Decision for Horticultural Distrubution Ltd OM2059979, Graeme Ferguson and Lynn Sims (Transport Managers)
Confirmation of the Traffic Commissioner's decision in the Scottish Traffic Area.
IN THE SCOTTISH TRAFFIC AREA
HORTICULTURAL DISTRIBUTION LTD - OM2059979
AND
GRAEME FERGUSON – TRANSPORT MANAGER
AND
LYNN SIMS – FORMER TRANSPORT MANAGER
AND
DRIVERS: JAMIE SIMS and MICHAEL ADAM
CONFIRMATION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER’S DECISION
Decision
Given the regulatory failings, an absence of the means to ensure future compliance, and the offences committed by the sole Director I concluded that the operator must be removed from the industry and recorded a loss of repute under section 27(1)(a).
Revocation to take effect from 23:45 on 2 June 2026.
Transport Manager Lynn Sims repute is severely tarnished, and any future nomination will have to be referred to the Traffic Commissioner.
Transport Manager Graeme Fergusons repute is tarnished and will be relevant to any future or ongoing applications. He is to be formally warned.
Background
Horticultural Distribution Ltd holds a Standard International Goods Vehicle Operator’s Licence authorising 5 vehicles and 10 trailers. The Director is Jamie Ryan Sims. Graeme Ferguson has been named as Transport Manager since 23 October 2025. Lynn Sims resigned from that position on 8 August 2025.
There are two Operating Centres: 7 Stroud Road, East Kilbride, Glasgow G75 0YA, and JCS Express Ltd, Bellshill Road, Uddingston, Glasgow G71 7NT. Preventative Maintenance Inspections are said to be carried out by Craig Gilmour (in-house), WT Sneddon & Sons Ltd, Scania Eurocentral, and CLP Fleet Services at 6 and 10 weekly intervals respectively.
The operator was at Public Inquiry on 13 March 2023 to consider its application due to links with JCS Express Ltd. The operator was put on formal notice on 26 June 2023, following a period where no vehicles were specified. That apparently led to undertakings for financial review no later than 1 November 2023. A warning was apparently issued on 11 December 2023.
Hearing
The Public Inquiry was listed for today, 2 June 2026, in the Tribunal Room of the Office of the Traffic Commissioner in Edinburgh. Despite allowing additional time, not one of the parties attended. The Director and former Transport Manager had lodged written representations. Mr Ferguson was at a hearing on another matter on 24 April 2026 and so should have been aware of the importance in attending.
Issues
The public inquiry was called following notice that I was considering grounds to intervene in respect of this licence and specifically by reference to the following sections of the Goods Vehicle (Licensing of Operators) Act:
- 26(1)(a) – operating from an unauthorised site.
- 26(1)(b) – conditions on licence to notify changes in the ability of the operator to hold the licence, including where vehicles are normally kept.
- 26(1)(c)(iii) – Prohibition Notices.
- 26(1)(ca) – Fixed Penalty Notices.
- 26(1)(e) – statements relating to inspection intervals, where vehicles would normally be kept, that the Transport Manager was meeting Schedule 3, and to abide by conditions on the licence.
- 26(1)(f) – undertakings (vehicles to be kept fit and serviceable, effective driver defect reporting, complete maintenance records, drivers’ hours and tachographs).
- 26(1)(h) – material change:
- 27(1)(a) – repute, financial standing, Transport Manager meeting Schedule 3.
- 28 – Disqualification.
Mr Ferguson was also called to consider whether he had exercised effective and continuous management and therefore whether I should make a finding under section 27(1)(b) preventing him from relying on his Certificate of Professional Competence.
Mrs Sims was also called to consider whether she had exercised effective and continuous management during her appointment and whether I should make a finding under section 27(1)(b) preventing her from relying on her Certificate of Professional Competence.
Driver Jamie Sims was called to the remaining Driver Conduct Hearing to consider whether he should be permitted to continue to rely on his vocational driving entitlement
Driver Michael Adam was called to the remaining Driver Conduct Hearing to consider whether he should be permitted to continue to rely on his vocational driving entitlement
The operator was directed to lodge evidence in support including financial, maintenance and other compliance documentation. Compliance documentation was to be submitted to DVSA by no later than 12 May 2026 with finance and any representations to be sent to this office by 19 May 2026.
Summary of Evidence
On 5 April 2025, V88 HDL was being driven by Michael James Adam when it was stopped by Vehicle Examiner Mark Douglas at Todhills, Carlise, Cumbria. The Examiner issued an S-marked Prohibition, denoting significant failure: Immediate, as the speed limiter was not restricting the vehicle to its legal maximum speed, and Delayed as the Engine malfunction indicator lamp was illuminated, indicating a fault on the dashboard relating to high emissions. Driver Adam declined to be interviewed by Mr Douglas but was seen by Traffic Examiner Clare Haymer. She confirmed that Mr Adam’s Driver CPC card had expired on 26 January 2025. He was issued with a £200 Fixed Penalty Notice. He was sent an invitation to attend an interview under caution on 19 August 2025 but apparently failed to respond. He was not questioned about the speed limiter.
