[Stay granted] Decision for Greeth Ltd (OC2040761)
Written decision of the Traffic Commissioner for the North West of England for Greeth Ltd and transport manager Andrej Malychin
IN THE NORTH WEST TRAFFIC AREA
GREETH LTD – OC2040761
&
Mr. Andrej MALYCHIN - Transport Manager
WRITTEN DECISION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER
PUBLIC INQUIRY HELD ON 24 JUNE 2026
DECISION:
The operator licence is revoked with effect from 23:45 on 09 September 2026 under the provisions of Sections 26(1)(a), 26(1)(b), 26(1)(e), 26(1)(f), and of Section 27(1)(a) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (“The 1995 Act”).
The application to vary the licence authorisation is refused under provision of Section 13(5) of the Act as the licence holder no longer satisfies the requirements of Sections 13A and 13C of the 1995 Act.
The good repute of Transport Manager Mr. Malychin is retained but tarnished and a warning is issued as to his future conduct as a transport manager.
Interim directions to approve the nomination of Transport Manager Mr. Nikolaidis and the operating centre, at 62 Earle Road, Widnes, WA8 0GY, are now academic following the decision to revoke the licence.
BACKGROUND
Greeth Ltd obtained its operator’s licence in March 2021 and, in May 2025, applied to increase its authorisation from four vehicles and four trailers to six vehicles and six trailers. Whilst that variation application was being processed, a DVSA Traffic Examiner (“TE”) encountered vehicle WN65FEF being operated without being specified on the licence. Sole director, Mr. Konstantinos Theologidis, accepted that the vehicle had not been added because there was no margin available on the licence to do so.
A subsequent DVSA investigation found that drivers, engaged by Greeth Ltd, had also driven four vehicles which were neither specified on nor authorised by its licence. DVSA considered that its investigation was hindered by a failure to provide all records requested under section 99ZA, preventing a full assessment of the extent of any unauthorised use.
A Traffic Examiner Visit Report (“TEVR”) conducted on 11 November 2025 resulted in a recommendation to report the operator to the Office of the Traffic Commissioner. The report identified deficiencies in systems relating to driver CPC, driver training, licence checks, downloads, drivers’ hours monitoring, disciplinary procedures, and working time compliance. It concluded that systems were largely basic, dependent on third parties, and lacked effective operator oversight.
The public inquiry was convened to consider whether the operator had failed to comply with the conditions and undertakings of its licence, and whether it continued to satisfy the mandatory requirements to be of good repute; to have appropriate financial standing; and to have a transport manager who meets the specified requirements. Transport Manager, Mr. Andrej Malychin, was also called to consider whether he had fulfilled his duty to exercise continuous and effective management of the transport operation.
In addition, the inquiry would also give consideration to outstanding applications to increase vehicle authorisation; to specify an alternative operating centre; and to nominate Mr. Nikiforos Nikolaidis as an alternative transport manager. Mr. Malychin had resigned before the calling-in letter was issued and the operator was operating under a period of grace due to expire on 15 June 2026.
INITIAL HEARING AND ADJOURNMENT
The public inquiry commenced on Tuesday 09 June 2026. The licence-holder was in attendance through sole director Mr. Theologidis and was supported by nominated transport manager Mr. Nikolaidis. Mr. Malychin was in attendance in his capacity as the previous transport manager. The DVSA was in attendance by Mr. Stuart Clarke, Commercial Delivery Team Leader.
During the hearing it became apparent that Mr. Theologidis had not accessed the Case Centre bundle, despite receiving the calling-in letter directing him to it. Operators are expected to prepare properly for public inquiries, and there was no evidence that Mr. Theologidis had sought assistance or advice from the Office of the Traffic Commissioner on how to access the bundle.
I noted, however, that the case management directions had been complied with and that the DVSA pre-public inquiry report formed an important part of the evidence. In the interests of fairness, and given the absence of the Traffic Examiner who prepared that report, Ms. Hemmingway-Morris, I sought to ensure that the licence-holder had an opportunity to have full sight of the papers.
