Decision for DUCKMANTON MINIBUS HIRE LIMITED (PC1018374), STEPHEN ATKIN & LESLEY A ATKIN Trading as DUCKMANTON PRIVATE HIRE (PC0003788) and JOHN ATKIN Trading as DUCKMANTON MINIBUS HIRE (PC0005267)
Written decision of the Deputy Traffic Commissioner in the North West for DUCKMANTON MINIBUS HIRE LIMITED, STEPHEN ATKIN & LESLEY A ATKIN Trading as DUCKMANTON PRIVATE HIRE and JOHN ATKIN Trading as DUCKMANTON MINIBUS HIRE and Transport Manager Paul William Harrison.
IN THE NORTH WEST OF ENGLAND TRAFFIC AREA
DUCKMANTON MINIBUS HIRE LIMITED PC1018374
TRANSPORT MANAGER PAUL WILLIAM HARRISON
STEPHEN ATKIN & LESLEY A ATKIN Trading as DUCKMANTON PRIVATE HIRE PC0003788
JOHN ATKIN Trading as DUCKMANTON MINIBUS HIRE PC0005267
DECISION OF THE DEPUTY TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER
In the matter of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981
Public Inquiry held at Golborne on 1 October 2026
DECISION
DUCKMANTON MINIBUS HIRE LIMITED PC1018374
On findings in accordance with Sections 14ZA(2)(b), 14ZA(2)(d), 17(1)(a) and 17(3)(e) of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981, the standard national public service vehicle operator’s licence of Duckmanton Minibus Hire Limited PC1018374 is revoked with effect from 23:45 hours on Thursday 1 October 2026.
The operator Duckmanton Minibus Hire Limited is disqualified from holding or obtaining any type of operator’s licence in any traffic area, with effect from 2 October 2026 until further order, pursuant to Section 28(1) of the Transport Act 1985
The directors Stephen Atkin and Lesley Ann Atkin are disqualified from holding or obtaining any type of operator’s licence in any traffic area, and from being director of any company holding or obtaining such a licence with effect from 2 October 2026 until further order, pursuant to Section 28(1) of the Transport Act
TRANSPORT MANAGER PAUL WILLIAM HARRISON
A formal warning is recorded against Transport Manager Paul William Harrison. His good repute is marked as tarnished but not lost.
The following undertaking offered by Paul William Harrison shall be recorded:
By 31 December 2026 Paul William Harrison will either:
- attend in person a two-day transport manager CPC refresher course; or
- participate in a virtual online two-day transport manager CPC refresher course.
Courses must be run by one of the following bodies:
- a trade association (Logistics UK/RHA/BAR/CPT);
- a professional body (IoTA/CILT/SOE/IRTE);
- an exam centre approved by an accredited body to offer the transport manager CPC qualification in passenger transport, or
- a firm of solicitors (or their associated training organisation) with significant experience with road transport regulatory and compliance issues (defined as having represented road transport operators and/or transport managers in at least 20 public inquiries over the past two years).
Virtual online courses must satisfy the criteria for such courses established by the traffic commissioners. Whether attending in person or participating in an online course, proof of attendance must be submitted by e-mail to the Office of the Traffic Commissioner at Golborne within seven days of completing the course and by no later than 31 January 2027.
STEPHEN ATKIN & LESLEY A ATKIN trading as DUCKMANTON PRIVATE HIRE PC0003788
On findings in accordance with Sections 14ZB(a), 17(1)(a) and 17(3)(e) of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981, the restricted public service vehicle operator’s licence of Stephen Atkin & Lesley A Atkin trading as Duckmanton Private Hire PC0003788 is revoked with effect from 23:45 hours on Thursday 1 October 2026
Stephen Atkin is disqualified from holding or obtaining any type of operator’s licence in any traffic area, and from being director of any company holding or obtaining such a licence with effect from 2 October 2026 until further order, pursuant to Section 28(1) of the Transport Act
Lesley Ann Atkin is disqualified from holding or obtaining any type of operator’s licence in any traffic area, and from being director of any company holding or obtaining such a licence with effect from 2 October 2026 until further order, pursuant to Section 28(1) of the Transport Act
JOHN ATKIN trading as DUCKMANTON MINIBUS HIRE PC0005267
On findings in accordance with Sections 14ZB(a), 17(1)(a) and 17(3)(e) of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981, the restricted public service vehicle operator’s licence of John Atkin trading as Duckmanton Minibus Hire PC0005267 is revoked with effect from 23:45 hours on Thursday 1 October 2026
John Atkin is disqualified from holding or obtaining any type of operator’s licence in any traffic area, and from being director of any company holding or obtaining such a licence with effect from 2 October 2026 until further order, pursuant to Section 28(1) of the Transport Act
Introduction
Duckmanton Minibus Hire Limited (“DMH”) holds a standard national public service vehicle operator’s licence PC1018374 authorising the use of 5 vehicles issued in 2003.
