Decision for Edwin Davies (OD1104030)
Written decision of the Deputy Traffic Commissioner in the West Midlands for Edwin Davies
AT THE OFFICE OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER IN BIRMINGHAM
IN THE MATTERS OF: EDWIN DAVIES – OD1104030
EDWIN DAVIES - DRIVER
BEFORE THE DEPUTY TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER MR M DORRINGTON
PUBLIC INQUIRY ON 09 JULY 2026
DRIVER CONDUCT HEARING ON 09 JULY 2026
DECISIONS
Operator:
The restricted goods vehicle operator’s licence held by Mr Edwin Davies, under reference OD1104030, is revoked from 2345 hours on 08 November 2026 under section 26(1)(h) of the Act – no longer fit to hold a restricted operator’s licence.
No order is made under section 28 of the Act.
Driver:
As a result of his conduct as a driver Mr Edwin Davies is no longer fit to hold large goods vehicle (“LGV”) driving entitlement. The proportionate regulatory action is to suspend Mr Davies’ LGV driving entitlement for a period of 3 months from 2345 hours on 01 September 2026 and will end at 2345 hours on 30 November 2026.
BACKGROUND
Mr Edwin Davies (the “operator”) was granted a restricted operator’s licence under reference OD1104030 in 2011 and it currently authorizes the operation of 2 vehicles and one trailer.
On 16 December 2025 the operator was stopped by the DVSA and as a result of Mr Davies conduct towards two DVSA officers a report was made to my office and a decision was made to call Mr Davies to a public inquiry and also to a conjoined driver conduct hearing on 09 July 2026.
The calling in letter for both hearings was dated 20 May (50 days before the hearings) and set out the allegations that had been made with access being given to the electronic bundle of evidence.
Mr Davies instructed Mr Dunbar, solicitor, from Messrs Dyne Solicitors to represent him.
PUBLIC INQUIRY/DRIVER CONDUCT HEARING ON 09 JULY 2026
Present, via video link, for the DVSA were Traffic Examiner Westerman and Vehicle Enforcement Manager Paterson.
Mr Davies was present in person and had brought his daughter and his transport consultant Carol-Anne Till as witnesses. He was represented by Mr Dunbar, solicitor.
I heard from all of the above named people in oral evidence and was assisted by Mr Dunbar in closing submissions before reserving my decisions.
EVIDENCE THAT HAS BEEN CONSIDERED
I have taken into consideration all of the evidence in the electronic case bundle paginated to page 322 and all of the oral evidence that I heard.
BURDEN AND STANDARD OF PROOF
The burden of proof is upon the DVSA to prove any allegations that it has made. The standard of proof is the civil law standard, the balance of probabilities. In other words what is more likely than not to have occurred.
FINDINGS OF FACT
After carefully considering, and then re-considering, all of the evidence detailed in paragraph 11, I have made the following findings of fact after applying the correct burden and standard of proof to that evidence. For the avoidance of any doubt all of the following findings of fact should be read so as to start with the words “It is more likely than not that…”
At the very start of the public inquiry I made it clear to Mr Dunbar that the only issues that I was going to determine in the public inquiry were those relating to Mr Davies behavior on 16 December 2025 and the convictions not notified to my office.
The evidence (written and oral) given by TE Westerman was credible, cogent and highly persuasive. She was not accused of lying and her evidence stood up to scrutiny.
The evidence (written and oral) given by VEM Paterson was credible, cogent and highly persuasive. He was not accused of lying and his evidence stood up to scrutiny.
