Decision for James Abbey & Son (Vegetables) Limited (OC1103147)
Written decision of the Traffic Commissioner of the North West of England for James Abbey & Son (Vegetables) Limited
IN THE NORTH WEST TRAFFIC AREA
JAMES ABBEY & SON (VEGETABLES) LIMITED – OC1103147
WRITTEN DECISION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER
PUBLIC INQUIRY HELD IN GOLBORNE ON 11 FEBRUARY 2026
DECISION:
The operator licence is revoked with immediate effect under provision of Section 26(1)(e), 26(1)(f) and 26(1)(h) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (“The Act”).
The licence-holding company, and each of its directors, Mr. James Andrew Abbey & Mrs. Beverley Abbey, are disqualified from holding or obtaining an operator’s licence, for a period of three years, under provision of Section 28 of the Act.
James Abbey & Son (Vegetables) Limited has held a Restricted goods vehicle operator’s licence, authorising three vehicles, since 22 June 2011. It has two directors, Mr. James Andrew Abbey, and Mrs. Beverley Abbey.
The operator’s licence record lists a single operating centre, given as Burtonwood Industrial Estate. Phipps Lane, Warrington, WA5 4HX. Preventative Maintenance Inspections are recorded to be carried out externally, by MV Commercial Limited at 8-weekly intervals.
Background
This operator came to the attention of the Traffic Commissioner following the receipt of: (i) a Section 9 statement from the DVSA; (ii) A driver conduct report; and (iii) an unsatisfactory Traffic Examiner Visit Report (“TEVR”).
The Section 9 statement and PI brief highlight serious tachograph compliance failures with vehicle units identified as having not been downloaded or locked in for extended periods (up to 1,272 days), breaching legal requirements. Multiple Section 99ZA requests, issued by DVSA for provision of records, were ignored or delayed, and the operator appeared to be using more vehicles than authorised for. The DVSA concluded that there was no structured system for tachograph analysis, monitoring infringements, or checking agency drivers’ rest periods.
The TEVR was concluded with a score of 21 points – this is an extremely poor score, with 0 points being satisfactory; 1 to 5 being Mostly Satisfactory; 6 to 10 being Unsatisfactory; and anything of 11 or above requiring to be reported to the Traffic Commissioner and/or considered for prosecution.
The TEVR highlighted shortcomings in CPC monitoring, an absence of training for load security, inadequate tachograph downloads frequencies, ineffective record-checking systems, and absence of disciplinary procedures. Compliance with Working Time Directives was virtually non-existent, and vehicle monitoring relied heavily on the hire company, with no OCRS engagement.
I am advised that this operator has admitted personal challenges and intended to cease trading in September 2025. Whilst the company had made inquiries to surrender the licence, such attempts were refused as the evidence alleges persistent failures in compliance management and regulatory obligations - regulatory action was therefore already under consideration.
The evidence provided by the DVSA included a driver conduct report in respect of driver Kamil Majeed. That evidence further highlights an absence of oversight or corrective action by the operator, and that infringement monitoring was non-existent. These findings point to systemic weaknesses in managing drivers and ensuring compliance with EU drivers’ hours and tachograph regulations.
A conjoined hearing was convened to consider matters in respect of both the operator and Driver Majeed.
Pre-Hearing
Calling in letters were issued by post and email to the given addresses on 30 December 2025. The letter set out case management directions to be followed in advance of the hearing including the instruction to provide financial evidence and maintenance records along with any further evidence to be considered at the inquiry.
On 19 January 2026 communication was received from Mr. Andrew Abbey advising that the company had ceased trading at the end of September 2025. He went on to state “We want to revoke our licence & we do not want to re-apply as I’m now retired”. He further stated “I think that the public inquiry would be a waste of the Traffic Commissioner’s time and a waste of the taxpayers money”.
On 21 January 2026 this office responded to clarify that the hearing would have to proceed as it is conjoined with a driver conduct hearing for Mr. Majeed who has confirmed his attendance. That letter clarified that the hearing would not be vacated and would continue to consider the matters within the call up letter.
