Decision for Forest Coaches Ltd (PD2012432)
Written decision of the Deputy Traffic Commissioner in the West Midlands for Forest Coaches Ltd
IN THE WEST MIDLANDS TRAFFIC AREA
FOREST COACHES LTD – PD2012432
SIMON ANDREW HAYES – TRANSPORT MANAGER
DECISION OF THE DEPUTY TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER
Decision
Pursuant to adverse findings under section 17(3)(aa), (b), (c) and (e) of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 (PPVA 1981) and further to the undertakings given below licence PD2012432 is curtailed under section 17(2)(d) of the PPVA 1981 with effect from 23:45 hours on Friday 24 July 2026 until 23:45 hours on Friday 21 August 2026 limiting the number of vehicles authorised under the licence from 6 to 3.
The application to increase the vehicles authorised under licence PD2012432 from 6 to 8 vehicles is refused.
Background
This case is called under sections 14ZA to 17 and Schedule 3 of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 (PPVA 1981) relating to alleged breaches of operator licence PD2012432 by Forest Coaches Ltd and whether its transport manager, Mr Simon Hayes, has been exercising effective and continuous management. There is also an application to increase the vehicles authorised under the licence. The public inquiry at 2.00pm on 29 April 2026 was attended by Mr Hayes, the sole director and transport manager; Ms Lisa Browne, the operator’s compliance and planning manager; and Mr Rick Nugent from RHN Consultancy Ltd. Laura Hadzik solicitor from JMW Solicitors LLP represented the operator and transport manager.
The history of this matter is in the inquiry brief with background in the case summary [4-5] and call-in letter of 18 March 2026 [7-21]. I need not repeat this. In outline, the operator was granted a standard international public service vehicle licence on 30 May 2018. It is currently authorised for 6 vehicles with 6 discs and with 9 vehicles in possession working from operating centres in Leominster and Bucknell. Its main area of business is school bus and coach services.
On 4 July 2025 vehicle M25FCL was issued with an S-marked prohibition for tyre tread worn beyond the legal limit and a break in the fabric [113]. The DVSA visited the operator on 28 August 2025, and the maintenance investigation visit report (MIVR) of 6 October 2025 [59-83] found 7 assessment areas marked as unsatisfactory and 3 as ‘Report to OTC’ with 2 delayed prohibitions. The operator provided a detailed, undated response [89-94]. The vehicle examiner’s pre-inquiry report of 13 April 2026 [235bs-235bu] noted continuing concerns relating to a worn tyre, driver defect reporting concerns, and 6-weekly PMI exceedances. It also noted that the operator has had 4 MOTs since 28 August 2025, each with first time passes [235bu].
A traffic examiner visit report of 3 February 2026 [135-146] noted some shortcomings in operator systems with some being resolved in the short term. It concluded: “there remain areas for improvement, and Mr Hayes has demonstrated a willingness to implement the necessary changes to raise compliance standards” [144]. The pre-inquiry report updated on 14 April 2025 [235bq-235br] concluded that there is:
“… No evidence of Mr Hayes infringements being actioned, there [are] a lot of infringements for the transport manager for not taking the correct rest. There is no evidence of any current continuous development being taken. There is a lot of driving without a driver card, and some reasons are given as ‘refuelling’ or ‘Maintenance’ with drivers names next to the reason, therefore it is not clear if drivers have driven without their driver card or the vehicles were in for maintenance. When completing the TEVR stated, Mr Hayes advised that they were making it company policy driver cards are inserted into the VU at all times when vehicles are being driven, unfortunately there is no evidence of this policy taken effect.” [235br].
An application to increase the authorisation under the licence from 6 to 8 vehicles was received in January 2026. The call-in letter referred to potential breaches of section 17(3)(a), (aa), (b), (c), (e) of the PPVA 1981. Due to the alleged breaches, concern was also raised that the operator may not have appropriate financial standing to hold an operator’s licence for the number of vehicles authorised and whether the company met the requirements of good repute and professional competence under section 14ZA(2) of the PPVA 1981.
The call-in letter to Mr Hayes as transport manager of 18 March 2026 [22-34] explained that the inquiry would consider whether he continued to meet the requirements of good repute and exercised effective and continuous management of a transport operation in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 3 of the PPVA 1981.
Evidence and findings
Relevant evidence included the DVSA reports along with information provided by the operator in accordance with the case management directions. I noted at the outset of the hearing that I was satisfied as to the question of financial standing. I heard oral evidence from Simon Hayes, Lisa Browne and Rick Nugent. The undated, unsigned statements of Ms Browne and Mr Hayes at [235ax-bd] were adopted by them as accurate and true. As this is an existing licence, the burden is on me to be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence as against the civil standard of proof, (i.e. on the balance of probabilities or, more likely than not) before making an adverse finding. Applying those standards to the evidence before me I make the findings below.