The evidence given by Mr Davies was not as credible as that given by the two DVSA officers and his evidence, I have found, did not stand up to scrutiny and was not persuasive when it came to the central and most potent allegations made against him. He was very selective in the evidence he gave about those issues stating that he could not remember but if they had happened then he was apologetic. I do not accept that as being plausible and I certainly am not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that he would forget the events of 16 December 2025. As I stated to him in the public inquiry; in my 30 years experience as an advocate, Tribunal judge and Traffic Commissioner people do not forget extraordinary and emotionally charged events such as this. To remember events of 16 December 2025 in detail on the one hand but to be unable to recall the most potent and serious events on the other is neither consistent nor credible. Whilst his daughter told me her father has “really bad recall” I note that no medical evidence was provided to explain any medical condition that would adversely affect Mr Davies memory and what the functional limitations were to his memory/recall as a result. I find that Mr Davies has been selective in what he wanted to recall and therefore what he wanted to admit to before me. This finding adversely affects his fitness to hold a licence as all operators are expected to tell the whole truth (not just the selected truth) in a public inquiry when giving evidence to the regulator.
The passenger of the vehicle Mr Davies was driving, Mr Robert Smith, had not attended as a witness either in person or via video link. I asked why, seeing as he was present at the time of the DVSA encounter. I was told that he was too busy. I find that to be an extraordinary reason given 50 clear days notice of the hearing had been given and that Mr Smith would clearly have known how important the hearing was to Mr Davies.
Mr Smith had provided a very short letter at page 153 of the bundle. I give the evidence contained in that letter very little evidential weight for the following reasons. First, it materially contradicts the evidence given by Mr Davies since Mr Smith has stated “We were just coming on to A84 Stirling when Edwin Davies, who was driving the vehicle received a phone call which made him clearly very upset soon after this we were stopped by the DVSA.”
Looking at Google maps the A84 Stirling appears to be less than 5 miles from where Mr Davies was stopped by the DVSA; DVSA Checksite, Craigforth W, M9/A84 Stirling.
The evidence of Mr Davies given in the public inquiry was that he received the telephone call that made him upset 2.5 hours before the DVSA stop (see my findings in relation to this below) and it is therefore plainly not possible that what Mr Smith has said is correct as it would not have taken 2.5 hours for Mr Davies to drive that short distance. That finding materially adversely affects the credibility of Mr Smith.
The rest of Mr Smith’s letter is vague and gives absolutely no specific evidence upon the central and most potent issues in this case. Given the locus of Mr Smith to all of those events I find it hard to believe that he would not mention them at all.
Had Mr Smith attended then his evidence could have been put to scrutiny to test it but no such opportunity arose as he had not attended.
For the above reasons the evidence from Mr Smith is given very little evidential weight.
Neither Carol-Anne Till (consultant) nor Mr Davies daughter were present at the time of the DVSA stop so they could only give evidence about what Mr Davies had told them about it. I have taken their evidence into account but the weight attached to it regarding the most serious and potent allegations is significantly tempered by the fact that they were not physically present at the time to observe what happened firsthand.
Pulling everything together regarding Mr Davies behavior to the DVSA officers on 16 December 2025 I prefer the evidence given by the TE Westerman and VEM Paterson for the above reasons; the evidence of the DVSA was the most cogent, credible and persuasive evidence in this case.
Mr Davies does not read or write as he has not learned to do so. That was a life choice and remains as such. It is not an excuse for any failure to understand the requirements to hold a restricted operator’s licence and it is not an excuse to explain his behavior on 16 December 2025. He is required to have workarounds to deal with the fact that he cannot read and write and clearly on the day in question he had the assistance/potential assistance of Mr Robert Smith in the vehicle with him. Mr Smith can read and write as evidenced by his letter at page 153 of the bundle, i.e. he could only have written it if he was able read and write.
Mr Davies first received a call to state that his daughter had bumped into her husband in town 2.5 hours before he was stopped by the DVSA. What he was told in that telephone call made him very upset. He then received another telephone call before he was stopped to say that his daughter was safely back home.
There was clearly time for Mr Davies to have calmed down before he was stopped by the DVSA.
The cause of Mr Davies initial upset was, I was told, long standing given the relationship between his daughter and her husband with whom I understand she is estranged. There was, from the evidence before me in the bundle and from what I was told, a long standing issue and since the events concerning his daughter on 16 December 2025 occurred spontaneously such an event could occur again. Therefore, there is the real possibility that Mr Davies could receive another call like that and as a result another cause for him to become upset.
