Decision for Excel Scaffold (South East) Ltd (OK2055441)
Written decision of the Traffic Commissioner in the South Eastern and Metropolitan area for Excel Scaffold (South East) Ltd
IN THE SOUTH EASTERN & METROPOLITAN TRAFFIC AREA
EXCEL SCAFFOLD (SOUTH EAST) LTD OK2055441
GOODS VEHICLES (LICENSING OF OPERATORS) ACT 1995
TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER’S WRITTEN DECISION
Decision
Pursuant to adverse findings under Section 26(1)(b), (f) and (h) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995, Licence OK2055441 Excel Scaffold (South East) Ltd is revoked with effect from 23:45 on 12 February 2026.
No direction is made under Section 28 of the 1995 Act, but if the company or its sole director Mr Petr Kvapil (D.O.B Feb 79) apply for an operator’s licence in any guise or to be engaged in the management, administration and control of any legal entity that holds or obtains a licence, then that application must be referred to a Traffic Commissioner/Deputy Traffic Commissioner (no delegated authority).
Reasons
The full history is set out in the Public Inquiry call in letter and case summary and I do not repeat it here save as material to my findings. The Licence was granted in August 2022, and Mr Kvapil has been the sole director since December 2023. The Operator was called to a Public Inquiry in March 2024 for failing to adhere to a specific undertaking previously offered and accepted (OLAT attendance and vehicle to be specified on licence). In addition, the resignation of director Maryann Jane Harris-Kvapil had not been notified. The Operator failed to attend the Inquiry on the day listed. The DTC adjourned the case to April 2024 to afford the Operator one further opportunity to attend. On that occasion the Operator was issued with a serious formal warning, and three undertakings were offered and accepted:
- To instruct an independent transport consultant for at least four hours a month for the next six months to advise on all aspects of its vehicle operations.
- To submit within seven days, a new maintenance contract, that provides 6 weekly inspections and that includes laden roller brake testing in the 7 days leading up to each PMI.
- The operator to arrange an independent audit by the end of October 2024.
In addition, the Operator was to submit finances and further undertakings accepted for an injection of capital.
The audit undertaking was not fulfilled on time as the director was said to be ill. The audit was not received until December 2024 and there were no proposals to deal with the improvements as required. In summary the following shortcomings were found:
- Undertaking on licence not met as audit overdue and communications with the Office of The Traffic Commissioner should be on time.
- Tyre maintenance communications unsatisfactory.
- PMI sheets to be reviewed by management and crossed referenced with DDI reports.
- Disciplinary policy to be put in place.
- Driver documents checks to be kept on file.
- Drivers ticking incorrect DDR boxes.
- Wheel nut torque policy to be implemented.
- Recommendation DDI sheets audited every month and internal audits retained.
- PMI and RBT should be highlighted and reviewed as well as signed and dated.
- Torque tags or equivalent documentation received after any wheel removal.
- Recommendation gate checks and safety recall monthly.
The Operator was chased in January 2025 for proposals to implement the audit’s recommendations and yet a further reminder was sent in March 2025, also requesting finances. Again, there was no response and accordingly I determined that the Operator should be called back to Public Inquiry.
The Hearing
The Public Inquiry was listed for 03 February 2026 at 10.00am. The call in letter was issued on 12 December 2025 with case management directions attached requiring statutory records, other supporting documentation and evidence of financial resources to be submitted to OTC Eastbourne either by uploading to Case Centre or by email at least 14 days before the hearing, namely 20 January 2026. On 13 January 2026 Mr Kvapil requested an adjournment upon the basis he was having a knee replacement on 05 January 2026, and the company was about to cease trading. I made the following decision:
‘The adjournment request is refused. The operator appears to have a history of failing to respond to DVSA and OTC, which was also highlighted in the audit. I note the previous history, the previous Inquiries (the first of which the operator failed to attend), the failure to fulfil an undertaking and the failure to respond to the last OTC letter before being called back to an inquiry. I am told there is no vehicle operating but a vehicle remains specified. The circumstances do not therefore suggest surrender on the papers as appropriate. Any application to surrender must be made in the prescribed manner and if made can be considered at the hearing. No medical evidence has been produced to say the director is unfit to attend a hearing – as required by STC Statutory Document No. 9 (Case Management). In the circumstances, it is in the public interest for this case to proceed on the date listed.’
Nothing further has been heard from the Operator since and therefore I determined that it was appropriate to decide on the papers.
The Issues
The inquiry is called to consider: -
8.1 Failure to comply with undertakings (several)
8.2 Failure to comply with case management directions for the hearing
8.3 Failure to produce relevant evidence in support of an adjournment request
8.4 Waste of OTC and Tribunal time and resource.
Consideration and Findings
The chronology speaks for itself, and this Operator has failed to meet undertakings offered over a sustained period of time and failed to deal with follow up correspondence from OTC. Prior to the hearing in April 2024, there was a history of Mr Kvapil failing to engage. The DTC at that hearing found ‘Mr Kvapil appeared to me to be genuinely sorry for the delay and inconvenience caused and assured me that he would do his utmost to keep everything up to date and in compliance moving forward. In light of the undertakings provided and the reasons above…’ a strong formal warning was issued.
Regrettably the trust place by the DTC in Mr Kvapil at that point was misplaced when looking at his failure to engage thereafter. The Operator has not sent in a single document required in the case management directions (pages 13 – 14 of the electronic bundle). The Operator had the option to upload them direct to Case Centre, by email to OTC (email address given) or by post. There is not even a bank statement in our possession. The Upper Tribunal in “2011/031 Barry Flowerdew trading as Auto Village Ltd” said that “a line had to be drawn at some stage” and the same is apposite here and I draw that line. I see no good reason for any further OTC resources to be wasted on this Operator. When I pose the question ‘Can I trust this Operator moving forward?’, the evidence is overwhelmingly not. Whilst I sympathise if there are medical issues, what is required in such circumstances is clearly set out in the Satutory Documents and the failure to engage properly has gone on for over a year, not just months or weeks.
Conclusion
In light of the above, revocation is the only appropriate and proportionate decision to protect the legitimate hard-working industry and integrity of the regime. Accordingly, I have reached the decision set out in paragraphs 1 and 2 above.
Miss Sarah Bell
Traffic Commissioner
11 February 2026.