Decision for Fusion Engineering (Staffordshire) Ltd (OD2050406)
Written decision of the Deputy Traffic Commissioner in the West Midlands for Fusion Engineering (Staffordshire) Ltd and Peter Southwell, former transport manager
IN THE WEST MIDLANDS TRAFFIC AREA
FUSION ENGINEERING (STAFFORDSHIRE) LTD – OD2050406
PETER SOUTHWELL – FORMER TRANSPORT MANAGER
DEPUTY TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER’S DECISION
Decision
Pursuant to adverse findings under sections 26(1)(b), (c)(iii), (e), (f) and (h) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995, licence OD2050406 is revoked under section 26(1) of the Act with effect from 23:45 hours on 19 December 2025.
Further, Fusion Engineering (Staffordshire) Ltd and its director, Mr Darren Sheen, are disqualified from holding or obtaining an operator’s licence or being involved in the management, administration and control of any entity that holds or obtains an operator’s licence for a period of two years with effect from 23:45 hours on 19 December 2025.
If the director, Mr Darren Sheen, applies to be involved in operator licensing again, in any guise, this must be referred to a traffic commissioner and not dealt with under any purported delegated authority.
Background
This case listed for 10:30 am on 11 December 2025 was called under sections 26, 27 and 28 and Schedule 3 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (GVLOA 1995). It relates to alleged breaches of operator licence OD2050406 by Fusion Engineering (Staffordshire) Ltd and whether it’s former transport manager, Mr Peter Southwell, was exercising effective and continuous management. Mr Darren Sheen, the operator’s sole director and current transport manager did not attend the inquiry. I delayed the start of the inquiry until 10:45 am to ensure that Mr Sheen had every opportunity to attend: he did not.
The history of this matter is in the inquiry brief with background in the case summary [3-7] and the call-in letter of 29 October 2025 [9-23]. I need not repeat this. In outline, the operator was granted a Standard International Goods Vehicle Licence on 1 December 2021. It is currently authorised for 4 vehicles and 6 trailers. I understand that it does not have any vehicles in possession. Its operating centre is Unit 4A Pasturefields Industrial Estate, Great Haywood, Staffordshire ST18 0RB. Its main area of business is engineering although a traffic examiner’s report (discussed below) refers to the business as being waste haulage.
On 10 February 2025 Mr Southwell informed the Office of the Traffic Commissioner (OTC) that the operator no longer required his services as a transport manager [186]. A loss of transport manager letter was sent to the operator and, following the grant of a period of grace, an application to appoint Darren Sheen, the operator’s sole director, as transport manager was approved on 29 May 2025.
An S-marked prohibition was issued to vehicle GN66SVD on 28 March 2025 due to cab step damage and that it was likely to become detached. The prompted a DVSA investigation The DVSA maintenance investigation visit report (MIVR) of 6 June 2025 [107-120] marked five assessment areas as unsatisfactory, one as prohibition and one as ‘report to OTC’. The shortcomings related to inadequate maintenance inspections, driver defect reporting and emissions control systems. There was little or no evidence of load security and driver responsibilities, failure to notify the OTC of vehicle GN66SVD between January and April 2025.
A traffic examiner visit report (TEVR) of 19 May 2025 [147-158] was: ‘report to OTC’ for among other things that.
“Vehicle GN66SVD was downloaded and found to be out of calibration and the old VRM of BE11WDE was still the VRM on the tachograph unit. The vehicle had not been locked into the company.
This vehicle was purchased in January 2025 and was put into regular use on 20 January but not specified on the licence until April 2025 and therefore was being operated outside of the 28 day period. Neither the previous TM nor the director specified the vehicle within the required period or downloaded the vehicle. There is no documented training logs for drivers.
The call-in letter of referred to the DVSA reports and to potential breaches of sections 26(1)(b), (c)(iii), (e), (f) and (h) of the GVLOA 1995. 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 that the company may not meet the requirement to be of good repute under section 13A and paragraph 14A of Schedule 3 of the GVLOA 1995.