Mr Davies was stopped at about 1250 hours. The times on the pocket book entries before me show that Mr Davies left the DVSA checksite at around 1430 hours. Therefore the encounter with the DVSA lasted just over 1.5 hours in total.
The stop undertaken by the DVSA was lawful.
The DVSA thereafter acted in a lawful manner throughout the encounter with Mr Davies.
Mr Davies called TE Westerman a liar.
Mr Davies called TE Westerman square faced and pointed his finger at her.
Mr Davies told TE Westerman that she did not know how to do her job.
Mr Davies stated that he would cut the immobilization cable.
Mr Davies shouted at TE Westerman and became extremely verbally aggressive towards her.
Mr Davies pointed his finger at TE Westerman when he shouted at her. TE Westerman found Mr Davies behavior so intimidating that she had to step back from him several times as he came closer to her face.
Such was Mr Davies increasingly aggressive and intimidating conduct towards TE Westerman that a Police officer who was present at the time had to move between Mr Davies and TE Westerman.
Mr Davies told VEM Patterson that he could shove the immobilization cable up his Mother’s c*nt. That is an extremely offensive and disgusting thing to say and was, I find, received as such.
TE Westerman went to get the immobilization cable.
Mr Davies shouted after her that she should hang herself with the immobilization cable first. That is a highly offensive and hurtful thing to say and was, I find, received as such. It was not, as was put to TE Westerman, a passing comment or generic expression. It was, I find, shouted at her with the intent of being offensive.
The immobilization cable was fitted at 1350 hours.
TE Westerman had acted calmly and professionally throughout this whole episode.
Neither TE Westerman nor VEM Paterson had acted in a way to provoke Mr Davies.
At no time before Mr Davies left the DVSA check site did he apologize for his behavior to either DVSA officer.
The effect of this incident upon TE Westerman was such that she stated “I have had drivers show disrespect to me before this encounter, but none have been so extreme. The level of verbal abuse and intimidation that Mr Davies showed towards DVSA, and towards me, was not something that we should have to experience in our position. Particularly not from a licensed operator, who should be aware of our role and powers.”
Of this episode VEM Paterson stated “…30 years experience as a roadside Examiner…the verbal aggression shown towards TE Westerman during this particular encounter was one of the most verbally aggressive encounters towards any DVSA Examiner that I have personally experienced…I could clearly see she was shaken and upset by the torrent of abuse she had to endure…[she] did nothing to incite this period of unacceptable behaviour from this driver.”
I have no hesitation in finding that both of these statements are consistent with the facts as I have found them to be and I have no reason to disbelieve what either DVSA officer has said.
It is clear to me that this episode occurred when there was no persuasive reason for Mr Davies to still be upset about what had happened with his daughter because he had been told that she was at home and behind closed doors, and on his own evidence, before he was stopped. In other words, he knew she was safe well before he was stopped. He therefore had no reason to remain upset by the events that had affected his daughter during the subsequent DVSA encounter. To use his daughter as an excuse for his subsequent behavior is rejected for the above reasons and I find that excuse carries no meaningful evidential weight as a result.
It is clear to me that this episode with the DVSA occurred over a long period of time and throughout that period of time it only escalated because Mr Davies caused it to escalate. This was not a short loss of temper and then a rapid cooling off and immediate apology. This was a protracted period of aggressive and intimidating behavior towards DVSA officers, and in particular TE Westerman, who were only doing their job in a calm and professional manner. There was no apology and TE Westerman had to come to terms with the manner in which Mr Davies had treated her after he had left. Even at the date of the public inquiry she was visibly still upset when recalling what had happened and what she had been subjected to.
I therefore find that this was an extremely serious and protracted incident caused solely by Mr Davies in which he behaved in a totally unacceptable manner when there was no persuasive reason for him to have done so.