The operator was then the subject of a maintenance investigation visit on 2 May 2025. Vehicle Examiner Gordon Montgomery identified several shortcomings but apparently accepted the assurances in the operator’s response dated 29 May 2025.
Following that maintenance investigation, the operator attracted a further two S-marked Prohibitions:
- 1 August 2025, C307018 at Cuerden Weighbridge for load insecurity, and;
- 27 August 2025, V888 HDL at Todhills for braking system defects.
Mr Montgomery sought to contact the Director and the Transport Manager, and they were requested to provide relevant Preventative Maintenance Inspection records for the vehicles and trailer involved in the encounters, and the driver defect reports. The operator was also invited to provide an explanation. That apparently prompted on 3 September 2025 Mrs Sims to notify the Traffic Commissioner of her resignation dated 5 August 2025, effective from 8 August 2025.
Mr Montgomery undertook a further visit to the Operating Centre on 25 September 2025 and identified the following alleged shortcomings:
- Unauthorised site being used as an Operating Centre at 7 Stroud Road Glasgow.
- No evidence of measured brake performance testing on V888 HDL and C307018 since the previous visit on 2 May 2025.
- No evidence of completed Preventative Maintenance Inspection records for V888 HDL for 19 July 2024 to 1 September 2025.
- No evidence of completed Preventative Maintenance Inspection records for C307018.
- Trailer C307018 issued with an insecure load prohibition on 1 August 2025.
- Prohibition issued to V888 HDL on 27 August 2025, and C307018 on 1 August 2025
- No Transport Manager. Application to appoint Graeme Ferguson was under consideration but not approved.
A response was requested from both the operator and former Transport Manager by 8 October 2025, but no response was received. Mr Montgomery concluded:
“This investigation was instigated following the issuing of an Immediate prohibition notice endorsed ‘S’ to indicate a significant failure in the operators compliance systems, a root cause investigation into the circumstances pertaining to the defect present at the time of the encounter on 5th April 2025 concluded that Driver Michael James Adam had colluded with the company’s mechanic to alter the speed limiter settings so that it was not restricting the vehicle to its legal maximum speed, evidence of intent to circumvent the speed restrictions.
Therefore, breaching The Road Vehicles (Construction & Use) Regulations 1986, Regulation 36B(6) and Section 42 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
Tachograph data shows that the overspeed warning has been displayed on this vehicle on 90 occasions in the last 28-day period from the time of the encounter on 5th April 2025. Mr Adam was the driver on 76 occasions.
Michael James Adam declined to engage with DVSA at the time of the encounter and again during this investigation despite being afforded the opportunity to do so and give his side of the story.”
There were undoubtedly questions to answer but I found no evidence in the bundle before me of any collusion, although the incidents where the vehicle went above the limited speed should have been obvious to the driver. Mr Adam chose not to attend today and/or to offer any explanation for the illuminated light or absence of a Driver CPC.
Traffic Examiner Laura Scott issued a statutory request for documentation, dated 24 September 2025, to the operator. The request required raw digital data for vehicles, raw digital data for drivers, driver timesheets, confirmation of the nature of the business, confirmation regarding the Operating Centre. She received an emailed response from Mr Ferguson on 8 October 2025. There was further correspondence and contact culminating in the visit of 28 October 2025 when data was downloaded from PF19 TXM. A full TEVR visit did not occur until 21 January 2026. She identified failures in Driver licensing and training, Drivers’ hours management and record keeping, Vehicle monitoring systems, use of the Operating centre, and referred to the Enforcement history.
From the data supplied, the Traffic Examiner identified the following alleged breaches, said to have been committed by Jamie Ryan Sims, whilst driving:
- 24 July 2025; insufficient daily rest in the 24-hour period (maximum rest taken was 6 hours, 43 minutes - required rest was 9 hours)
- 25 July 2025; insufficient daily rest in the 24-hour period (maximum rest taken was 5 hours, 54 minutes - required rest was 9 hours)
- 28 August 2025; insufficient daily rest in the 24-hour period (maximum rest taken was 7 hours, 47 minutes - required rest was 9 hours)
She concluded:
“Between the 1st of December 2020 to the 1st of December 2025, 7 roadside encounters have been recorded for the operator, Horticultural Distribution Ltd, 5 of these encounters are unsatisfactory.