The operator was required to comply with the case management directions sent with the call-in letter. These included, among other things, at least 21 days before the inquiry providing the DVSA with evidence on managing vehicles and drivers between 1 August and 30 October 2025. The directions also required the operator to provide to the OTC at least 14 days before the inquiry current financial evidence and other materials details relating to the licence.
Neither the operator nor the current transport manager has complied with the inquiry directions. There has been no correspondence received from the operator or the current transport manager since service of the call-in letter. I am entitled to proceed on the basis that the call-in letter was deemed to have been received by the operator: see e.g. paragraph 15(3) of Schedule 3 of the GVLOA 1995. See also, paragraph 17 of the Upper Tribunal decision in Peter Jones [2019] UKUT 0418 (AAC). Moreover, the operator applied via the online vehicle operating licencing (VOL) system to surrender its operator’s licence on 4 November 2025 [227-228] and at this point it would, or should, have known that it had been called to a public inquiry. In the circumstances, I am satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the operator has received notice of the public inquiry.
The call-in letter of 29 October 2025 to Mr Southwell as the former transport manager [24-35] explained that the inquiry would consider whether he continued to meet the requirements of good repute and to exercise effective and continuous management of a transport operation in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 3 of the GVLOA 1995.
The evidence and findings
Relevant evidence before the inquiry included the DVSA reports and all other material in the inquiry brief along with evidence received from Mr Southwell in relation to his position as the former transport manager. I heard oral evidence from Mr Southwell.
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.
I accept the account provided by Mr Southwell when he explained that, although Mr Southwell confirmed his resignation as transport manager by an email to the OTC on 10 February 2025, in practical terms, his work ended in December 2024. I adjourned the hearing briefly to enable Mr Southwell to provide recent copy invoices he present to the operator and also bank statements showing payments received him. Mr Southwell explained these to me, and I accept that the last invoice was sent to the operator for payment in December 2024 covering his work in November 2024. The invoices also indicated that the operator often delayed the payment of invoices; often for some months. Mr Southwell stated in oral evidence that during a telephone conversation in December 2024 he and Mr Sheen agreed that the transport manager contract would end and that Mr Sheen would contact the OTC to inform them of the position. I was told by Mr Southwell that he did not have access to VOL on behalf of the operator and therefore Mr Sheen would do this by VOL. Mr Southwell explained that, when his removal as transport manager did not materialise throughout January 2025, he ended up emailing the OTC.
Mr Southwell explained that, in terms of the failure to notify the OTC of vehicle GN66SVD; this was not something that he could be responsible for. He never had access to VOL, and his employment had ceased in December 2024, before the vehicle had been obtained by the operator.
In relation to some of the findings about missing PMI sheets during 2024 referred to in the DVSA reports. Mr Southwell acknowledged that this occurred while he was transport manager. He explained that he had some difficulty in effectively managing or overseeing any systems or maintenance for the operator because Mr Sheen held all the paperwork and that he could only review and manage what he was given. Mr Southwell acknowledges that; with the benefit of hindsight, he should have been more direct and forceful with his role as transport manager and if this had not resulted in continuous and effective management, he should have terminated his contract sooner.
In terms of the operator, it provided a detailed response to the DVSA reports with some emphasis on the fact that Mr Sheen was not the transport manager at the time of many of the non-compliance incidents [135-145]. The operator appears to have accepted the shortcomings in the MIVR in its response; although, while the vehicle examiner considered the encouraging steps towards compliance to the vehicle examiner, it is not clear why these measures were not already in place. In the absence of Mr Sheen, I have not been able to test any comment or statement made in response to the MIVR. However, the operator was granted a licence in December 2021 and had had well over three years to put in place the systems it was now suggesting had been done or was going to be done. Further, while there are occasions when Mr Sheen states that he was not the transport manager at certain times, this does not mean that the operator can avoid its own responsibilities. The operator committed to the undertakings to the traffic commissioner when it applied to the licence and it, as operator, has ultimate responsibility.