The operator licensing system relies on trust at its heart. Trust that operators will, at all times, act in a polite and professional manner towards the DVSA. Trust that all operators will treat the DVSA officers with respect. Trust that all operators will speak to DVSA officers and not shout at them. Trust that all operators will not use vile and highly offensive language to DVSA officers. Trust that all operators will not act in an intimidating manner towards DVSA officers. Trust that all operators will not act in an aggressive manner towards DVSA officers. Trust that operators will tell the whole, and not just selective, truth when they appear before a (Deputy)Traffic Commissioner in a public inquiry. Trust that operators who hold a restricted licence remain fit, at all times, to hold that licence.
Mr Davies failed to notify the Traffic Commissioner of the convictions/fixed penalties recorded at page 102 of the bundle when there was no reasonable excuse for his failure to do so.
There were positives presented to me:
- A consultant, Mrs Gill, had now been engaged
- He has organized an annual compliance audit
- An OLAT course had been booked
- A drivers’ hours course had been attended
- Mr Davies had obtained a company card
- Mr Davies had signed up for a tachograph analysis package
- Mr Davies had analysed data and held infringement meetings
- He had attempted to implement advice given to him
- He accepted that his behavior was unacceptable on the day of the stop and apologized to the two DVSA officers, and in particular TE Westerman, in the public inquiry
- This is his first public inquiry and there have been 15 years of operating previously without intervention by the Traffic Commissioner.
I have given meaningful weight for all of those positives.
However, none of those things address (a) Mr Davies being selective in the evidence he gave to me and the admissions he was prepared to make or (b) the risk to the DVSA that Mr Davies may act like he did on 16 December 2025 again. No courses, no new systems and procedures, no consultant etc can mitigate or remove that risk. And I find that there is a risk based upon how Mr Davies behaved before and the reason he told me for that behavior.
BALANCING EXERCISE
I have attached the greatest evidential weight that I can give to Mr Davies behaviour on 16 December 2025. In my 18 years as a Deputy and full time Traffic Commissioner I have only ever encountered one other episode of behaviour as bad as this. Such is the extreme and extraordinary nature of this case.
I have attached significant weight to my finding that Mr Davies was selective in the evidence he recalled and as a result what he wanted to admit to in the public inquiry.
Balanced against the evidential weight that I can give for the negative findings in this case is the weight that I have attached for the positives in this case. For each of those positives set out in paragraph 56 above I have given reasonable/meaningful weight. Many of the positives are things that Mr Davies should have been doing anyway in order to comply with, and fulfil, the general undertakings on his operator’s licence.
When looking at the operator, as he appeared before me at the public inquiry, when I have balanced the weight given to the negatives in this case against the weight I have given for the positives the scales tip firmly in one direction; in favour of the negatives.
STATUTORY DOCUMENT 10, ANNEX 4 CONSIDERATION, DECISIONS AND REASONS
This is an extraordinary and highly unusual case. Such is the extremely rare nature of cases such as this that there is little provision for them in SD10 Annex 4 which is to be expected as SD10 Annex 4 is aimed at dealing with typical and not extraordinary cases. Mr Dunbar, in his written submissions at paragraph 97 (page 198 of the bundle) submitted that the starting point for consideration of regulatory action is in the “Severe” category. I agree.
Where I disagree with Mr Dunbar is what constitutes the proportionate (and indeed purposeful) regulatory action in this case.
The real concerns to me are (a) the extreme nature of Mr Davies behaviour, and its duration, in this case, (b) the risk that something like this might occur again and (c) Mr Davies not telling me the whole truth in the public inquiry.
I do not consider that risk of something like the events on 16 December 2025 occurring again to be fanciful, I consider that risk to be real. If Mr Davies could act as he did over the length of time he did when there was no provocation or persuasive reason for him to do so then I will not let the risk of that happening again remain particularly when the initial cause of his upset was an event that could occur by accident (or by design) again. Were this a case of a disgruntled operator/driver who lost their temper with the DVSA in a momentary lapse of reason but quickly cooled off, apologised and then continued in a professional manner with the DVSA then things would be different. But that is not what happened here. The proven statements given by the two DVSA officers (paragraphs 48 and 49 above) are unequivocally clear as are my findings of fact.