DMH’s directors are Stephen Atkin and Lesley Ann Atkin. The Transport Manager named on the licence since its start is Paul William Harrison. It has come to my attention that Mr Harrison has not been undertaking that role since he informed DMH of his resignation in December 2024. That significant change was not brought to the traffic commissioner’s attention previously.
Stephen Atkin and Lesley A Atkin as a partnership and trading as Duckmanton Private Hire, have also held a restricted public service vehicle operator’s licence PC0003788 (“DPH”) since 1996 authorising the use of 2 vehicles.
The third licence holder called to this public inquiry is John Atkin who as sole trader and trading as Duckmanton Minibus Hire holds a restricted public service vehicle operator’s licence PC0005267. The sole trader licence was issued in 2011 authorising the use of 2 vehicles and has a different operating centre to DMH and DPH.
John Atkin is the son of Stephen Atkin and Lesley Ann Atkin.
The public inquiry followed correspondence from Derbyshire County Council explaining it had terminated DMH’s contracts to supply transport for vulnerable children and adults. This was because of concerns that some of the services DMH had contracted to provide had been apparently undertaken by vehicles authorised on the DPH and John Atkin restricted licences. It was suggested that DMH’s representatives had admitted this was done to allow the operation of more vehicles than authorised on the DMH licence. Concern was also expressed that DMH had failed to provide satisfactory evidence of the required LOLER testing of wheelchair lift equipment fitted to its vehicles.
The DVSA were asked to undertake an investigation of DMH’s licence compliance and examiners visited in June 2026. The traffic examiner reported that the business had ceased treading in April 2026 and had sold its vehicles. He was satisfied that prior to that date there were satisfactory systems in place for driver management. The only concern appeared to the absence of a transport manager. The vehicle examiner’s report also confirmed operations had ceased but his report was less reassuring about the operator’s previous compliance. Several shortcomings were found including its approach to brake testing and record keeping.
None of the licences, legal entities or individuals called to this public inquiry had previously appeared before a traffic commissioner.
The Call to Public Inquiry
DMH was called up to public inquiry by letter dated 12 August 2026. This gave notice that the issues of concern to be considered related to Sections 17(3)(aa), 17(3)(b) and 17(3)(e) of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 (“The 1981 Act”) as well as the provisions for good repute, professional competence and financial standing in Section 14ZA(2). Additionally, notice was given that the disqualification provisions of Section 28 of the Transport Act 1985 would be considered if necessary.
Transport Manager Harrison was called up by letter of the same date that gave notice his good repute and professional competence would be considered in accordance with Schedule 3 of the 1981 Act.
DPH was called up to public inquiry by letter dated 13 August 2026. This gave notice that the issues of concern to be considered related to Sections 17(3)(aa) and 17(3)(e) of the 1981 Act as well as the mandatory requirements of good repute and financial standing. Additionally, notice was given that the disqualification provisions of Section 28 of the Transport Act 1985 would be considered if necessary.
John Atkin was called up to public inquiry by letter dated 17 August 2026. This similarly gave notice that the issues of concern to be considered related to Sections 17(3)(aa) and 17(3)(e) of the 1981 Act as well as the mandatory requirements of good repute and financial standing. He was also given notice that the disqualification provisions of Section 28 of the Transport Act 1985 would be considered if necessary.
DPH applied to surrender their restricted licence on 1 April 2026. DMH also made an application to surrender its licence on 10 June 2026. Both requests were refused by the traffic commissioner pending the conclusion of the public inquiry, in accordance with the provisions of Section 15(4) of the 1981 Act.
