, where the facilities at the operating centre require the vehicle to move from inside the workshop to outside and onto ramps, this would take a few minutes, which would result in tachograph data being recorded, but it is not.”
David Dyer has provided no satisfactory explanation for the discrepancies in mileages, either before or at the public inquiry. I find as a fact that the records cannot be relied upon as accurate and complete documentation of a compliant preventative maintenance regime.
I also note with concern the DVSA VE’s report regarding the business operated by Steven Dyer in the name of “Dyer Skips”.
“A Google search for S Dyer Skips returns results “Stephen Dyer Skip Hire. Skip Hire, 5 Penygroes Rd, Gorslas, Llanelli SA14 7LA, United Kingdom. +44 1269 843258. https://www.dyerskiphire.co.uk.” A Facebook page which is returned by the same Google search shows contact details 01269 843258 and stevenjd73@hotmail.co.uk.”
“These details match those details provided by David Dyer. Steven Dyer, is neither a director of a company that holds a Goods Vehicle Operators Licence, nor is the holder of a Goods Vehicle Operators Licence”.
I questioned David Dyer about the use of the vehicle and the licence by Steven Dyer. He stated that his brother had hired his vehicle on some occasions. He had no hire documentation, it was “verbal”. Steven Dyer held no operator’s licence. The operator accepted “this shouldn’t have happened”.
I find as a fact that the operator has loaned his vehicle and operator’s licence to Steven Dyer and I find this to be a severe breach of the trust placed in the operator.
Turning to the Addendum Report from DVSA, at pages 172-3 of the brief, VE Davies states, “There is some improvement in that there is now a driver defect reporting system in place, however there is minimal evidence of defects being reported.”
I note that a driver defect check is the most basic and essential safety measure before an LGV is taken on the road, and it should not take a ‘DVSA investigation and a public inquiry for a system to be implemented. Even then, the system implemented by Mr Dyer is dubious in its integrity and effectiveness.
VE Davies further observes, “Brake testing is now being carried out, but some are not in scope of the inspection as they are carried out late”.
Referring to the complete absence of rolling road brake tests in the records produced for the Maintenance Investigation, Mr Dyer described the need for rolling road brake tests as a “recent change”. I pointed out to him that the 4 x. per year standard had been part of the Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness for many years and the April 2025 change was to strengthen the guidance to every PMI.
As an operator carrying out his own maintenance, Mr Dyer should have been aware of the previous and current DVSA Guidance and should have followed it.
I note the positives within the Addendum report, “There are no missing records. Wheel removal and re-torque records are mostly retained completed appropriately, and tyre tread depths and pressures are monitored and recorded at PMI.”
However “there is still concern about the number of defects identified at PMI considering the type of work carried out, and how much defect detail is recorded during inspections, and as such there is still concern around the competence of the safety inspectors.”
Most worryingly, “There is significant concern about the integrity of the safety inspection records, due to incorrect mileage readings, and a false declaration in that a vehicle has been used between a PMI “in” date and roadworthiness declaration.”
Mr Dyer’s explanation that VE Davies told him the brake test could be done 14 days before, or after, the PMI, I find to be unbelievable. A “roadworthiness declaration” signed 14 days before an essential test of the braking system is worthless and the use of the vehicle on the public road before the test is irresponsible.
The sequencing of the roadworthiness declaration, the use of the vehicle prior to the brake test and the date of the brake test 6 days after the PMI being signed off, underlines the fact that the operator simply does not appreciate or respect the importance of these vital safety procedures.
Considerations and Decision
I have regard to the case of Arnold v DOI(NI) [2016] UKUT 0392 (AAC)
“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.”
This operator falls between the third and fourth group. Some improvements appear to have been made since the MIVR but those improvements are firmly in the “too little, too late” category. The operator has been complacent in the extreme, not recognising the need to go to an authorised maintenance provider with appropriate facilities and procedures until repeating a suggestion made to him by his companion at the inquiry that he “could do so in the future”.
The doubts expressed by the experienced VE as to the integrity and accuracy of the records produced for the supplementary report are valid and concerning.
The operator has demonstrated far too little respect for the operator licensing regime and the responsibilities of the holder of an operator’s licence. His compliance history is poor, documentation is unreliable and he has traded in the name of a separate unlicensed legal entity. He has allowed his brother, Steven Dyer, to use his operator’s licence to run his own skip business
I consider the Priority Freight (T/2009/225) question; “how likely is it that this operator will, in future, operate in compliance with the operator’s licensing regime?” and answer, “unlikely”. Mr Dyer’s evidence at the hearing was wholly unconvincing and I have no confidence in his motivation and commitment to run a compliant licence.
With regard to the Bryan Haulage (no.2) (T/2002/217) question, “is the conduct such that the operator ought to be put out of business?” the answer is firmly “yes”.
The breaches of undertakings and licensing requirements are serious and persistent. I have regard to the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document No. 10 – The Principles of Decision Making – Annex 4, and I place the operator’s conduct in the “Severe” category.
I consider that “fitness” to hold the Restricted Operator’s Licence is lost and that revocation of the licence is appropriate for;
- Breach of undertakings in respect of records, vehicle maintenance and driver defect reporting (sec. 26(1)(f)),
- Breach of condition to notify change in legal entity and maintenance arrangements (sec.26(1)(b)),
- Prohibitions issued against the licence (sec.26(1)(c)(iii)),
- Material change – loss of fitness (sec. 26(1)(h))
I consider a period of disqualification to be appropriate to demonstrate to the operator, and others, the seriousness of the breaches in this case. The absence of a prior public inquiry history, the co-operation with the inquiry and the small improvements and recognition of the need to change, persuade me to reduce that period of disqualification to a relatively short period of 12 months. That leniency recognises the impact of the revocation and disqualification on the operator’s business and livelihood.
Should Mr Dyer apply for a new licence after that 12 month period, a Standard Licence, requiring the input of a qualified Transport Manager, would be appropriate and necessary (Flowers 2000 Private Co. Ltd. (2020) UKUT 362), even if Mr Dyer removes the skip business from his licence as he offered.
A.R. Seculer,
Deputy Traffic Commissioner,
6th March 2026.