The purpose of this jurisdiction is to regulate and not punish operators. Parliament has given Deputy/Traffic Commissioners powers to deal with operators at sections 26, 27 and 28 of the Act when regulatory action is deemed necessary. Those powers must be used in a proportionate manner.
I repeat all of my findings of fact. I remind myself of what I have said about trust in paragraph 54 above.
“Severe” regulatory action is defined in SD10 Annex 4 as:
- Revocation with detailed consideration of disqualification
- Revocation
- Suspension for an extended time period that materially affects the transport operation
- Significant indefinite curtailment that materially affects the transport operation
Looking at the Priority Freight question, which I would normally ask in cases where I had to decide whether an operator remained fit to hold an operator’s licence, I determine that it is of little, if any, help since that question is aimed at answering whether an operator is likely to be compliant in the future with the undertakings recorded on the operator’s licence. It is not whether this operator will be compliant in the future with the undertakings recorded on his operator’s licence that is in issue here.
Such is the extreme and extraordinary nature of what happened on 16 December 2025, and such is the weight that I attached to Mr Davies failure to tell the whole truth when he appeared before me, that despite the credit I have given for the positives that I have identified I am of the firm view that Mr Davies is no longer fit to hold a restricted operator’s licence and I make that determination. This is one of those very rare cases where an example must be made to deter other operators from ever acting in a way like this to the DVSA. The loss of Mr Davies fitness is a material change of circumstances and looking at this case as a whole I determine that it is proportionate to revoke this operator’s licence which I do under section 26(1)(h) of the Act. For the reasons I will give I make no order under section 28.
Revocation of this licence is also purposeful since upon any new application for an operator’s licence Mr Davies will have the burden of proof to satisfy the Traffic Commissioner that they are fit to be granted a restricted operator’s licence or of good repute to be granted a standard licence. In any such application Mr Davies will have to satisfy the Traffic Commissioner that the risk of another episode such as that on 16 December 2025 occurring again is sufficiently mitigated i.e. that he can be trusted to always behave properly when encountering the DVSA. Only if that risk is shown to be sufficiently mitigated will Mr Davies be able to prove that he is fit/of good repute.
Therefore, for Mr Davies to have a realistic chance of being granted a new operator’s licence on the papers any new application will need to be accompanied with:
-
Proof that the risk of another incident occurring is sufficiently mitigated, for example with tangible proof that he has attended, and successfully completed, an anger management course or other course given by a suitably qualified healthcare professional that is aimed at reducing the likelihood of Mr Davies behaving like he did before; and
-
Proof that he has indeed attended, and successfully completed, the OLAT course that I was told by Mr Dunbar that he was going to attend.
My order of revocation will take effect at 2345 hours on 08 November 2026. That gives Mr Davies three clear months to either wind down the transport side of his business or for him to obtain the tangible evidence detailed in paragraph 73 above and to then make an application for a new operator’s licence.
I make no order under section 28 of the Act as is it not purposeful to do so. If Mr Davies does what I set out in paragraph 73 above then there is no persuasive reason why he should not be allowed to carry on operating, albeit under a new operator’s licence. Nothing would be gained by making an order of disqualification.
Mr Davies will appreciate, I hope, that whilst this operator’s licence is to be revoked there should be no interruption in his ability to operate if he complies with paragraph 73 above and is successful in obtaining a new operator’s licence.
Deputy Traffic Commissioner Mr M Dorrington
05 August 2026.
DRIVER CONDUCT HEARING ON 09 JULY 2026
I repeat all of the findings of fact that I have made in the written decision for Mr Edwin Davies as an operator. I adopt all of those findings of fact in reaching this decision.