At the hearing, the operator accepted the shortcomings in the DVSA reports although Mr Hayes sought to clarify one or two points. His statement at [235ba-bd] sought to explain, although not justify, the shortcomings found in the MIVR and TEVR. From the discussion it became clear to me that Mr Hayes had been taking on the roles of sole company director, transport manager, vehicle maintenance manager and part-time driver for some time and that in spreading himself too thinly he was missing things in some work areas. This included his failure to properly use his driver card when driving and the effective management of his documentation systems. The concerns, as evidenced by the findings in the DVSA reports, was that in attempting to cover a range of tasks he was not doing many of them that effectively to the detriment of compliance with his operator’s licence. When such ineffectiveness impacts on road safety it is unacceptable and the apologies for the shortcomings in his response to the DVSA and the statements made to this inquiry are inadequate as a response. This is particularly so when Mr Hayes has had the critical roles of sole director and transport manager.
It was suggested to me that some of the shortcomings related to information retention including e.g. the non-compliance with special undertaking given at the inquiry in 2022. That is, that the roller brake testing had always been carried out and so the undertaking complied but that the paperwork and printouts could not be found. This may or may not be so [235bd]. The difficulty for the operator is that it has no evidence to confirm the same.
Since the DVSA investigations Mr Hayes has worked to share his workload. He has sought to re-employ Mr Derek Cochrane, a qualified transport manager: see e.g. [89] to help with operations oversight and compliance. Ms Browne has also been working part-time since January 2026 and full-time since April 2026 to manage the operational systems (including driver management) along with the operations information management, retention and compliance requirements. This includes the management and governance of the software systems covering driver management and defect report. Ms Browne informed me that she was aiming to complete her transport manager CPC in the coming months. I was informed that another mechanic had also been taken on to assist with vehicle maintenance. Finally, the operator has instructed a specialist transport consultant, Mr Rick Nugent of RHN Transport Consultancy Ltd, to advise on licence compliance in the short to medium terms (i.e. over the next 12 months).
Having regard to the above and the evidence before me, I find that there have been the following breaches of the PPVA 1981:
- section 17(3)(aa) and that undertakings provided when applying for the licence have not been honoured including that rules on drivers’ hours and vehicles operation would be observed, that vehicles would be kept fit and serviceable, that drivers would report defects promptly and that records would be kept;
- section 17(3)(b) and that conditions on the licence have been breached including a failure to notify of maintenance arrangements and events that affect good repute and professional competence;
- section 17(3)(c) and that a number of prohibitions have been issued in the last 5 years, including two in 2024 for a fractured road spring and fuel leak and incorrect installation of a suspension unit, and 3 in 2025, the worn tyre noted above and two for inoperative seat belts [111-115]; and,
- section 17(3)(e) and that there has been a material change in circumstances that including failing to comply with an undertaking provided given at a public inquiry on 7 April 2022 in relation to roller brake testing and the retention of test information [190-191].
In the light of the above breaches, I find that Mr Hayes, as the operator’s sole director and transport manager, has not been exercising effective and continuous management of a transport operation.
Determination
Having made the above findings, I remind myself of paragraph 4 of the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document 10: The principles of decision making & the concept of proportionality (SD10) and that the legislation exists to promote road safety and fair competition and that commissioners will: “ … have regard to the principle of proportionality in deciding what intervention is commensurate with the circumstances of each individual case”. Paragraph 50 of SD10 also notes that:
“A traffic commissioner should consider all the relevant negatives and positives when balancing the relevant factors and so should also carry out an assessment of the weight to be given to all the various competing elements. This also applies to consideration of a transport manager’s repute. …”
The negative factors are that there have been a number of breaches of legislation, including vehicle prohibitions, and that some of the shortcomings were including e.g. the very poor MOT pass rate set out in section 6 of the MIVR [64] were not simply a question of ineffective record and systems management. I also have regard to the fact that the operator was called to an inquiry in April 2022 although formal regulatory action was not taken at the time.
On the positive side, the personnel, systems and structures do now finally appear to be in place, or are about to be so, and that this should secure continuing compliance going forward. However, because some of the decisions, action and procedures are recent it is not possible draw upon extensive evidence of full compliance. I also note the recent letter of support provided by Dr Rob Patterson, Executive Headteacher at Wigmore School Academy Trust [235aw].
One of the difficulties is that Mr Hayes as sole director, transport manager, driver and part-time mechanic has attempted to carry out too many functions and to the detriment of his licence obligations. He does not appear to have understood the full nature and extent of his responsibilities under the operator licensing regime. Yet, operators and transport managers are deemed to have such knowledge. They make declarations to that effect when they apply for their operator’s licence or agree to be appointed on a licence. They are also expected to have sufficient knowledge and understanding of the advice and guidance that is publicly available. The Upper Tribunal in LA & Z Leonida t/a ETS [2014] UKUT 0423 (AAC) noted that:
- … it does not matter whether an operator’s licence is held by an owner operator, a partnership or a limited company because in each case the person or persons responsible for managing the business bear the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that the road transport aspect of the business operates in compliance with the regulatory regime. That means that they cannot plead ignorance or put the blame on the transport manager because they are required to have sufficient knowledge of the regulatory regime to ensure compliance in general and the proper performance of the transport manager’s duties in particular.
