Decision for ETM Construction & Recycling Holdings Ltd (OH1115884)
Written decision of the Traffic Commissioner for the Westof England for ETM Construction & Recycling Holdings Ltd and transport managers Westley De-Laune and Christopher Harrison
WESTERN TRAFFIC AREA
ETM CONSTRUCTION & RECYCLING HOLDINGS LTD OH1115884
CHRISTOPHER HARRISON – TRANSPORT MANAGER
WESTLEY DE-LAUNE – TRANSPORT MANAGER
AT A PUBLIC INQUIRY IN BRISTOL 24 OCTOBER AND 10 NOVEMBER 2025
DECISION
The Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (as amended) (“the Act”)
Pursuant to adverse findings under Sections 26(1)(c)(iii), 26(1)(ca) and 26(1)(f), the licence is curtailed to 87 vehicles immediately and for a period of at least six months. Any application to remove the curtailment will need to be supported by independent evidence of a high degree of compliance, evidence that the governance arrangements proposed have been implemented and a lack of any further load security prohibitions.
The good repute of Westley De-Laune is lost and he is disqualified from acting as such for a period of one year from today and until he sits and passes again the transport manager certificate of professional competence examination.
The good repute of Christopher Harrison is marked as tarnished but intact.
Undertaking batch 98397 is removed from the licence.
BACKGROUND
ETM Construction & Recycling Holdings Ltd is the holder of a standard national goods vehicle operator’s licence authorising the use of ninety vehicles and seven trailers from four operating centres in Bristol. The directors are Edward McCormack, Amy McCormack and Andrew McCormack. The transport managers are currently Christopher Harrison and, since July this year, Andrew Rudd. Westley De-Laune was removed as a transport manager in September but was in post at the relevant time.
DVSA had a number of encounters with the operator’s vehicles during the summer of 2024. Insecure loads were identified along with a blatantly obvious defect of a mandatory mirror missing. The roadside prohibition rate is 52% across 21 encounters – the average prohibition rate at DVSA’s random fleet compliance checks is 9.1%. This led to a DVSA follow-up maintenance investigation which found a number of shortcomings and caused me to call the company and transport managers to public inquiry. Due to an apparent allegation of dishonesty, DVSA Vehicle Examiner Gary Ford was also called.
THE PUBLIC INQUIRY
24 October 2025
All parties who had been called arrived on time and all relevant compliance documents and updated reports were provided. Mr Ford had carried out a particularly comprehensive pre-PI report. For whatever reason, Mr Ford asked the clerk whether I had seen the photographs of the s-marked defects. I had not. They were not in the case bundle. Review of the electronic submission on which the decision to call to a hearing was made found them absent there too. In fact, a considerable amount of evidence was missing from both the submission and the case bundle. At the same time, the clerk became unable to continue.
On review of the missing documents, I concluded that their content was such that it was not safe or fair to continue. The clerk had been the only member of Western Hearing Centre staff present that day. Fortunately there was one other person in the building, a manager from another OTC team, and I am very grateful to him for standing-in to allow me to start the hearing. Having done so, I adjourned it in the following terms:
“I adjourn this case to allow the operator time to respond to the fresh evidence served at the time the hearing was due to start. That evidence included an email from a vehicle hire company referenced in the Vehicle Examiner’s report and photographs of two of the load security prohibitions which showed the extent of the insecurity. My office will make a further check for any additional missing evidence.
The nature of those prohibitions is such that the drivers are called to driver conduct hearings. For fairness, those conduct hearings should be conjoined with the public inquiry so that all evidence relating to those encounters can be heard together. That is the second reason for the adjournment.
The call-up letter did not put the operator on notice of the apparent breach of Section 5(6) of the Act in relation to vehicle CE70AVF. There appears to be a reliance upon a calendar month period of grace to specify a vehicle on a licence. However, the same vehicle was previously specified on the ETM licence from 26 September 2022 until 2 May 2024 and then further specified on the date of the encounter, 7 August 2024. Section 5(6) of the 1995 Act states:
(6) A motor vehicle which is not specified in an operator’s licence is not authorised to be used under that licence by virtue of subsection (1) after the period of one month beginning with— (a) the day on which the vehicle was first in the lawful possession of the licence-holder,
That is the third reason for the adjournment. None of this is caused by any wrongdoing on the part of the operator and I apologise to them and Miss Caple for these serious shortcomings.”
