Decision for Dunkirk Developments Ltd (OF2029891)
Written confirmation of the decision of the Traffic Commissioner for the East of England for Dunkirk Developments Ltd and John Russell Fyfe, Transport Manager
IN THE EASTERN TRAFFIC AREA
DUNKIRK DEVELOPMENTS LTD - OF2029891
AND
JOHN RUSSELL FYFE – TRANSPORT MANAGER
CONFIRMATION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER’S DECISION
$CTA
Decision
The licence is curtailed by 1 vehicle for a period of 2 weeks commencing at 23:45 on 17 July 2026.
I made a direction under section 26(6) preventing the operation of AY75 SKK during that period.
The operator’s repute is severely tarnished and there can be no repeat.
The repute of the transport manager is severely tarnished.
$CTA
Background
Dunkirk Developments Ltd holds a Standard International Goods Vehicle Operator’s Licence authorising 3 vehicles and 3 trailers. The Directors are David James Nolan and John Russell Fyfe, who is also the Transport Manager, having been nominated at grant.
There were three Operating Centres: Iron Pit Close, Geddington Road, Corby NN18 8ET; Rawcroft Farm, Glendon Road, Rothwell NN14 1QE, and Maples Yard, Essendine Road, Ryhall PE9 4JN. Preventative Maintenance Inspections were said to be carried out in-house and by Volvo Truck and Bus at 6-weekly intervals.
On 13 March 2026, the operator lodged a variation application seeking to remove two of the existing Operating Centres, leaving the Iron Pit, and to add a site at Universal Chassis Ltd, Corby, NN17 5QT with no changes in the total vehicle authorisation.
The licence was granted from 10 March 2020. It was the subject of a DVSA enforcement stop on 19 September 2025, where an immediate prohibition was issued due to ‘tyre has damage to the tread area and cord(s) are exposed Nearside Axle Number 1.’ On 6 September 2024, the operator attracted a ‘minor fail’ at annual test due to ‘glass and view of the road’.
Hearing
The Public Inquiry was listed for today, 14 July 2026, in Tribunal Room 1 of the Office of the Traffic Commissioner in Cambridge. The operator was present in the form of Mr Fyfe, Director and Transport Manager, accompanied by John Brooks, transport consultant.
Issues
The public inquiry was called following notice that I was considering grounds to intervene in respect of this licence and specifically by reference to the following sections of the Goods Vehicle (Licensing of Operators) Act:
- 26(1)(a) – Unauthorised use of a place as an operating centre.
- 26(1)(b) – Contravention of licence conditions to notify relevant changes including where vehicles are normally kept.
- 26(1)(c)(iii) – Prohibitions
- 26(1)(ca) – Fixed Penalty Notices
- 26(1)(e) – statements as to where vehicles would normally be kept and to comply with conditions.
- 26(1)(f) – Undertakings (fit and serviceable, driver defect reporting, maintenance records, overloading, drivers’ hours and tachographs).
- 26(1)(h) – Material change:
- 27(1)(a) – stable establishment, good repute, financial standing, Transport Manager meeting Schedule 3.
- 28 -Disqualification.
Mr Fyfe was also called to consider whether he had exercised effective and continuous management and therefore whether I should make a finding under section 27(1)(b) preventing him from relying on his Certificate of Professional Competence.
In advance of the Public Inquiry, I determined that application 1568141, to remove the Operating Centres at Rawcroft Farm and Maples Yard and to add Universal Chassis Limited in Corby, and having met the statutory criteria, could be granted in order to regularise the position.
The operator was directed to lodge evidence in support including financial, maintenance and other compliance documentation. Compliance documentation was to be submitted to DVSA by no later than 23 June 2026 with finance and any representations to be sent to my office by 30 June 2026. Financial evidence was sufficient to exceed the prescribed sum.
Summary of Evidence
DVSA was apparently prompted to conduct a Traffic Examiner Visit on 11 March 2026, when Mr. Fyfe was present. The Traffic Examiner, Mr Lewis, identified the following shortcomings:
- Drivers’ Hours and Records Management System: A high number of minor infringements were present, as the journeys did not account for possible hold-ups or parking issues with STGO movements although driver duties were planned. Multiple drivers’ hours/ working time infringements were detected and there was no evidence of disciplinary action against offending drivers.
- Checks on licences by the Examiner indicated that two drivers and the Director/Transport Manager had their driver’s licences endorsed, without notification having been made via the Office of the Traffic Commissioner, despite the operator suggesting he was aware of the requirements.