I therefore heard those matters not in dispute and adjourned the inquiry part-heard. Pending a final determination of the remaining issues set out in the calling-in letter I approved the alternative operating centre and the nominated transport manager Mr. Nikolaidis. I also issued case management directions to allow matters to be progressed and concluded at the next date, including:
- Greeth Ltd was to reissue records (in original format) which DVSA indicated had not been received; and
- ANPR evidence was to be obtained for all vehicles specified on this operator licence.
The public inquiry re-commenced on Wednesday 24 June 2026. The licence-holder was again in attendance through sole director Mr. Theologidis and was supported by transport manager Mr. Nikolaidis. Mr. Malychin was not in attendance at the reconvened hearing.
The DVSA was in attendance by Traffic Examiner Haley Hemmingway-Morris and Mr. Clarke.
EVIDENCE
Exceeding Licence Authorisation
It was stated that Greeth Ltd purchased vehicle WN65FEF on 17 May 2025. When the vehicle was stopped by DVSA on 5 June 2025 it was being operated by Greeth Ltd but was not specified on any operator’s licence. It was the case that a check on the VOL system showed that the licence, authorised for four vehicles, already had four vehicles specified.
Mr. Theologidis accepted at the roadside, and again at inquiry, that he had not added the vehicle because there was no room on the licence. He asserted that he believed he had 28 days in which to specify the vehicle and claimed that the seller had advised him the vehicle could remain under its operator’s licence pending determination of Greeth Ltd’s variation application to increase authorisation. I am concerned he did not challenge this offer.
It is accepted that Greeth Ltd operated WN65FEF in excess of its authorised vehicle margin. Mr. Theologidis stated that no further unauthorised use occurred after the DVSA intervention.
Mr. Malychin claimed that he did not become aware of the issue until September 2025 when carrying out an OCRS review. He accepted that he ought to have identified the matter sooner.
The DVSA investigation also identified other vehicles driven by Greeth Ltd personnel. Whilst Mr. Theologidis maintained that those journeys were undertaken on behalf of other licence-holders, the evidence prompted further enquiry into the extent of vehicle usage beyond that authorised on the licence.
Following interim directions, ANPR evidence was produced and disclosed ahead of the reconvened inquiry date. This demonstrated that five vehicles, including WN65FEF, were being used concurrently on a regular basis between 23 June and 02 July 2025, thereby exceeding the authorised fleet size of four vehicles.
The ANPR evidence further showed that throughout the following period to 30 May 2026 there were 26 occasions when vehicles were operated without being specified on the licence. Although these instances did not always result in the authorised vehicle limit being exceeded, the statutory requirement that vehicles be specified on the licence within the prescribed period after lawful possession was obtained was not complied with.
Evidence therefore demonstrated that Greeth Ltd both initially exceeded its authorised vehicle margin, and had later repeatedly used the vehicles which were not specified on the licence at the time of that use.
Use of an unauthorised operating centre
It became apparent during the inquiry that Greeth Ltd was no longer operating from its authorised operating centre at Knowsley Industrial Park, Liverpool. Instead, vehicles were being parked at 62 Earle Road, Widnes.
Mr. Theologidis admitted that vehicles had been relocated to the Widnes site in June 2025 after the Liverpool site became unavailable. He further accepted that the Widnes operating centre had not yet been authorised, notwithstanding that an application to vary the licence had been submitted.
At the relevant time six vehicles were being kept at the Widnes site. This indicates that the licence-holder knowingly operated from an unauthorised operating centre and, in doing so, failed to comply with the relevant licence undertakings, including the undertaking that an unauthorised operating centre would not be used.
I also note that the operator continued to declare the Liverpool address as its operating centre for both licensing and insurance purposes, despite vehicles being regularly parked at the Widnes site. This demonstrates an intentional discrepancy between the declared and actual operating arrangements.
In addition, the continuation declaration, dated 19 January 2026, stated that four vehicles would be kept at the Liverpool operating centre. By that date the licence-holder had already been operating six vehicles from the Widnes site for several months.