Of more recent concern is that moving forward from the MIVR the operator and Mr Sheen, as the operator’s sole director and the designated transport manager since 29 May 2025, have failed to demonstrate that any promises made in its MIVR response have materialised. Consistent with the Upper Tribunal decision in Arnold Transport Ltd [2014] UKUT 0162 (AAC) per HHJ Brodrick (paragraph 13) I provide limited weight to these untested promises. Moreover, they have failed to comply with clear directions sent by the OTC for this inquiry and have also failed to provide any indication that it may have financial standing. Finally, the operator’s application to surrender the licence with its declarations that, among other things, vehicles discs have been destroyed, provides me with a very clear indication that its operator’s licence must be brought to an end.
In terms of the TEVR, Mr Sheen provided a statement in response dated 19 May 2025 [159-160] which, in terms of the failure to report vehicle GN66SVD, simply states “… at the time, I was not the nominated Transport Manager …”. He fails to acknowledge that he was that operator’s sole director at the time.
Having regard to the above, I find that there have been the following breaches of the GVLOA 1995:
- section 26(1)(b) and a breach of licence conditions including the failure to notify the Traffic Commissioner of any events affecting the professional competence of the operator and good repute, this includes the recent failure to provide information in accordance with the case management directions;
- section 26(1)(c)(iii) and that the ‘S’ marked prohibition was issued on vehicle GN66SVD on 28 March 2025 [146];
- section 26(1)(e) and a failure to fulfil statements made in the licence including those relating to PMI intervals as discussed in the MIVR;
- section 26(1)(f) relating to undertakings given when applying for the licence including that vehicles are to be fit and serviceable, that drivers’ hours rules would be observed and that the traffic commissioner would be informed of any changes which affect the licence; and,
- section 26(1)(h) and a failure to notify the Traffic Commissioner of a material changes in the operations including operating a vehicle without notifying the traffic commissioner and the prohibition notice.
Determination
Having made the above findings, I remind myself of relevant provisions from the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document 10 including paragraph 4 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 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. …”
On the positive side, there was some thought taken to respond to the MIVR and to consider putting some vehicle and operational management systems in place, albeit that the evidence of any action has failed to materialise.
The negative factors are that there are a number of breaches of legislation over a long period of time and a material failure to provide any evidence of current operational, management and financial activities.
One of the difficulties appears to be is that Mr Sheen, as the operator’s sole director and the current transport manager, does not appear to have understood the full nature and extent of his responsibilities. Yet, operators are deemed to know the advice and guidance that is publicly available. In LA & Z Leonida t/a ETS [2014] UKUT 0423 (AAC) the Upper Tribunal 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 Statutory Document 10, Annex 4, I find that this case may be regarded as severe to serious. I also have regard to the effect of the regulatory action proposed on the business, including that the operator applied to surrender its licence on 4 November 2025.
Decision
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: no. I have then asked myself the question posed by the Upper Tribunal in 2002/217 Bryan Haulage Ltd No. 2; is the conduct of this operator such that they ought to be put out of business? After repeating all of my findings, and despite the credit that I have given to the operator for some positive factors in this case, I have determined that it is proportionate to answer that question ‘yes’.
As a result of my findings, Fusion Engineering (Staffordshire) Ltd has lost its good repute as an operator. Having lost its good repute it is a mandatory requirement that I revoke licence OD2050406 under section 26(1) of the GVLOA 1995. Moreover, I do not have any evidence that the operator has sufficient financial standing despite being required to do so in the case management directions, and for that reason also, I am also bound to revoke licence OD2050506. The order of revocation will take effect at 23:45 hours on 19 December 2025.