A reply was received, from Mr. Andrew Abbey, on 23 January stating “we ceased trading at the end of September 2025. I would rather not waste any further public funds”.
On 23 January this office also received communication from Mrs. Beverley Abbey – in response to a separate letter asking for an update on the case management directions - to advise that she had not received any request for information. This communication also reaffirmed that the company ceased trading on 27 September 2025. In response this office confirmed that communication had been shared with Mr. Andrew Abbey, and that the hearing would proceed.
On each occasion this office requested confirmation as to whether the company or its directors would be in attendance. No confirmation was ever received; however, Mrs. Abbey did provide records to show that vehicles KO19XPA, DE20EXR, and PO69XMB had been returned to the leasing company.
As at the date of the hearing the company is showing as ‘Active’ on Companies House, with a Confirmation Statement, dated 14 November 2025, having been submitted on 11 December 2025.
Public Inquiry
The public inquiry took place on Wednesday 11 February 2026 at the Golborne Hearing Centre. Despite not providing notice in advance the operator was in attendance through Mr. Andrew Abbey. Mr. Majeed was also in attendance, as was DVSA Traffic Examiner Hemmingway-Morris, supported by Examiner Attwood.
Evidence was obtained firstly from TE Hemmingway-Morris, then Driver Majeed, and then Mr. Abbey. A decision on the conduct of Driver Majeed was made and is communicated separately to this decision.
Issues & Evidence
The issues set out within the call up letter are matters of significant concern. The DVSA report provided evidence that vehicle PO69 XMB was subject to a check on 10 December 2024, and the tachograph has never been downloaded by the operator – this is despite the vehicle having been specified on the licence since 25 October 2022. This indicates a significant and inexcusable period for which no oversight of drivers’ hours was conducted.
Between 10 December 2024 and 1 March 2025 three section 99ZA requests were not complied with fully or on time, despite a number of reminders and extensions granted.
On 21 March 2025 some of the requested evidence was eventually provided. A review of those records found that two other vehicles were only downloaded from 03 March 2025. This was blamed by the operator as an oversight but fails to recognise that the general issue was flagged in December 2024. No corrective action had been taken.
The records also showed that vehicle GK21 WWB was used by the operator despite never having been specified on the operator’s licence and despite there being no margin for it to be used – exceeding the licence authorisation.
Analysis also identified a number of instances of driving without a card. DVSA therefore requested additional data, for vehicles PO69 XMB and ML19XDO, as well as rental agreements for PN74 CVW and ML19XDO. No response was received; therefore a Traffic Examiner Visit was arranged.
The resulting report from that visit (a “TEVR”) scored 21 points. A score over ‘0’ is considered to be short of satisfactory, and a score over ‘11’ is considered suitable for reporting to the Traffic Commissioner or consideration for prosecution. Issues identified included:
- Responsible person unable to demonstrate continuous professional development;
- Driver training not appropriate to the business
- No effective system for monitoring driver CPC
- Inadequate training for loading and load security
- Employment status of drivers not appropriate
- Tachograph records not downloaded / not stored
- Download frequency not satisfactory
- No effective systems for checking records and downloaded date
- No effective systems for managing working time directives.
Evidence from Mr. Majeed indicated that there had been no monitoring of his records or his time, supporting the evidence from DVSA.
These matters go to the very heart of road safety and fair competition. Mr. Abbey initially blamed outdated systems but was unable to expand further when pressed. He then blamed naivety on the part of the licence holder – assuming that drivers would be doing the right things and relying on journey planning as an effective means of complying with drivers’ hours and tachograph rules. Something that I consider to be a wholly inadequate substitution.
It was accepted by Mr. Abbey that, whilst driver cards were “downloaded”, the licence-holder took no further action. No checks were made to ensure the download was successful and the operator had no process to review the records. There had been no downloading of vehicle data at all until for a period of at least four years. Mr. Abbey suggested that he had sent an employee on a course, and failed, initially, to appreciate the responsibilities held by the directors in this regard. The point was eventually accepted by Mr. Abbey.