The evidence demonstrates that Greeth Ltd used an unauthorised operating centre and, in doing so, breached undertakings attached to its licence. The facts of that breach were not disputed by the licence-holder.
Transport Manager Mr. Malychin
Mr. Malychin stated that, whilst he was aware of the purchase of vehicle WN65FEF, he was unaware that it had been put into service before being specified on the operator’s licence. He produced WhatsApp correspondence which he said demonstrated that he only became aware of the DVSA vehicle encounter when reviewing the operator’s OCRS score as part of his transport manager duties some time later.
Mr. Malychin further stated that he was not involved in the subsequent DVSA investigation and was not interviewed by DVSA. He advised that he first became aware of the Traffic Examiner’s findings when the inquiry papers were disclosed to him. Likewise, he was not involved in the operator’s responses to the section 99ZA requests and was therefore unable to explain why certain records had not been provided. He was confident they had been downloaded and were available to the licence-holder.
In relation to the operating centre, Mr. Malychin explained that management meetings frequently took place away from the operating centre. He accepted that he should have identified sooner that vehicles were being parked at the Widnes site before authorisation had been granted.
Mr. Malychin had decided to cease acting for Greeth Ltd before the public inquiry was called. He resigned from the licence on 31 March 2026, having remained in place whilst the application to nominate Mr. Nikolaidis was being processed. I was advised that his reason for resigning was to concentrate on other transport manager responsibilities. He attended the inquiry and cooperated fully with the proceedings.
The evidence established that Mr. Malychin was unaware of the vehicle encounter, uninvolved in the DVSA investigation, unaware of the operator’s responses to the section 99ZA requests and unaware that the unauthorised operating centre was being used. Mr. Theologidis accepted that he had not informed Mr. Malychin of a number of these matters.
The extent of Mr. Malychin’s lack of awareness was a notable feature of the evidence. As the nominated transport manager he was responsible for the continuous and effective management of the transport operation. The evidence therefore raised questions both about the level of oversight exercised by Mr. Malychin and the extent to which the operator involved him in matters directly relevant to the transport operation.
Nominated Transport Manager Mr. Nikolaidis
Greeth Ltd applied to nominate Mr. Nikolaidis as transport manager on 17 February 2026. The application pre-dated the public inquiry proceedings and had been held in abeyance pending the outcome of this inquiry.
Mr. Nikolaidis had taken up duties within the business before formal approval of his nomination. The matters under investigation substantially pre-dated his involvement with the operator and were not alleged to have arisen through any act or omission on his part.
Given that Greeth Ltd was operating under a period of grace and required a professionally competent transport manager, I approved the nomination at the first hearing date and directed that Mr. Nikolaidis attend the reconvened hearing.
At the reconvened inquiry Mr. Nikolaidis provided limited evidence. However, when questioned about the management of drivers’ hours infringements, he explained that he reviewed infringement reports but would obtain explanations through Mr. Theologidis rather than directly from the drivers concerned.
Mr. Nikolaidis explained that Mr. Theologidis was familiar with the circumstances behind the infringements and that this was the process adopted by the operator. This evidence was relevant to my understanding of how compliance matters were managed within the business and the respective roles of the transport manager and director.
The DVSA Investigation and s.99ZA Requests
The DVSA investigation identified concerns regarding compliance with three requests for information made under section 99ZA of the Transport Act 1968. The DVSA position was that records supplied in response to the first and second requests differed despite covering the same reporting period and that a subsequent request for vehicle unit data was not complied with.
Mr. Theologidis disputed those conclusions. He maintained that he had provided the information available to him and challenged the suggestion that different records had been supplied in response to the first and second requests. He further contended that relevant vehicle unit data for the pre-PI report had been sent to the Traffic Examiner by email on 18 May 2026.
The evidence established that the first request sought driver and vehicle records for the period March to June 2025. Following a review of the material submitted, DVSA identified that additional vehicles may be linked to the operation and therefore issued a second request.