- The Examiner noted use of a third-party vehicle, but the operator failed to supply data from the vehicle unit. That unit was not locked into Dunkirk Developments Ltd or downloaded.
- Working Time Directive Digital records were being stored although the operator had only recently started to make manual records. For instance, the working time records for Mr Fyfe were incomplete, as he only made a record when he had driven. No other records were kept or manual entries made. Infringement records were produced but there was no evidence of further action having been taken.
- The operating centre named on the record was not being used due to issues with access being blocked by vehicles from other units. At the time of the visit, the vehicles were being parked at Mitchell Road in Corby, and a variation application had not yet been submitted.
The Traffic Examiner suggested that improvements were required to all systems to meet an acceptable level of compliance.
The operator responded to the shortcomings on 1 April 2026. The operator accepted the shortcomings identified in the TEVR and committed to improving compliance. The failures to notify of relevant events was acknowledged, with assurances that future notifications will be made promptly. It was suggested that the Operating Centre at Iron Pit Close was still available to the operator and in use. However, due to parking issues it was not always possible to park there when the lorries are loaded. When they are loaded, they had been parked at Universal Chassis, Mitchell Road, where the operator had permission to park from the landowner. An application for a new Operating Centre had now been submitted.
A transport consultant has been engaged to increase oversight, audit systems, and support driver management. No contract was provided. It was proposed that the involvement of John Brooks of Sense TMR Ltd might be increased to assist the operator with the monitoring of disciplinary action, creating manual records and producing reports for drivers’ hours. The operator gave assurances that drivers’ hours management would improve through better journey planning, mandatory infringement printouts, regular analysis, and a structured disciplinary process. Working Time compliance was being addressed by introducing and backdating manual records for the Director’s non‑driving work. Failures in managing the hired vehicle and associated tachograph data were accepted, with new induction procedures agreed.
The report prepared by Vehicle Examiner Mr Pepin dated 29 June 2026 was based on an analysis of Preventative Maintenance Inspection records for GL67LBA, AY72UUP, AY75SKK and trailers C541890 and C566111 from 29 May 2025, brake performance records, 2 x wheel re-torque tags, a sole driver defect report and evidence of forward planning. Of the 31 Preventative Maintenance Inspection records analysed:
- 26% were recorded as late. 68% of the records were found to be non-compliant.
- On 2 occasions check in sheets were supplied but were not an inspection record. On one of these occasions the check in sheet, dated 17 January 2026 for trailer C541890 (DDT01), had a defect recorded for the offside inner tyre on axle 4 being bald on the inner edge and steel cords exposed. The check in sheet had a photograph of the defect attached and no evidence of rectification.
- There were multiple inspection records where defects were recorded with no ‘Repair Description’ and had no ‘Repaired By’ signature recorded.
- 29% of the records identified dangerous defect. For instance, the Preventative Maintenance Inspection record for vehicle AY72 UUP dated 10 April 2026, the nearside and offside tyres have many cuts to cords, the ‘Rectification Description’ is recorded as reported, the declaration of roadworthiness has been declared as ‘No Outstanding Safety Defects’.
- On multiple records for both trailers there were tyre defects recorded, such as low tyre pressures and tyres cut to cords with no ‘Repair Description’ or ‘Repaired By’ signatures recorded and the declaration of roadworthiness has been declared as ‘No Outstanding Safety Defects’.
- On the Preventative Maintenance Inspection record dated 24 October 2025, for trailer C541890, a braking defect was recorded for a slack adjuster winding off, the ‘Repair Description’ states: Reported to customer, disclaimer to sign.
- The operator was apparently having roller brake performance tests recorded at the time of the Preventative Maintenance Inspections. These were a mixture of unladen and laden brake tests. On the Preventative Maintenance Inspection record dated 24 April 2026 for trailer C566111 (DDT02), a failed brake performance test was recorded for no braking effort on the park brake for the nearside axle 3, there was no ‘Repair Description’ and no Repaired By’ signature recorded and no evidence of a brake performance test after any rectification work.
- The operator supplied wheel torque evidence in the form of 2 re-torque tags for vehicle AY72 UUP. The Examiner queried this given the amount of tyre related defects recorded on the Preventative Maintenance Inspection records for the 2 trailers analysed.
- There was no evidence supplied of interim wheel security and tyre management checks.
- Only 1 driver defect report was supplied but of the analysed records, 16% had driver related defects recorded with no associated drivers defect report.
- A digital forward planner was evidenced with all key dates and six months in advance.