11 November 2025
Andrew McCormack, Christopher Harrison, Westley De-Laune, Andrew Rudd and Alex Cameron attended for the operator. Drivers Samuel Newton and Jackson Thomas were present for conjoined driver conduct hearings. All were represented by Elizabeth Caple, solicitor. Also present was DVSA Vehicle Examiner Gary Ford. I do not record all the evidence here, only that which is central to my decision-making. A transcript can be made available if required.
In opening, I confirmed that finances were satisfactory and that nothing of particular concern arose from my review of drivers’ hours compliance documents.
I concluded the driver conduct hearings as follows:
Jackson Thomas was issued an immediate prohibition and fixed penalty notice on 7 August 2024 for a load security matter. The issue was obvious – the sheet was designed for a 40 yard skip and that carried was 20 yard leaving a significant gap between sheet and load. It is accepted that driver Thomas had told the planning office that his vehicle was unsuitable for the lower skips and that he was assigned the job anyway. TM Harrison told me that “there is an opportunity for error” (although he later sought to re-state that in the past tense). The load comprised pallets loaded vertically around the edge of the bin and horizontally within it, all entirely unsecured. With reference to the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Guidance, I find that this is a “serious offence committed on an infrequent basis”. The starting point is a 14 day-suspension. There are two speeding offences which I find to be negative features. In the positive, he was clearly let down by the company’s systems. I find that they balance and so I impose a 14-day suspension wef 24 December 2025. I put Mr Thomas on notice that any further speeding offences is likely to see him without HGV entitlement for a long time.
Samuel Newton was issued with an immediate s-marked prohibition on 3 July 2024 for an insecure load, above the tipper sides and where it is clear that product is likely to spill. A spare load covering sheet was draped on the battery box. The near side wide angle mirror was missing and had been for a fortnight with several of those days driven by Mr Newton. It is accepted that the defect had been notified but the driver took the vehicle anyway. That is a small positive. I find that this case is very serious with a starting point of 4 weeks. Due to the prior notification of the mirror defect, I reduce that to 4 weeks wef 24 December 2025.
The point which had inferred the potential for forged braking documents had been resolved pre-hearing in discussion between Mr Ford and Ms Caple. I was content there was nothing remaining in it. Mr Ford summarised the latest position. Brake testing at ETM was generally good but that undertaken by Scania was inconsistent. Tyre pressures remain a concern with the same tyre on the same vehicle signed-off as roadworthy whilst varying between 90psi and 120psi.
Andrew McCormack told me of the background to the family business and himself. There is a workshop manager with four fully-qualified technicians, with another four on the plant side, There is an in-house tyre-fitter, Ben. The company had realised in 2024 that the transport management needed to be strengthened. It was accepted that the prohibitions were serious matters as were the shortcomings identified in the investigation. The fleet is relatively young and £8 Million had been spent on modernisation over the previous 5 years. All vehicles were fitted with Easy Sheets, on-board weighing and tracking.
Chris Harrison told me that vehicle CE70AVF had not been specified not due to a misunderstanding of the one-month period of grace but due to a simple administrative error to re-specify it. I noted there was room within the margin so no suggestion that the company had operated over authority.
All planners should have been aware that CE70AVF could not carry a 20-yard skip. With a large number of loads on vehicles of different types, Mr Harrison told me that “there is an opportunity for error”. Mr Thomas is a professional driver and should have refused the load. Mr Harrison accepted that planners may seem to put pressure on drivers to take inappropriate loads. It was a hire vehicle and they would not hire another one like it. It creates a risk so any future hire vehicle will match the standard of the owned vehicles. Planners now understood that an error on their part could have serious consequences.