DECISION - OPERATOR
Accordingly, I make adverse findings under the following legislation:
-
Section 26(1)(e) – the operator has made a statement of fact which has not been complied with, which was the declaration that the conditions and undertakings would be complied with
-
Section 26(1)(f) – Undertakings of the licence have not been complied with, namely that the operator would have proper systems in place to ensure that rules on drivers’ hours and tachographs would be complied with
-
Section 26(1)(f) – Undertakings of the licence have not been complied with, namely that in respect of each operating centre specified, that the number of authorised motor vehicles and the number of authorised trailers kept there will not exceed the maximum numbers recorded against the operating centre in this licence.
-
Section 26(1)(h) –that since the licence was issued there has been a material change in any of the circumstances of the licence-holder that were relevant to the grant of the licence, namely that the operator is no longer trading and therefore is not utilising the operator’s licence
-
Section 26(1)(h) –that since the licence was issued there has been a material change in any of the circumstances of the licence-holder that were relevant to the grant of the licence, namely that the operator is no longer considered to be “not-unfit” to hold an operator’s licence.
There are very few positives in this case beyond the fact that Mr. Abbey attended, engaged with the public inquiry process, and was open in accepting the company’s shortcomings.
In the negative I find that the licence-holder has failed to have regard to even the most basic requirements for compliance with drivers’ hours and tachograph rules. I accept that this is a case that falls within ‘absence of knowledge’ rather than ‘deception’ – but it is an abject and dangerous absence of knowledge. The operator is also to be criticised, heavily, for the failure to properly respond to the s99ZA requests.
On consideration of the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s starting points of regulatory action, as set out at Annex 4 of Statutory Document 10, I place this operator within the “SEVERE” category. I make this conclusion as I consider the absence of any systems or oversight amounts to a reckless act which compromised road safety.
2013/007 Redsky Wholesalers Ltd invites a Traffic Commissioner to consider the ‘Priority Freight Question’ in cases relating to Restricted licences. That question, posed in 2009/225 Priority Freight was, “how likely is it that this operator will, in future, operate in compliance with the operator’s licensing regime?”. I answer in the negative. The evidence before me in respect of this licence, and the absence of features to suggest compliance with the licensing regime, leads me to conclude that this is not an operator that I can trust.
The subsequent question posed, by the Upper Tribunal in 2002/217 Bryan Haulage, “is the conduct such that the operator ought to be put out of business”, is irrelevant on account of the evidence from Mr. Abbey that the company has ceased trading, but if it where I would have little hesitation in answering positively. Accordingly, I revoke the licence with immediate effect.
Having concluded that the licence is subject to revocation, and concluded that I cannot trust the operator, I consider whether disqualification is appropriate. Disqualification is a discretionary matter, and I am conscious of the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s guidance at paragraph 65 of Statutory Document 10 that such a direction is a potentially significant infringement of rights and should not be routinely ordered. I must, however, balance this against the very serious failings identified in this case. Regardless of Mr. Abbey’s current plans I have to consider the possibility of a future application.
I find that the question of disqualification is appropriate because it is the case that the operator, and its directors, were completely out of their depth where the O-licence is concerned. The evidence today strayed into other areas of operator licencing and illustrated a wider absence of knowledge. I remind myself of the words of the Upper Tribunal in the appeal of 2014/024 LA & Z Leonida t/a ETS
“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… As with any regulated environment, a duty holder cannot expect to argue ignorance of the operator licence requirements”.
The Senior Traffic Commissioner reminds us, at paragraph 28 of Statutory Document 10, of the requirement to make decisions which are commensurate with the circumstances of each individual case and the purposes of the legislation, quoting 2013/046 Shearer Transport Ltd:
“any regulatory action by the traffic commissioner should not be punishment in itself, but designed to assist in the promotion and achievement of the legislation. Clearly, such action can include an element of deterrence in order to prevent and discourage conduct that undermines the licensing regime.”
The range of failures and the lack of knowledge displayed are such that conclude a period of disqualification is appropriate. I set the disqualification period having balanced that this was the operator’s first public inquiry and the seriousness of the shortcomings. I conclude by disqualifying the company, and each of its directors, from holding or obtaining an operator’s licence for a period of three years.
David Mullan
Traffic Commissioner for the North West of England
11 February 2026