The Public Inquiry
The Public Inquiry was heard at Golborne today. TM Harrison attended as required.
Also present as representatives of Derbyshire County Council were Graham Laycock (Specialist Transport Team Manager) and Matt Featherstone (Commissioning and Contracts Officer)
None of the operators attended and were not represented. They had not engaged with the Office of the Traffic Commissioner (“OTC”) prior to the public inquiry nor complied with the directions contained in the case management letter. I noted the evidence from the DVSA that DMH had ceased to trade and had sold its vehicles. I also note the previous request to surrender the licences of DMH and DPH.
I have considered the guidance in the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document Number 9: Case Management. I apply the presumption that there has been effective service of the call up letters to all three operators. I take note of the UT’s guidance in Philip Drake 2023/98 and more recently Ocean King Ltd [2024] UKUT 333 (AAC) on the appropriate use of addresses provided by the operator to send licence related communication.
Mr Harrison also told me that he had spoken to DMH’s directors after the call up letter was received and they had indicated they did not intend to attend the public inquiry.
I am satisfied that proper notice of the hearing has been given to each operator and that they have been given a fair opportunity to attend or otherwise respond to the call to public inquiry. The gravity of the position and the full extent of the matters to be considered have been explained to them. I have not seen any evidence to explain their absence. I consider that it is appropriate to proceed to a determination of the public inquiry in their absence.
Findings of Fact
Duckmanton Minibus Hire Limited
I find that DMH no longer meets the requirement of professional competence and has not done so since Mr Harrison resigned as transport manager in December 2024. The operator has failed to notify the traffic commissioner of that material change in its circumstances. This satisfies the grounds for revocation in Section 17(1)(a) of the Act and the grounds for regulatory action in Section 17(3)(e).
I further find that DMH has operated more vehicles than authorised to do so and has sought to avoid that restriction by using the authority of the two linked restricted licences of DPH and John Atkin.
The evidence from Derbyshire County Council confirms that under the terms of its contracts with DMH, the company was required to operate 9 PSVs on any given day. DHM’s authority under the licence is only 5 vehicles.
DMH has purported to operate the other 4 vehicles under the authority of the restricted licences. DPH and John Atkin were not contracted to provide services to the Council and there is no evidence of a sub-contracting arrangement between DMH and those restricted licence holders. The Council was never asked to approve any such sub-contracting arrangement as required by the terms of its contracts with DMH.
The Council’s representatives confirmed that Stephen Atkin admitted at the meeting held on 30 March 2026 that DMH had operated all the vehicles used under the contracts. Further evidence that DMH was the operator and that this was not a sub-contracting arrangement is provided by the fact that all the drivers employed under the contracts were identified as employees of DMH during the required Disclosure and Barring Service checks.
I am satisfied that all 9 PSVs used under the Council contracts were operated by DMH in excess of its licence authority and that it sought to cloak the unauthorised use by effectively borrowing the authority held by the two restricted licences. This also amounts to a material change that satisfies the grounds for regulatory action in Section 17(3)(e). I also find such conduct justifies a finding that DMH’s good repute is lost and the grounds for revocation in Section 17(1)(a) of the Act are established on that basis.
The failure of DMH to attend the public inquiry and comply with the case management directions is also a matter that supports my finding that good repute is lost.
I have noted the contents of the DVSA examiners reports into DMH’s compliance. I note some issues of concern arise, but the DVSA investigation was limited by the fact that DMH had already ceased to operate by the time the examiners visited. In view of the other serious adverse findings made, I do not consider it is necessary for me to reach a determination on whether the content of the DVSA examiners’ reports gives rise to grounds for regulatory action.
I also note that the failure to comply with the directions means that evidence of financial standing has not been provided by DMH. In view of my other adverse findings, I do not consider it necessary to reach a formal finding that financial standing is not met.
Stephen Atkin & Lesley A Atkin trading as Duckmanton Private Hire
Following on from my findings above in relation to DMH, I find that Stephen Atkin and Lesley Atkin as the DPH partnership holding this licence allowed their authority to be utilised for the purposes of DMH with their conduct amounting to the unacceptable practice known as disc lending. I did not find any evidence that the vehicles purportedly operated by DPH on the DMH council contracts were actually operated by that partnership. I refer to my comments above in relation to DMH and the admissions made by Stephen Atkin in the council meeting together with the indicators of who was employing the drivers.