In relation to Mr Newton’s load, Mr Harrison could not explain how the sheet had come not to cover the full load. He had been looking to get heavier sheets. Tipper sheets tend to be lighter than those for skips. Asked why the load was above the side of the tipper, Mr Harrison told me (again) that he had come from outside the industry and had been given to understand that was normal. They would not now load a vehicle like that again. If it was loaded incorrectly away from base, drivers had the authority to refuse it. In relation to the mirror, it had been reported by two drivers over a two-week period. Mr Harrison’s investigation had not got to an explanation for that – the defect book had gone missing. They were now moving to an app-based system.
Westley De-Laune told me that he had been with ETM for 26 years. He had become transport manager in 2014. His role was support to transport managers. He was operational as well so mainly on site. He would chat to the drivers and check for safe loads. He was in the yard in the morning looking for any issues. They had done that since day 1. Planning of the work was done each evening on the contractor side of the business; he was not involved in the recycling business.
Mr De-Laune had been involved in taking on and disciplining drivers. He wasn’t so much involved with tachographs or the “paperwork side” of the business. He would talk to the workshop staff each night to see what vehicles were coming in for servicing. He was responsible for some of the tippers, grabs and maybe a low-loader. His role was operations manager, more so now. There had been regular meetings but now more informal communications. Mr De-Laune didn’t get involved with PMIs, more the operational side.
There are about 5 or 6 managers in the yard in the morning, each with their own gangs. He came off the licence in July. His role with the drivers had not changed significantly since. They all worked together. His role was the same now as in 2014. He had been involved in preparing for the public inquiry.
I asked about the reference to “paperwork”. Mr De-Laune told me that he wasn’t in the office much so didn’t get involved with it. I asked what Mr De-Laune had actually done as a transport manager since 2014. Back in the day he got involved but that was when they had about six wagons.
In closing, Mr McCormack told me that he wanted to add more structure to the management and described those in place, some 10 – 15 senior supporting managers across the business. He wanted to have external support including Ms Caple to structure the initial business meetings. There was regular engagement with his fellow directors.
I asked for written submissions with a proposed governance structure as it currently appeared that there was a large number of managers reporting to a single person in a sizeable business.
POST HEARING
Ms Caple provided an email on 21 November 2025 with organograms for the overall business and the constituent parts along with a short commentary. I am offered an undertaking for a compliance audit in six months.
In preparing this decision, I have seen that today an application has been made to add a new transport manager. I do not know if this is additional or in place of an existing transport manager but the individual appears to be a new entrant to the business and credible. There is a separate application to increase authority at one operating centre with no overall increase. I also see that the operator has uploaded evidence that access to two operating centres will be compromised for a number of periods mostly over Christmas and New Year but with the potential for that to occur on further occasions over eighteen months.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I find no evidence of a breach of conditions as set out in the call-up. Section 26(1)(b) is not made out.
The prohibition rate is dreadful, five times the baseline random sample. However, there is mitigation and three are “X marked” which the DVSA Categorisation of Defects says is to be used “where the defect is no reflection on the maintenance system”. If they are discounted, the prohibition rate reduces to 38%, still four times the fleet compliance rate. However, many defects also relate to tyres and the nature of this operation means that are defects are highly likely. That doesn’t excuse the high prohibition rate but it sets it in context. What is really concerning is the ongoing issue of load security where learning seems slow and Mr Harrison’s explanation was unconvincing. Sections 26(1)(c)(iii) and (ca) are made out and I attach significant weight.
Nine percent of inspections have been late. In all but one case, this is just by one week. Section 26(1)(e) is made out but I attach no particular weight.
The MOT pass rate is impressive with an initial fail rate of 6.72%. However, there is a clear indication that the standard of PMI pre-MOT is not the same as that throughout the year. I cite WU19KME as an example. Very little is found at PMI until 10 December 2024 when there are eighteen defects noted. As is my practice when I see this, I checked if this was pre-MOT and it was MOT’d 3 days later. WX64YLM exhibits the same conduct at PMI 9 April 2024 ahead of its MOT on the 12th. In the latest DVSA update, K77ETM yields a raft of defects and is fitted with all new tyres for its MOT in April this year. I find that vehicles are not being kept fit and serviceable throughout the year, Section 26(1)(f) is made out and I attach significant weight.
It is unclear why overloading was cited in the call-up when there has been none. Likewise, apart from one defect book, all records appear to have been kept. The large number of s-marked prohibitions does indicate that drivers are not recording defects and Section 26(1)(f) is further made out in this regard.