Records subsequently produced in response to the second request disclosed further vehicle activity, including evidence of five vehicles being used concurrently during May 2025 rather than the four authorised. Mr. Theologidis attributed the additional records to an expanded search of his tachograph system, although he was unable to explain fully why activity relating to the same reporting period had not appeared in the earlier records.
A third request sought vehicle unit download data in respect of vehicles WR14TWK, WR67GJJ, WU65NWT and DG66JFU – all driven by Mr. Theologidis or those engaged by Greeth Ltd. Mr. Theologidis maintained that these were not his vehicles and that he was not authorised to obtain or provide the requested data.
In correspondence with the Traffic Examiner, Mr. Theologidis questioned whether he was obliged to provide data relating to vehicles owned by others and stated that, whilst he had driven those vehicles, he could not lawfully download their data. He maintained that any such records would need to be obtained directly from the vehicle owners.
The requested vehicle unit data was not ultimately obtained through Mr. Theologidis. The DVSA therefore proceeded to interview him and subsequently produced the Traffic Examiner Visit Report.
The DVSA Traffic Examiner Visit Report (“TEVR”)
The TEVR identified concerns in relation to driver licensing and training. The Traffic Examiner found that much of the operator’s driver training was delivered through Amazon systems, but the operator was unable to demonstrate either the content of that training or which drivers had completed it. Separate approaches were also taken to Driver CPC compliance, with employed drivers receiving paid time off whilst self-employed drivers were left to arrange their own training.
The examiner further noted that Driver CPC expiry dates were monitored by Tachomaster and that responsibility for load security training was largely delegated to Amazon. Driver licence checks had been demonstrated for September 2025 but evidence of a regular checking regime was not available.
In evidence, Mr. Theologidis explained that Greeth Ltd engaged two employed drivers and three drivers operating through limited companies. He maintained that such drivers already possessed the qualifications necessary to perform their work and considered additional operator-led training to be of limited value. In relation to load security, he stated that Amazon loaded and sealed the trailers thereby removing any responsibility Greeth Ltd could have.
Sections 7 to 10 of the TEVR, relating to drivers’ hours and working time compliance, recorded that journey planning was undertaken by Amazon, working time monitoring was managed through Amazon systems and infringement notifications were generated through Tachomaster.
Mr. Theologidis largely agreed with that assessment. He explained that Amazon’s planning systems were designed to ensure drivers’ hours compliance and that vehicle unit and driver card downloads were completed on time. Infringement reports were generated and reviewed, although the evidence raised questions as to who was obtaining explanations from drivers and how those explanations were being verified.
The TEVR concluded:
- “Whilst there are systems in place for the most part, most of the systems in place are basic or done by Amazon. It is essential that the operator manages, monitors and records his own systems and procedures.”
The issue arising from this evidence was not simply the use of self-employed or limited-company drivers, but the degree of control exercised by the operator over its transport activities. The TEVR identified numerous functions being performed by third parties, including Amazon and Tachomaster, whilst other matters were left to drivers themselves. Similar concerns arose elsewhere in the inquiry, including Mr. Malychin’s lack of awareness of key compliance issues and Mr. Nikolaidis’ evidence that explanations for driver infringements were often obtained through Mr. Theologidis rather than directly from the drivers concerned.
When questioned, Mr. Theologidis accepted that the use of limited-company drivers reduced employment-related costs. He nevertheless maintained that he intended to continue using those arrangements, stating that alternative employment models were not commercially viable for his business. This was despite my stated concerns as to the legitimacy of such an arrangement in consideration of s.58(2) of the 1995 Act.
Although the operator’s response to the TEVR stated that the supervision of self-employed drivers would be aligned with that of employed drivers, the evidence before the inquiry gave little assurance that progress had been made. As at the date of the hearing, significant aspects of training, planning and compliance monitoring remained dependent upon third-party systems, giving rise to ongoing concerns regarding operator oversight and effective control of the transport operation or its drivers.
The DVSA Pre-Public Inquiry Report
The Pre-Public Inquiry Report initially recorded that a requested “Vehicle Download Report” had not been provided. Examination at the inquiry established that the vehicle unit download files (.ddd files) had in fact been supplied. The dispute arose from confusion between those files and a separate missing mileage report. Whilst questions remained as to how missing mileage was monitored, the principal concern identified by the DVSA lay elsewhere.