Taking into account the positive and negative factors and by reference to the suggested starting points of regulatory action found in SD10, Annex 4, I find that this case may be regarded as serious to moderate. I ask myself the question posed by the Upper Tribunal in 2009/225 Priority Freight & Paul Williams: do I trust this operator to be compliant in the future? After repeating all of my findings I answer that question: yes, I believe so, providing the recent measures and support are implemented effectively.
I have been offered the following undertakings by the operator:
- that Mr Hayes and Ms Brown undertake a 2-day practical transport management course within the next 3 months;
- that Mr Derek Cochran completes a 2-day refresher course within 3 months;
- that it will appoint a second transport manager alongside Mr Hayes within 6 months;
- that it will instruct a specialist transport consultant for an average of 2 days a month for the next six months and then 1 day a month for the following six months; and,
- that it will carry out an independent audit within six months.
I have regard to the effect of possible regulatory action proposed on the business and on the provision of important public passenger services to local schools.
In accepting the undertakings offered as are more fully set out below, I refuse the application to increase the vehicle authorisation to 8 vehicles. I find that the repute of the operator, and its sole director and transport manager, Simon Hayes, are severely tarnished but not lost. My view is that I consider a curtailment or suspension of the licence is appropriate in the light of my findings and the shortcomings found by the DVSA. However, I acknowledge that the practical effect of such action having immediate effect may be counter-productive if the undertakings offered are accepted by me. Further, I do not wish any regulatory action to adversely impact on the provision of school bus services. The passengers and users of the service should not suffer disruption and inconvenience due the regulatory non-compliance of the operator. I would like the operator to focus on effective compliance and not be distracted by having to manage its contractual services with a reduced fleet.
In all the circumstances, I curtail the operator’s licence from 6 to 3 vehicles for 4 weeks from 23:45 hours on Friday 24 July 2026 until 23:45 hours on Friday 21 August 2026. This should provide a period of 10 days to get the whole fleet fully prepared for the start of the new school year in September 2026. I also curtail the licence with a view to it having a deterrent effect on this operator and others and that it is likely that should further regulatory action arise. It may be seen against a backdrop of the expectations of Traffic Commissioner Denton in April 2022 that more work on compliance remained to be done [190] but that it has returned to an inquiry four years later. Importantly, I would now like to see evidence of material and continuing compliance rather than apologies for any further shortcomings. The independent audit will be scrutinised closely and will need to include details of the auditor’s expertise and a declaration in accordance with the government guidance on auditing. It should also provide recommendations for any action, which will need formal and comprehensive responses from the operator in accordance with the terms of the undertaking.
Finally, I recognise that the operator may wish to increase its fleet at some stage in the near future, effective implementation of the undertakings and the outcomes that flow from them may assist in any future application but, as was the case in 2022, the operator needs to focus on continuing compliance with its current licence.
Undertakings
That Simon Hayes and Lisa Brown undertake a 2-day practical transport manager course within the next 3 months (by 31 August 2026). If the attendees do not have a self-service account, the certificate will be emailed to notifications@vehicle-operator-licensing.service.gov.uk within seven days of the course taking place.
By 31 August 2026, Derek Cochrane, 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 uploaded to the licence record via the Vehicle Operator Licensing self-service account within seven days of the course taking place. If the attendee does not have a self-service account, the certificate will be emailed to notifications@vehicle-operator-licensing.service.gov.uk within seven days of the course taking place.
That the operator will appoint a second transport manager to its operator’s licence alongside Mr Hayes by 30 November 2026.
That the operator undertakes to instruct a specialist transport consultant for a minimum period of 12 months until 12 May 2027 on the same or similar terms that it has recently instructed RHN Consultancy i.e. providing advice at least 2 days a month (on average) between now and 31 October 2026 and for at least 1 day a month (on average) from 1 November 2026 until 12 May 2027.
The operator undertakes to identify an independent body to carry out an audit of transport safety and compliance systems. The audit will assess the systems for complying with maintenance and/or drivers hours requirements, and the effectiveness with which those systems are implemented. The audit should cover at least the applicable elements detailed in the guidance on Operator Compliance Audits available at: www.gov.uk/government/publications/operator-compliance-audits. A copy of the report together with the operator’s detailed proposals for implementing the report’s recommendations is to be uploaded to the licence record via the Vehicle Operator Licensing self-service account, or, if the operator does not have a self-service account, emailed to notifications@vehicle-operator-licensing.service.gov.uk by 30 November 2026.
13 May 2026
Dr Paul Stookes
Deputy Traffic Commissioner