It is apparent that between the 13th of April 2024 to the 27th of August 2025, the director, of Horticultural Distribution Ltd, Mr Jamie Ryan Sims and the nominated Transport Manager during that time, Lynn Sims had not been paying attention to their role in the limited company business, the five unsatisfactory encounters indicated that systems lacked or were not in place.
The systems check carried out at 7 Stroud Road, Glasgow on the 21st of January 2026 scored 25 which is highly unsatisfactory. Tighter systems are required to be implemented by the operator to help this score improve.
It was also established on the 21st of January 2026 to the current date that the vehicles and trailers in possession were being parked at an operating centre, namely 7 Stroud Road, Glasgow without the application dated 14th of September 2025 being granted or having an interim licence in place. This then added an additional point to the completed TEVR dated 11th of February 2026 from the mark of 25 to 26.
Consequently, it is considered that there is no compliance with the Statement of Intent regarding the undertakings submitted at the time of application for the operator’s licence…”
A request to surrender this licence (after the call up letter) on 9 May 2026 was understandably refused. In that, Mr Sims stated:
I am writing to formally confirm my decision to surrender the Operator’s Licence held by HDL Ltd and to advise that I will not be proceeding with the forthcoming Public Inquiry.
This has been an extremely difficult decision for me to make and not one I have taken lightly. The issues that led to the current position arose during a period of very difficult personal circumstances in my life, which had a significant impact on both myself personally and my ability to effectively manage the business at that time.
Since then, I have made every effort to address the concerns raised and improve the operation. Significant progress has been made, systems were improving, and matters were moving in the right direction. I remained committed to rectifying previous failings and ensuring standards improved going forward.
However, with the hearing now approaching, I have had to carefully consider the effect that continuing through this process would have on my [REDACTED] health and wellbeing. The last period of time has already placed considerable strain on me personally, and I do not believe I am in a position to continue through what will inevitably be a highly stressful and difficult process.
As a result, I believe surrendering the licence is the most responsible and appropriate course of action. I would like to express that this decision is not due to a lack of respect for the seriousness of the matters raised, but rather due to the personal circumstances and impact this situation has had on me.
In a short communication received on 5 May 2026, the former Transport Manager, Mrs Sims, acknowledged that she was previously linked to this Operator’s Licence but resigned from the role from 8 August 2025. She gave the reason for her resignation being the final breakdown of her marriage to the director. She states that she:
“had been working from home and, at this time, relocated myself and my daughters [REDACTED] following the end of the relationship.
However for at least eight months before this event, it was coming increasingly difficult for me to complete my role to my usual high standards, due to escalating friction with my husband. Nevertheless, on 2 May 2025, Gordon Montgomery from DVLA came out to the office and I was able to show all the evidence required to demonstrate full compliance of my duties at the time.
When I resigned last year, my laptop with all computer files along with all paper files, were handed over to Jamie Sims, so I am unable to produce any evidence of my records regarding your inquiries.
My reading of the evidence did not accord with the more positive views expressed by either the Director or former Transport Manager. I also noted that that the operator had been subject to 13 roadworthiness encounters resulting in 3 mechanical prohibitions with 6 traffic encounters resulting in 1 driver’s hours offence prohibition. The operator has had 6 traffic encounters since the start of the licence resulting in 1 offence prohibition. 9 test presentations resulted in 6 Pass, 2 PRS, 3 initial fails and 1 final fail: 16 April 2025 - V888 HDL - IM67 Aim of Headlamps (PRS), 5 June 2024 - V88 HDL - IM54 Steering (PRS), 4 April 2024 - KU15 FTO - IM43 Engine and Transmission Mountings, IM48 Suspension.
Determination
Operator and Transport Managers
Based on the evidence summarised above, I was satisfied that I should record the following adverse findings against the operator: section 26(1)(a) – historic use of an unauthorised site, 26(1)(b) – conditions on licence to notify changes in the ability of the operator to hold the licence, including where vehicles are normally kept and the ability of the Transport Manager to meet Schedule 3, 26(1)(c)(iii) – Prohibition Notices, 26(1)(ca) – Fixed Penalty Notices, 26(1)(e) – statements relating to inspection intervals, where vehicles would normally be kept, that the Transport Manager was meeting Schedule 3, and to abide by conditions on the licence, 26(1)(f) – undertakings (vehicles to be kept fit and serviceable, effective driver defect reporting, complete maintenance records, drivers’ hours and tachographs), 26(1)(h) – material change, not least given the absence of financial evidence.
Mrs Sims failed to exercise effective and continuous management. It is not necessary for a Traffic Commissioner to become involved in what are family matters except to the point where they interfere with operator licence compliance and then prevent hazards to the users of Scotland’s roads. Neither she nor the Director had told this office of any matters which might impact her ability to meet her statutory duties. In these circumstances, I do not find it proportionate to make a formal finding under section 27(1)(b) but her personal repute is severely tarnished, and any future nomination will have to be referred to the Traffic Commissioner.