There is no issue with finance nor stable establishment.
Transport management is a concern. Westley De-Laune described in his role almost nothing of the expectations set out at paragraph 54 of the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document No 3. He described his role as that of an operations manager. His role depends on vehicles and drivers being available but he does not, and seems never to have, or at least not for a long time, managed the transport operation. His disregard of management systems as “paperwork” for staff in the office demonstrates the point. I find that he has been a transport manager in name only, at least for many years. He failed to notify that change in position, as did the operator. Due to his failure to conduct the transport manager role over many years, I find that the good repute of Mr De-Laune is lost.
I expressed concern that the operator had been granted increases in authority based on Mr De-Laune devoting 4 hours a day to transport manager duties. He was added to the licence in 2014 as part of a wider application to increase authority from 27 to 37 vehicles. It would appear from what I was told that he was, at least, assisting with transport management at that time. I find that the situation is not one where the operator deliberately nominated an additional transport manager to seek an increase but is a situation that has changed gradually over time. I find that it does not cause the good repute of the operator to be lost.
Christopher Harrison, on the other hand, is performing a transport manager role. There are significant failings in transport management and it was unfortunate that he sought to divert from his failings in relation to load security by saying that arose from his experience being in different types of operation. If he feels he lacks knowledge of competence to run this operation, he should not seek to do so. Mr McCormack told me that the company had identified that the transport management function needed to be improved in 2024 and Andrew Rudd was added in July this year. On balance, I find that the failures of transport management are shared between the company and Mr Harrison and his good repute is tarnished but intact.
I turn now to the company and the managing director Andrew McCormack. The company has been very slow to act in relation to load security; I am still not confident that it has done enough. There appears a strong reliance on drivers, drivers who it was accepted in evidence by Mr Harrison may be put under pressure by both planning staff and customers. It is, though, a strong positive that the company stood by the two drivers called to the hearing and provided legal support. That is an indication that the company realises that drivers need both to be managed and supported. It is a positive feature that carries much weight.
There are positives. There appears in general sound management of drivers hours and tachographs. Despite reference in the call-up, there has been no overloading in a sector where overloading is a clear risk and that has been assisted no doubt by vehicles being equipped with on-board weighers. There has been major investment in the fleet, in maintenance facilities and in training. It is a business, though, which is suffering from growing pains. It employs 200 staff with no formalised governance structure. That put forward by Ms Caple in her post-hearing submissions is a start but it still shows heavy reliance on a single individual, duplicated reporting lines which reduce accountability, and is still in my view far too organic and not fit for purpose. But it is a start and hopefully it can be worked through to a more typical structure with clear responsibilities and layered lines of accountability. I put the operator on notice of the need to do that quickly, and certainly before any potential application to increase authority.
Despite my load security reservations, I find that this is an operator I can trust to, at least, try hard to be compliant in the future and certainly not an operator that deserves to be put out of business.
Having regard to the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document No. 10, I find that the repeated load security failings over several years, posing a real risk to road safety must put this into a regulatory starting point of serious. That would indicate regulatory action that would materially affect the transport operation. Having taken account of the positive features above, I find I can step back from that and it is appropriate that I take regulatory action that does not materially affect the transport operation notwithstanding that it may cause the operator difficulty with any future bids for work.
I note that there are outdated and now irrelevant undertakings attached to the licence.
DECISIONS
Pursuant to adverse findings under Sections 26(1)(c)(iii), 26(1)(ca) and 26(1)(f), the licence is curtailed to 87 vehicles immediately and for a period of at least six months. Any application to remove the curtailment will need to be supported by independent evidence of a high degree of compliance, evidence that the governance arrangements proposed have been implemented and a lack of any further load security prohibitions.
The good repute of Westley De-Laune is lost and he is disqualified from acting as such for a period of one year from today and until he sits and passes again the transport manager certificate of professional competence examination.
The good repute of Christopher Harrison is marked as tarnished but intact.
Undertaking batch 98397 is removed from the licence.
Kevin Rooney
Traffic Commissioner
16 December 2025