In driver conduct cases I must only look at Mr Davies conduct as a driver when considering his large goods vehicle (“LGV”) driving entitlement. I must consider all relevant facts up to the date of the driver conduct hearing. I must take into account the directions set out in Statutory Document 6 issued by the Senior Traffic Commissioner. I must also take into account what Mr Justice Pitchford (as he was then) held in the High Court Judicial Review of Meredith & Others [2009] EWHC 2975 (Admin).
There are different considerations in driver conduct hearings compared to public inquires as driver conduct hearings arise from different legislation and caselaw.
Here the facts of the case are extremely clear; that for a long time on 16 December 2026 Mr Davies acted in a totally unacceptable manner by his increasingly aggressive and intimidating behaviour towards two DVSA officers who were only doing their job which they did in a calm and professional manner. It is perfectly clear that he intended to cause offence and how he acted and what he said caused both intimidation and offence and made TE Westerman extremely upset such that she appeared to still be visibly upset when she recalled events of 16 December 2026 via video link.
Such is the extreme nature of this case that there is little guidance in SD6. That is because cases such as this are extremely rare and SD6 is written to deal with typical, every day, cases and not cases of an extraordinary nature.
SD6 states for a “Report from a public body of a driver adopting abusive or intimidating behaviour to a public official” that the entry point for regulatory action is a suspension of LGV/PCV driving entitlement.
Case example 31 given in SD6 describes an incident of intimidation and also where road safety was put at risk. There a suspension of 6 months was imposed. That case example is a summary of an actual driver conduct hearing that I presided over.
This case did not involve a risk to road safety but was one of only two cases I have dealt with in my 18 years as a Deputy and full time Traffic Commissioner where I have found verbal aggression, abuse and intimidation at this level and for this length of time towards DVSA officers. It is an extraordinary case for all of the wrong reasons.
There were some positives in this case but Mr Davies cannot say that he has had a clean driving history as he has not. I have given credit for Mr Davies undertaking further training as a driver, for his apology (albeit only in the hearing) to the DVSA officers concerned, his acceptance that his behaviour had been unacceptable and the changes he has made to his systems and procedures to ensure compliance with drivers hours and tachograph usage going forward. I appreciate that the order I make, below, will cause Mr Davies difficulties but, as per the Judicial Review case of Meredith cited above, I can only look at Mr Davies fitness to hold LGV driving entitlement and the loss of work as a driver that will flow from my order neither makes him anymore, or any less, fit to hold LGV entitlement. In fact loss of work as a driver resulting from an order made by a (Deputy) Traffic Commissioner is par of the course as fully explained in Statutory Document 6. Therefore, the loss of work to Mr Davies as a driver carries little weight and does not amount to an exceptional circumstance that would impel me to consider a more lenient course of regulatory action.
Balanced against the mitigation in this case is the fact that this is the second worst case of unacceptable behaviour towards DVSA officials I have ever had to deal with.
Mr Davies conduct as a driver is such that he is no longer fit to hold LGV driving entitlement. After taking into account the credit that I have given to Mr Davies I determine that the proportionate regulatory action is to suspend his LGV driving entitlement for 3 consecutive months. That reflects the severity of his conduct but also distinguishes this case from real life case example 31 in SD6 where the further aggravating feature in that case was the risk to road safety.
The suspension of Mr Davies LGV driving entitlement will begin at 2345 hours on 01 September 2026 and will end at 2345 hours on 30 November 2026. During that time Mr Davies cannot drive any vehicle on any public road that requires him to hold LGV driving entitlement. Were he to be found to have breached my order then he commits the offences of driving otherwise in accordance with his driving licence and driving without insurance.
Were Mr Davies to breach my order I would also call him to a further driver conduct hearing before myself where, upon any adverse determination being made against him, he is very likely to have his LGV entitlement revoked and for him to be disqualified from holding it again for at least 12 months.
Deputy Traffic Commissioner Mr M Dorrington.
5 August 2026.