The report identified a serious drivers’ hours infringement on 18 February 2026, involving a driver who drove for 5 hours and 59 minutes without taking a qualifying break. The records provided should have demonstrated some contemporaneous infringement investigation and management intervention.
Instead, the infringement report was not produced until 24 March 2026 and the documented discussion with the driver did not take place until May 2026. I was satisfied that this demonstrated the absence of an effective process for identifying, investigating and addressing drivers’ hours infringements. Given the seriousness of the infringement, I further accepted the DVSA assessment that the documented discussion was most likely created in response to either the DVSA investigation or the public inquiry process rather than as part of any genuine disciplinary procedure.
It is also notable that no effective action was taken despite the infringement occurring whilst the DVSA investigation was ongoing. This raised further concerns about the seriousness with which the operator viewed its compliance obligations and the enforcement intervention taking place at that time.
The DVSA ultimately concluded that, whilst improvements had been made to the monitoring of Driver CPC and driving licence checks, it remained unsatisfied that infringements were being properly investigated, that disciplinary processes were operating effectively, or that missing mileage was being adequately monitored.
FINDINGS
Exceeding Licence Authorisation
I am satisfied that Greeth Ltd exceeded its authorised vehicle margin by operating five vehicles whilst authorised for four. This occurred during May and June 2025 and ceased only after DVSA intervention.
I am further satisfied that, following the cessation of concurrent use, vehicles continued to be operated without being specified on the licence. The ANPR evidence identifies 26 occasions on which vehicles were used more than 28 days after coming into the lawful possession of the operator without being specified on VOL as required by section 5(6)(a) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995.
I therefore find that both the licence authorisation was exceeded and that vehicles were repeatedly used in breach of the statutory requirement to specify them on the operator’s licence.
In T Connor Construction (South West) Ltd [2022] UKUT 177 (AAC), the Upper Tribunal emphasised that the possession and utilisation of vehicles beyond authorised licence parameters undermines core elements of the operator licensing regime, including the requirements relating to financial standing and operating centres, and creates a risk that vehicles are used without appropriate regulatory oversight. I consider this relevant to the case at hand.
Unlawful use of an Operating Centre
I find that Greeth Ltd knowingly operated from 62 Earle Road, Widnes, WA8 0GY between June 2025 and 9 June 2026 despite that site not being authorised as an operating centre. This constituted a sustained breach of the licence undertakings over a period of approximately twelve months.
I further find that the licence-holder failed to comply with the undertaking that vehicles would normally be kept at an authorised operating centre. Vehicles were normally parked at the Widnes site whilst the operator continued to declare the Liverpool operating centre as its authorised operating centre.
The continuation declaration submitted on 19 January 2026 stated that vehicles were being kept at the Liverpool operating centre, despite the operator having already relocated its fleet to Widnes. Whilst this is not a separate statutory ground, it is relevant to my assessment of the operator’s good repute.
Transport Manager Mr. Malychin
I am satisfied that Mr. Malychin failed to exercise sufficient oversight of the transport operation. He was unaware of the vehicle being operated in excess of authorisation, the subsequent DVSA investigation, the operator’s responses to the section 99ZA requests and the use of an unauthorised operating centre. As the nominated transport manager, these were matters which ought reasonably to have come to his attention.
That said, I am satisfied that Mr. Malychin was not deliberately involved in, nor did he seek to conceal, any of the shortcomings identified at this inquiry. The evidence was that he had not been kept informed by Mr. Theologidis and was not involved in key aspects of the operator’s dealings with DVSA. He attended the inquiry, and cooperated fully.
Balancing those matters, I conclude that Mr. Malychin’s good repute is retained but tarnished. He is warned as to his future conduct and reminded that a transport manager must maintain sufficient oversight to ensure they are aware of, and able to intervene in, matters affecting compliance and effective management of the transport operation.