Disqualification
I now turn to the question of disqualification under section 28 of the GVLOA 1995. I have considered the comment of the Transport Tribunal in Michael Fenlon [2006] no. 2006/277 that:
- … trust is one of the foundation stones of operator licensing. Traffic Commissioner’s must be able to trust operators to comply with all the relevant laws, rules and regulations because it would be a physical and financial impossibility to police every aspect of the licensing system all day and every day. In addition operators must be able to trust other operators to observe the relevant laws, rules and regulations. If trust between operators breaks down and some operators believe that others are obtaining an unfair commercial advantage by ignoring laws, rules or regulations then standards will inevitably slip and the public will suffer. …
I also have regard to paragraph 65 of Statutory Document 10 which notes:
“… Disqualification is a potentially significant infringement of rights96 and the Upper Tribunal has indicated that whilst there is no ‘additional feature’ required to order disqualification it is not a direction which should be routinely ordered.97 There may be cases in which the seriousness of the operator’s conduct is such that a traffic commissioner may properly consider that both revocation and disqualification are necessary for the purposes of enforcing the legislation.98 … The case law indicates a general principle that at the time the disqualification order is made that the operator cannot be trusted to comply with the regulatory regime and that the objectives of the system, the protection of the public and fairness to other operators, requires that the operator be disqualified.99 A clear example of this is when an operator fails to attend a public inquiry after an application to adjourn the hearing has been refused.100
In terms of my reasons for disqualification I repeat my findings above. In particular, I consider that Mr Sheen as the operator’s sole director (and current transport manager) has failed to acknowledge his responsibility in any of the failings found. Rather, he has sought to suggest that they were not his fault because he was not the transport manager at the relevant time. It is unacceptable in trying to pass the blame onto another as noted in Leonida, and it does explain the more recent failings. The failings in the MIVR and TEVR involved matters relating to road safety including e.g. inadequate maintenance and driver control.
The Mr Sheen as the operator’s sole director in the present case failed to attend a public inquiry when it can reasonably be said it had notice of the inquiry. On balance, I am of the view that this operator cannot be trusted to comply with the regulatory regime and its objectives. Whoever, he may may seek to blame he is ultimately responsible for the shortcomings that I have found and also the lack of engagement with the OTC. I am of the view that the operator cannot be trusted and so it should be disqualified. In terms of the period of disqualification I have regard to paragraph 108 of Statutory Document 10 and the indication of the lengths of disqualification that may be appropriate. On balance and given that this is the operator’s first public inquiry that I am aware of, I disqualify this operator for a period of two years from holding an operator’s licence.
Further, as the sole director and controlling mind of the operator, I also disqualify Mr Darren Sheen from holding an operator’s licence for two years.
Finally, I have regard to paragraph 66 of Statutory Document 10 and that:
“… A traffic commissioner may therefore also make an order under section 28(4) that an individual is not only disqualified from holding or obtaining an operator’s licence but also from being involved in management, administration or control of the transport operations of an entity that holds or obtain such a Licence in Great Britain.”
Accordingly, I make the following order under section 28(4) of the GVLOA 1995 and that in addition to being disqualified, Mr Darren Sheen is also disqualified from being involved in the management, administration or control of the transport operations of an entity that holds or obtain such a Licence in Great Britain. The reason for this is that I cannot trust Mr Sheen to be involved in an operator’s licence in the short to medium term and a period of two years disqualification will help Mr Sheen reflect on his actions. If he does wish to return to road transport activities at some stage in the medium term, he now has time to consider how he may do things differently and lawfully.
In relation to Mr Southwell, the former transport manager, in the light of my findings above I provide a formal warning that should a similar incident arise in the future; I cannot rule out the possibility of more formal regulatory action.
Finally, I am aware that Mr Sheen as the current transport manager was not called to this inquiry. However, in the light of my decisions, I am of the view that he should be called to a public inquiry to consider whether he continues to meet the requirements to be of good repute as at transport manager and can exercise effective and continuous management of a transport operation.
15 December 2025
Dr Paul Stookes
Deputy Traffic Commissioner