Mr Ferguson failed to appear, despite being called. Most adverse incidents predate his appointment, but he was required to provide an explanation as to why material; changes in his engagement were not notified. The failure to attend today has tarnished his repute and will be relevant to any future or ongoing applications. He is to be formally warned.
I proceeded to consider the question posed by the Upper Tribunal in 2009/225 Priority Freight namely: how likely is it that the operator will comply in future? Noting the failures identified and the absence of a satisfactory explanation, I felt unable to reach a positive conclusion. I was aware that I must make an adverse finding under section 27(1)(a) in respect of financial standing. In 2012/017 NCF Leicester Ltd, the Upper Tribunal referred to the legal purpose for the mandatory requirement and by reference to the Recitals of retained Regulation (EC) 1071/2009: “In order to satisfy the requirement laid down in Article 3(1)(c), an undertaking shall at all times be able to meet its financial obligations in the course of the annual accounting year”… “It is necessary for road transport undertakings to have a minimum financial standing to ensure their proper launching and administration”. In our view ‘administration’, for the purposes of this Regulation, means the organisation and running of a haulage business which holds an operator’s licence. In particular the requirement is intended to ensure that vehicles can be operated safely because the operator can afford to maintain them promptly and properly. Given the regulatory failings, an absence of the means to ensure future compliance, and the offences committed by the sole Director (see below) I concluded that the operator must be removed from the industry and recorded a loss of repute under section 27(1)(a).
This was the operator’s first regulatory Public Inquiry. I drew back from disqualification, partly in response to the personal circumstances outlined above. I determined to deal with matters holistically (see below). However, given that operations had ceased, I saw no good reason for the revocation not to take effect from 23:45 tonight.
Driver Conduct
The relevant legislation is set out in Sections 110-122 of The Road Traffic Act 1988. The legislation draws a clear distinction between Large Goods Vehicle (LGV) licence holders and applicants and Passenger Carrying Vehicle (PCV) licence holders and applicants. Section 112 of the 1988 Act provides that the Secretary of State shall not grant to an applicant a LGV driver’s licence or a PCV driver’s licence unless he is satisfied, having regard to his conduct, that he is a fit person to hold the licence applied for. It is section 121(1) which defines conduct - in relation to an applicant for or the holder of a LGV driver’s licence or the holder of a UK licence for the Community, his conduct as a driver of a motor vehicle.
As the Administrative Court, on the application of Meredith and Others EWHC 2975 (Admin) 18 explained that, whilst the personal circumstances of the driver are, at the preliminary stage of consideration of fitness, irrelevant to the question whether his conduct as a driver has been such as to make him unfit, save to the extent that those circumstances concern his conduct as a driver. Personal circumstances which go to mitigate the conduct itself (such as illness, or emergency, or momentary lapse of attention, or carelessness) will be relevant, while personal circumstances which would, in the ordinary sentencing exercise by a criminal court go to mitigation of penalty (such as loss of work, or other hardship, or the dependence of others upon the licence-holder) would not.
The Court in Meredith did not go on to consider the applicability of the principle of deterrence, which was considered by the Court of Session in Thomas Muir (Haulage) Limited v The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [1999] SC 86, but regulatory action undoubtedly contributes to achieving of the purpose of the legislation. As the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document No. 6 on Vocational Driver Conduct advises, vehicles striking bridges or other road infrastructure pose a significant risk to occupants of those vehicles and other road users amongst others. Such collisions also result in disruption to the road and rail networks, resulting in a negative economic impact on businesses, particularly those such as Network Rail. Traffic commissioners understand that most collisions might be avoidable and caused because of negligence and poor training. The starting point is to revoke the entitlement and to disqualify for a period of 6 months.
No explanation was offered by Driver Adam for the lack of Driver CPC. In fact, he chose not to appear. I have referred to the sheer number of occasions he drove when the vehicle was over speed and the absence of an effective limiter should have been obvious to a professional driver, with a potential impact on stopping distances. I viewed those circumstances in the context of the failure to address the illuminated malfunction light. I was satisfied that deterrent intervention was required in the interests of future safety. He might think himself lucky to only face a suspension of 8 weeks, commencing 23:59 on 9 June 2026 to allow for this decision to be communicated. There can be no repeat.
As recorded above, I have adopted a holistic approach to the sole Director and as a driver. I have taken account of the personal circumstances to the degree permitted but also determined that deterrent intervention is required for the purposes of future safety. Mr Sims received no penalty but each of the breaks was significantly curtailed, for which I have received no real explanation. His vocational entitlement will be suspended for 28 days from 23:59 on 9 June 2026.
R Turfitt
Traffic Commissioner
2 June 2026