I also note the admission made during the council meeting on 30 March 2026 that the restricted licences should have been surrendered. Mr Harrison also told me in evidence today that he had advised Mr Atkin to surrender the restricted licence on grant of the DMH standard licence. Mr Harrison said he was only ever aware of a single business operating PSVs, namely the standard licence holder DMH.
I find it more likely than not that the operations of DPH were absorbed within the DMH licence as from the date the latter licence was granted in 2003 and that the PSV operations undertaken by Stephen and Lesley Atkin after that date were under the umbrella of the DMH licence.
These findings lead me to a conclusion there has been a material change in the circumstances of the DPH partnership that satisfies the grounds for regulatory action in Section 17(3)(e). I also find such conduct justifies a finding that the good repute of partners Stephen Atkin and Lesley Atkin is lost and the grounds for revocation in Section 17(1)(a) of the Act are established on that basis.
The failure of the partners to attend the public inquiry and comply with the case management directions is also a matter that supports my finding that good repute is lost.
I also note that the failure to comply with the directions means that evidence of financial standing and “main occupation” has not been provided by DPH. In view of my other adverse findings, I do not consider it necessary to reach a formal finding that financial standing is not met.
John Atkin trading as Duckmanton Minibus Hire
I further find John Atkin allowed the authority on his sole trader licence to be utilised for the purposes of DMH with his conduct amounting to the unacceptable practice known as disc lending. As with DPH, I did not find any evidence that the vehicles purportedly operated by John Atkin on the DMH council contracts were operated by him. The same reasons that led to my finding of disc lending by DPH also apply to John Atkin.
I was not presented with any evidence to indicate John Atkin was operating PSVs separately from the other entities involved in this public inquiry. Again, I consider it is more likely than not that his operation was merged into the DMH operation once that licence was granted.
I have taken account of the fact that John Atkin was not a party to the meeting with the Council and was not present when Stephen Atkin made the relevant admissions. However, John Atkin has since been served with the call up letter outlining the concerns raised, but he has not taken the opportunity to attend the public inquiry today to provide an explanation for his role in the matter. On the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that John Atkin allowed his licence to be used by DMH to operate more vehicles than authorised.
As a result of these findings I determine there has been a material change in the circumstances of John Atkin as licence holder that satisfies the grounds for regulatory action in Section 17(3)(e). I also find such conduct justifies a finding that the good repute of John Atkin is lost and the grounds for revocation in Section 17(1)(a) of the Act are established on that basis.
His failure to attend the public inquiry and comply with the case management directions is also a matter that supports my finding that good repute is lost.
I note in his case also that the failure to comply with the directions means that evidence of financial standing and “main occupation” has not been provided by DPH. In view of my other adverse findings, I do not consider it necessary to reach a formal finding that financial standing is not met.
Prior to the public inquiry, I became aware that John Atkin’s licence had expired on 31 May 2026 without being renewed. That could also give grounds for regulatory action as a material change. I draw back from making such a formal finding as appropriate notice of that concern has not been given to John Atkin. It is however a matter that I will take into account when considering the impact of any regulatory action.
Transport Manager Paul William Harrison
Mr Harrison confirmed today that he had acted as transport manager for DMH until December 2024. He decided to resign in order to concentrate on his own business and as he understood that a member of the Atkin family was in a position to take on the role. Mr Harrison said his decision was not motivated by any concern about DMH’s approach to compliance.
Mr Harrison said he gave notice of his decision to be removed as TM to DMH by letter dated 31 December 2024 and produced a copy of the said letter. He said he had also sent a copy at the time to the traffic commissioner by ordinary post but could not evidence that. Mr Harrison accepted that he had not sought to check that the letter had been received or that his name had been removed from the licence record. He was unaware that he remained named as TM on the DMH licence until the call up letter was issued.
I give Mr Harrison the benefit of the doubt that he did attempt to notify the traffic commissioner of his resignation in December 2024. However, he should have ensured the letter had been received and that he had been removed from the licence record. For that reason, I consider a formal warning should be recorded. I am also reassured by his willingness to attend a TM CPC refresher course.