The Examiner concluded that the operator needed to improve its scrutiny of its Preventative Maintenance Inspection records and to complete a driver’s walk round check and driver’s defect report (if defects are found) prior to taking the vehicle for Preventative Maintenance Inspection. The operator was yet to implement a regular and robust wheel security and tyre maintenance system to ensure future compliance.
I was concerned when told that drivers had been asked by staff of the contractor at Wellingborough and Peterborough to sign a disclaimer to accept the return of trailers even when not properly signed off as roadworthy. The tractor units are subject to gold contracts, but the trailers are only on blue contracts meaning that the contractor does not stock parts. The operator is expected to obtain the parts before work is undertaken. The failure to undertake work such as tyre repairs in advance so that they could form part of the inspection did not appear to have occurred to Mr Fyfe. He had apparently attempted to raise with management at Volvo Truck and Bus. I was alarmed to hear that there had been no appropriate action. It was suggested that drivers had been checking wheel torques and recording those. but nothing was produced to the Examiner or the operator’s own consultant.
Traffic Examiner Lewis’s update report of 2 July 2026 was based on an analysis of raw tachograph for vehicles GL67 LBA, AY75 SKK and AY72 UUP and relevant drivers of those vehicles from 23 March 2026 onwards, driver licence checks since that date, driver infringement reports for the same period, vehicle unit download reports (missing mileage) since 23 March 2026, and evidence of professional development and disciplinary action.
The tachograph records suggested a significant decrease in the number of drivers’ hours infringements since his visit. Analysis appeared to be undertaken regularly with fully annotated reasoning and printouts for any recorded infringements. He noted that records for John Fyfe appeared to be a mix of digital data and manual records, but all work appeared to be recorded and his driving had reduced. Unrecorded mileage had decreased significantly but the reports are fully annotated with substantiated reasoning. (Total of 30km unrecorded from date of visit to 15 June 2026. All bar 2km attributed to maintenance and traced via GNSS to maintenance provider premises. 2km - comprising of multiple very short movements i.e. shunting in yard. There was no further evidence of unspecified vehicles being used. It appeared that the operator had taken note of the advice given at the visit and he noted the assistance of the transport consultant.
In addition, Sense TMR Ltd provided me with the following, on behalf of the operator:
- Evidence of attendance at Transport Manager refresher training by Director John Fyfe on 24 and 25 June 2026.
- Evidence of John Fyfe’s attendance at a Driver CPC module on drivers’ hours on 23 May 2026.
- Proposed action plan authored by the transport consultant.
- Written Representations from Mr Fyfe.
The operator hauls equipment belonging to the operator and third parties. The business is carriage of heavy and indivisible, abnormal loads mostly under STGO. Written representations acknowledged that vehicles were being parked at the yard of a principal client. It was only then prompted to lodge an application to use the Universal Chassis address as its Operating Centre, which I allowed from 22 June 2026. This was because there was not enough room at the authorised Operating Centre due to parking of vehicles by new tenants, approximately 6 months ago. The operator ‘assumed’ that, as the vehicles were loaded at Universal Chassis and they were a client, the vehicles were ‘in use’. I was assured that the new Operating Centre and Iron Pit Close provide sufficient parking.
The representations accepted that the Traffic Examiner identified a number of shortcomings. It suggested that, whilst the vehicles are maintained to a standard, there was a need to do more to ensure full compliance. Mr Fyfe attended a refresher course to increase his knowledge and bring him ‘up to date’. The consultant has been requested to increase his visits, to audit the systems and ensure records are kept correctly. Mr Fyfe also attended a 2-day Transport Manager refresher course. The operator accepted the need to maintain records and continue brake testing at every Preventative Maintenance Inspection and will ensure that material changes are notified. The proposed ‘action plan’ included a table with dates against the relevant action but notably referred to training to be delivered on the back of the Public Inquiry, to include toolbox talks on tyres, wheel security and load safety, training for drivers on walk around checks, with follow up discussions to driver detectable defects found at the inspection. Reference was made to a visiting maintenance provider for an audit and review findings of the DVSA report and a further review of previous 3 months etc.
Enforcement history included overload prohibitions issued on 18 January 2023 (with FPN) and 19 September 2025. I was told that the 2023 incident occurred when the operator had forgotten to remove a hire vehicle.