Nominated Transport Manager Mr. Nikolaidis
Mr. Nikolaidis was nominated as transport manager in February 2026 and approved during the course of these proceedings. The compliance issues before the inquiry pre-dated his involvement with the operator and I have not identified any conduct on his part which would justify regulatory action.
Nevertheless, the evidence demonstrated a degree of inexperience. In particular, Mr. Nikolaidis described a process whereby explanations for drivers’ hours infringements were obtained through Mr. Theologidis rather than directly from the drivers concerned. Whilst not sufficient to conclude loss of good repute, this raised concerns regarding his understanding of the degree of oversight and engagement required of a transport manager.
As recognised at paragraph 27 of Statutory Document No. 3, a transport manager must possess not only professional competence but also the “character, personality, ability and leadership” necessary to exercise continuous and effective management of the transport operation. The evidence before me suggests that Mr. Nikolaidis would benefit from further practical experience and development in that regard.
I make no adverse finding against Mr. Nikolaidis. However, I am not persuaded that, as at the time of the inquiry, he possessed the experience necessary to provide the level of challenge and oversight required in a transport operation of this nature. Had the licence remained in force, this would have been a matter requiring careful monitoring.
The DVSA Investigation and s.99ZA Requests
I make no adverse finding in relation to Greeth Ltd’s engagement with the DVSA investigation. The allegation that information requests made under section 99ZA of the Transport Act 1968 were not complied with is a serious one and requires cogent evidence.
Whilst the records supplied in response to successive requests differed, and Mr. Theologidis was unable to provide a satisfactory explanation for those differences, I am not satisfied on the evidence before me that there was a deliberate failure to comply with the requests. The additional records identified further unlawful vehicle use, but that issue had already been admitted by Mr. Theologidis at the commencement of the DVSA investigation.
I am similarly unable to conclude that the response to the third section 99ZA request amounted to non-compliance. Mr. Theologidis’ position was that the relevant vehicles belonged to other operators and that he was unable to provide records which were not in his possession. Whilst that stance may have frustrated the investigation, I am not satisfied that it justifies an adverse regulatory finding.
The DVSA Traffic Examiner Visit Report (“TEVR”) and Pre-Public Inquiry Report
Having considered the TEVR, the Pre-Public Inquiry Report and the oral evidence, I am satisfied that the reports provide an accurate assessment of the operator’s compliance systems both at the time of the Traffic Examiner’s visit and, save for some limited improvements, at the date of the inquiry.
I find that Greeth Ltd lacked adequate systems to ensure compliance with drivers’ hours, tachograph and working time requirements. In particular, there was no effective process for identifying, investigating and addressing infringements in a timely manner. The serious infringement identified in February 2026, and the delayed response to it, illustrates that failing.
I am further satisfied that the operator exercised insufficient control over significant aspects of its transport operation. The evidence demonstrated that journey planning, training and elements of compliance monitoring were largely delegated to third parties, whilst effective oversight by either the operator or the transport manager was largely absent.
The concerns arising from this inquiry are not founded upon the use of limited company drivers in isolation. Rather, they arise from the lack of effective control and management exercised over those drivers and the transport operation generally. The evidence showed a continuing reliance upon others to manage compliance functions which properly remained the responsibility of the operator.
I therefore find that the absence of effective systems, oversight and operational control are significant and determinative features of this case. These failings go directly to the issues of good repute and trust.
DETERMINATION
For the reasons set out in my conclusions above, I am satisfied that adverse findings are made under the provision of the following sections of the 1995 Act:
- 26(1)(a) – that a place in the traffic area to which the licence relates has, at a time when it was not specified in the licence as an operating centre of the licence-holder, been used as an operating centre for heavy goods vehicles authorised to be used under the licence.
- 26(1)(b) – that the licence-holder has contravened any condition attached to the licence, namely that the maximum number of vehicles authorised in accordance with section 6 of the Act is 4 Heavy Goods Vehicles.
- 26 (1)(e) – that the licence-holder made a statement of expectation that has not been fulfilled; namely that vehicles would normally be kept at the authorised operating centre.