Determination
Duckmanton Minibus Hire Limited
Having reached the findings of fact recorded above for DMH, I have undertaken a balancing exercise by reference to the guidance in the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document Number 10 and have considered the positive and negative features.
In the absence of meaningful cooperation from DMH and its directors, there are limited positive findings that I can identify. I note the DVSA reports indicated some effective systems were in place with the main concern arising from the absence of a transport manager. I have also noted the lack of any previous traffic commissioner warnings or other intervention on the licence.
Any positive features are comprehensively outweighed by the negative features.
The operation of the DMH licence for a period of 21 months without a transport manager in place (and without notifying the traffic commissioner of that position) was a deliberate act by the operator that led to undue risk to road safety and unfair commercial advantage.
Similarly, the operation by DMH of more vehicles than authorised under its licence was a deliberate act by the operator that led to unfair commercial advantage. That conduct started with the grant of the contracts in 2023 and 2024 and continued until the Council terminated the contracts in March 2026. As such it can be described as persistent offending.
It is also a negative feature that DMH failed to cooperate with the public inquiry process.
Having balanced these factors and considered the guidance in Statutory Document 10, I am of the view that the case falls in the “severe” category when considering the starting point for discretionary regulatory action.
I have gone on to consider the test set out by the Upper Tribunal in Priority Freight 2009/225 of whether I can trust the operator to be compliant in future. I have addressed that question mindful of my findings that the operator does not meet the statutory requirements of professional competence and good repute, and it has not given me any evidence that position will be corrected. The conduct of the operator in relation to the persistent operation of more vehicles than authorised and its failure to engage with the public inquiry, means that I cannot have any trust in the operator to be compliant in future.
I have gone on to ask the question of whether the operator deserves to be put out of business, as directed by the decision in Bryan Haulage (No.2) 217/2002. I have not been provided with any direct evidence by the operator to assist me in understanding the effect of a revocation order. I have noted the request to surrender the licence and the evidence from the DVSA that the operator has ceased trading. In any event, the negative features described above are to an extent where I consider it is proportionate and necessary to direct the revocation of the licence even if that means the end of the business.
Turning to the question of disqualification, I have applied a further balancing exercise, and the features identified above in relation to regulatory action are equally pertinent to the question of disqualification. The negative features outweigh the positives, and I consider a period of disqualification is justified.
I have taken account of paragraph 108 of the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document Number 10 that provides some guidance on the length of any disqualification, and states that for an operator’s first Public Inquiry, consideration of a disqualification period of between 1 and 3 years may be appropriate rising to 5 to 10 years for more serious cases that may include previous public inquiry history.
I face the difficulty that the directors’ failure to attend the public inquiry process means that I have not heard any further explanation from them about the conduct identified nor about their future intentions for the business.
For those reasons, I do not consider I have sufficient information to direct a disqualification for a finite period as I am unable to fully assess what that period should be. I therefore direct a disqualification until further order. I make it clear it is not my intention that DMH should remain disqualified indefinitely, but it must engage with the traffic commissioner if it wishes for the disqualification order to be set aside or fixed for a definite period.
Stephen Atkin & Lesley A Atkin trading as Duckmanton Private Hire
I have undertaken the same balancing exercise for DPH.
I treat as a positive feature that there is a lack of any previous traffic commissioner warnings or other intervention on the licence. Without the partners’ cooperation, I am struggling to identify any other persuasive positive features.
In any event, the negative features are weighty.
I am satisfied that the partners acted deliberately to allow its licence to be used to cloak the unauthorised operation by DMH of more vehicles than authorised under its licence. As stated above that led to an unfair commercial advantage that has persisted for over two years.
It is also a negative feature that Stephen Atkin and Lesley Atkin failed to cooperate with the public inquiry process either in their capacity as partners holding this licence or as directors of the DMH licence.
Having balanced these factors and considered the guidance in Statutory Document 10, I am of the view that the case falls in the “severe” category when considering the starting point for discretionary regulatory action.