Determination
Based on the evidence summarised above, I was satisfied that I should record the following adverse findings under the following sections: 26(1)(a) – use of an unauthorised use of a place as an operating centre; 26(1)(b) – Contravention of licence conditions to notify relevant changes including where vehicles are normally kept; 26(1)(c)(iii) – Prohibitions; 26(1)(ca) – Fixed Penalty Notice; 26(1)(e) – statements as to where vehicles would normally be kept, maintenance intervals, and to comply with conditions; 26(1)(f) – Undertakings (fit and serviceable, driver defect reporting, maintenance records, overloading, drivers’ hours and tachographs).
The following breaches fell far below the standard expected and did not represent continuous and effective management by the Transport Manager.
Use of an unauthorised site deprives local residents and others who might be affected of their rights to oppose its use. It is a direct attack on their rights to enjoyment of their properties. It also demonstrates contempt for the licensing regime. It had been resolved by the date of the Public Inquiry but reflected badly on the management of this operation.
The main areas of concern prior to the Public Inquiry related to drivers’ hours compliance, working time management, and use of an unauthorised site as an operating centre. Journey planning did not adequately account for delays or parking issues, particularly for STGO movements, resulting in numerous minor infringements. Drivers failed to produce tachograph printouts to explain breaches, and infringement reports. Those were produced by the consultant but were dated retrospectively and did not provide a meaningful period for analysis. No evidence of disciplinary action was found. The Working Time Directive systems relied solely on digital tachograph data, with manual records only recently introduced for the Transport Manager. While records were stored correctly, no disciplinary action followed identified infringements. It was to the operator’s credit that those had been largely addressed by the date of the Public Inquiry.
I was not as encouraged by the state of maintenance management. It proposed the following remedial action: Installation and use of a digital driver defect reporting app with a toolbox talk to be delivered on 20 July 2026 with particular regard to tyres and wheel torque recording. There will be regular interim checks with full recording. Retorque tags will be treated like “gold dust” and filed accordingly. If a driver defect is detected at a Preventative Maintenance Inspection, it will be thoroughly investigated with the driver. There will be a full driver walk round immediately prior to presentation for a Preventative Maintenance Inspection. The Transport Manager and consultant will meet with Volvo Truck and Bus next week to re-establish service levels which accord with the Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness including the loading of tractors and trailers for brake tests, as per the declared maintenance intervals. Drivers will be instructed not to sign disclaimers for the return of vehicles and trailers. The consultant will be copied into to each electronic Preventative Maintenance Inspection report. Brake tests will follow any work on brakes The operator has a new trailer which is already fitted, but the operator will employ EBPMS across its trailers within 3 months of the date of the Public Inquiry. I accepted that as a statement of intent, to be attached to the licence.
Mr Fyfe was warned that he needed to demonstrate his ability to meet the responsibilities as Transport Manager and not to treat records as though this was a tick box exercise. His repute weas severely tarnished as a result of my findings. He was given a final warning.
This case undoubtedly fell within the SERIOUS to SEVERE bracket as described by the Senior Traffic Commissioner. The starting point is always to consider whether the operator is capable of ensuring future compliance. I accepted that the involvement of Mr Brooks had resulted in prompt remedial action in response to the shortcomings identified by Mr Lewis. On that basis I had some degree of confidence that the operator might rectify the maintenance issues with similar speed. I accepted the following undertaking:
- to employ Mr Brooks to advise on operator licence compliance for a minimum period of 18 months, attending at least one day per month during that period and to notify the Office of the Traffic Commissioner immediately, if that arrangement ceases.
- Within 14 days of the date of the Public Inquiry, the operator will provide an updated action plan which reflects the discussions with the maintenance provider, and which addresses all of the shortcomings identified above.
I determined that deterrent action was required in order to spur the operator to achieve compliance and implement adequate management and control. As the Upper Tribunal identified in 2019/025 John Stuart Strachan t/a Strachan Haulage: “one of the aims of the regime is deterrence, both for the appellant and for operators as a whole, who might be tempted to flout the system”. The relevance of deterrence was further confirmed in the leading case of 2022/227 Lineage UK Transport Ltd. I determined that I must take deterrent action to make clear to this operator and others who might be tempted to ignore the licence requirements. I carefully explored the impact of regulatory intervention, noting the seasonal nature of much of the operator’s work, which is connected to construction, although it moves into larger bin collection during the off months. I therefore curtailed the licence by 1 vehicle for a period of 2 weeks commencing at 23:45 on 17 July 2026. I made a direction under section 26(6) preventing the operation of AY75 SKK during that period. Again, the operator’s repute is severely tarnished and there can be no repeat.
R Turfitt
Traffic Commissioner
14 July 2026