- 26(1)(f) – that any undertaking recorded in the licence has not been fulfilled; namely the requirement to have proper systems to ensure the rules on drivers’ hours and tachographs are observed and proper records kept.
- 27(1)(a) – that the licence-holder no longer satisfies the requirements of section 13A; namely 13A(2)(b), the requirement to be of good repute.
Mr. Theologidis conducted himself respectfully throughout the inquiry. Nevertheless, I formed the clear impression that he viewed many of the requirements of the operator licensing regime as unnecessary bureaucratic obstacles rather than essential regulatory safeguards. Whilst he accepted some of the factual shortcomings identified by DVSA, he was frequently reluctant to acknowledge compliance concerns or the need for meaningful change.
That attitude is consistent with the operator’s conduct. Greeth Ltd exceeded its authorised vehicle margin, operated from an unauthorised operating centre for approximately twelve months, failed to maintain effective drivers’ hours and tachograph systems, and exercised insufficient oversight of those operating under its licence. Throughout the evidence there was a recurring theme that responsibility for compliance was viewed as resting with others, whether Amazon, the drivers themselves or the transport manager. I am satisfied that the operator failed to exercise the degree of control and oversight expected of a licence-holder. Taking these matters in the round, I conclude that the good repute of both Greeth Ltd, and Mr. Theologidis as sole director, is forfeited.
On consideration of the guidance provided by the Senior Traffic Commissioner on starting points for regulatory action, as set out at Annex 4 of Statutory Document 10, I place this case within the category of “Severe or Serious”. There are numerous and persistent operator licence failures with inadequate response.
This is not a case which is completely absent of positive features. The operator demonstrated some improvement by the time of the pre-public inquiry report and engaged fully with these proceedings. However, those factors are substantially outweighed by the seriousness and persistence of the compliance failures identified. Crucially, I have seen little evidence that Mr. Theologidis genuinely accepts the need for change.
I consider the question posed by the Upper Tribunal in 2009/225 Priority Freight namely: how likely is it that this operator will, in future, operate in compliance with the operator’s licensing regime? I answer in the negative.
In reaching that conclusion I have considered the evidence relating to management control. The Upper Tribunal has repeatedly emphasised the importance of control in determining responsibility for transport activities, including in [2020] UKUT 121 (AAC) Bridgestep Ltd and Tom Bridge and [2024] UKUT 226 (AAC) John Stuart Strachan t/a Strachan Haulage both of which apply the principles from Interlink Express Parcels v Night Trunkers [2001] EWCA Civ 360, that responsibility follows control of the relevant activity. The evidence before me demonstrated a continuing tendency for operational control to be distributed between Amazon, the drivers (including Ltd Company drivers), the transport managers and Mr. Theologidis. I am not satisfied that the operator has either the systems or management culture necessary to secure future compliance.
I go on to consider the question posed by the Upper Tribunal in 2002/217 Bryan Haulage (No2) namely, is the conduct such that the operator ought to be put out of business? I answer this in the positive. When balancing the positive and negative features of this case I consider any action short of revocation would be insufficient. A direction to suspend or curtail authorisation would be appropriate in circumstances where one considered space and time to be necessary for improvements to be made and the objectives of the regulatory regime to be achieved. I have no confidence that further space and time, considering the time already passed, would result in any meaningful change.
Pursuant to my findings under sections 26(1)(a), 26(1)(b), 26(1)(e), 26(1)(f) and 27(1)(a) of the 1995 Act I direct that the operator licence is revoked with effect from 23:45 on 09 September 2026. This delayed revocation is set to allow a period of time to facilitate the orderly closure of transport services.
For completeness, the application to vary the licence is refused as the requirements of section 13A and 13C are no longer satisfied. In light of the revocation, the approved applications relating to the alternative operating centre and nomination of Mr. Nikolaidis as transport manager become academic.
I apologise to the licence-holder for the delay in completing this written decision. The conclusion of the inquiry corresponded with a period of absence followed by other conflicting work commitments.
David Mullan
Traffic Commissioner for the North West of England
13 August 2026