I have gone on to consider the test set out by the Upper Tribunal in Priority Freight 2009/225 of whether I can trust the operator to be compliant in future. I have addressed that question mindful of my findings that DPH does not meet the statutory requirements of good repute, and the partners have not given me any evidence that position will be corrected. The conduct of the partners in relation to lending their discs to DMH and failure to cooperate with the public inquiry process, means that I cannot have any trust in DPH to be compliant in future.
I have gone on to ask the question of whether the operator deserves to be put out of business, as directed by the decision in Bryan Haulage (No.2) 217/2002. I have not been provided with any direct evidence by the operator to assist me in understanding the effect of a revocation order. I have noted the request to surrender the licence and my finding that it is more likely than not that this has ceased to be a separate business to DMH. In any event, the negative features described above are to an extent where I consider it is proportionate and necessary to direct the revocation of the licence even if that means the end of the business.
Turning to the question of disqualification of Stephen Atkin and Lesley Atkin as individuals, I have applied the same balancing exercise as described above and reached the same conclusion that the negative features outweigh the positives, and I consider a period of disqualification is justified.
As with the company DMH, I face the difficulty that the failure of Stephen Atkin and Lesley Atkin to attend the public inquiry process means that I have not heard any further explanation from them about the conduct identified nor about their future intentions for the business or proposed rehabilitative measures.
For those reasons, I do not consider I have sufficient information to direct a disqualification for a finite period as I am unable to fully assess what that period should be. I therefore direct a disqualification until further order. I make it clear in their case also, that it is not my intention that Stephen Atkin and Lesley Atkin should remain disqualified indefinitely, but they must engage with the traffic commissioner if they wish for the disqualification order to be set aside or fixed for a definite period.
John Atkin trading as Duckmanton Minibus Hire
For the avoidance of doubt, I have undertaken the same balancing exercise for John Atkin as for the other entities involved in this public inquiry.
I treat as a positive feature that there is a lack of any previous traffic commissioner warnings or other intervention on the licence. Without John Atkin’s cooperation, I am struggling to identify any other persuasive positive features.
John Atkin’s participation in the disc lending arrangement is a significant negative factor.
I am satisfied that it is more likely than not that John Atkin permitted his restricted operator’s licence to be utilised for the purposes of DMH’s business and the operation of more vehicles than authorised. As with the other operators, I consider that was a deliberate act by him that led to an unfair commercial advantage that has persisted for over two years.
As with the other parties, it is also a negative feature that John Atkin failed to cooperate with the public inquiry process.
Having balanced these factors and considered the guidance in Statutory Document 10, I am of the view that his case also falls in the “severe” category when considering the starting point for discretionary regulatory action.
I have gone on to consider the test set out by the Upper Tribunal in Priority Freight 2009/225 of whether I can trust the operator to be compliant in future. I have addressed that question mindful of my findings that John Atkin no longer meets the statutory requirements of good repute. John Atkin has not given me any evidence to inspire confidence that good repute can be restored. His conduct in lending his discs to DMH and failure to cooperate with the public inquiry process, means that I cannot have any trust in him to be compliant in future.
I have gone on to ask the question of whether the operator deserves to be put out of business, as directed by the decision in Bryan Haulage (No.2) 217/2002. I have not been provided with any direct evidence by John Atkin to assist me in understanding the effect of a revocation order. I have noted the failure to renew the licence and my finding that it is more likely than not that this has ceased to be a separate business to DMH. In any event, the negative features described above are to an extent where I consider it is proportionate and necessary to direct the revocation of the licence even if that means the end of the business.
On the question of disqualification of John Atkin, I have applied the same balancing exercise as described above and reached the same conclusion that the negative features outweigh the positives, and I consider a period of disqualification is justified.
As with the other parties, the failure of John Atkin to attend the public inquiry process means that I have not heard any further explanation from him about his conduct nor about his future intentions or proposed rehabilitative measures.
For those reasons, I do not consider I have sufficient information to direct a disqualification for a finite period as I am unable to fully assess what that period should be. I therefore direct a disqualification until further order. I make it clear in their case also, that it is not my intention that John Atkin should remain disqualified indefinitely, but they must engage with the traffic commissioner if they wish for the disqualification order to be set aside or fixed for a definite period.
Gerallt Evans
Deputy Traffic Commissioner
2 October 2026