Decision for JK-RAUS Ltd - Application (OC2084794)
Written decision of the Deputy Traffic Commissioner in the North West area for JK-RAUS Ltd
NORTH WEST TRAFFIC AREA
JK-RAUS LTD (Applicant)
BEFORE: MR M HINCHLIFFE SITTING AT GOLBORNE ON 13/1/2026
DECISION
The application for a goods vehicle operator’s licence proposing the use of 5 vehicles and 5 trailers is REFUSED under Sections 13A(2)(b) and 13A(3)(a) and Schedule 3 Paras 1(1)(b) and 14A(1)(b) and (d) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995.
REASONS
On 4/9/2025 the applicant company applied for a standard international goods vehicle operator’s licence proposing the use of 5 vehicles and 5 trailers. The application form indicated that the sole director of the company was Mr Jozef Kraus (d.o.b. 5/10/1972) who would also be the sole transport manager - and that Mr Kraus had previously attended a public inquiry and had previously had an operator’s licence revoked. The licence number given on the form, in fact, related to a company called JV Trade Ltd, of which Mr Kraus had been sole director at the relevant time. He was also its transport manager, having obtained his CPC in Slovakia in 2016.
The details of the public inquiry and the revocation referred to are as follows. JV Trade Ltd had been called up to public inquiry on 18/8/2021 for serious maintenance concerns, along with issues relating to the operating centre and the fact that the drivers for JV Trade Ltd had self-employed status in circumstances where this was inappropriate and contrary to the HMRC guidelines and the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document. The maintenance investigation concluded with six of the key assessment areas returning “unsatisfactory” outcomes.
At the public inquiry, a number of explanations were given for the failings described, particularly that the company had grown too fast – outgrowing the systems in place. However, with the help of transport consultant Mr R Talty, modern and sustainable systems would be introduced, based upon the “Convey Fleet Management System”. There was absolutely no suggestion at the public inquiry that Mr Kraus had ill health such as to impede his ability to run his business properly or discharge his duties as transport manager.
The outcome of the public inquiry was a curtailment of the fleet down to 4 vehicles and 4 trailers, a formal warning, and the acceptance of 5 undertakings. Mr Kraus’s repute as transport manager was “tarnished”.
The undertakings included providing a parking plan for the operating centre to be submitted to the Office of the Traffic Commissioner (OTC) by 31/8/2021, arranging for all drivers to be employed under the PAYE scheme with employment contracts to be submitted to the OTC by 31/10/2021, arranging a full audit to take place in December 2021 with the audit and action plan to be submitted to the OTC by 15/1/2022, and to notify the OTC immediately if the contract between the operator and Mr Talty should end.
None of these undertakings were complied with and, as the various dates came and went, correspondence from the OTC, reminding the operator about the undertakings, was issued.
On 7/12/2021 Mr Kraus emailed the OTC to say that after the public inquiry he had flown to Slovakia where his wife was ill. He returned to the UK on 25/9/2021 but then he contracted Covid. He asked for an extension of time, and the Traffic Commissioner agreed to extend the time limits for the parking plan and the employment contracts to be submitted to 15/1/2022 – the same date as the audit and action plan had to be submitted. However, this date also came and went with no compliance or explanation.
On 31/12/2025, Mr Talty wrote to the OTC to say that he had had no contact from Mr Kraus since October 2021. But Mr Kraus himself had not notified the OTC of this.
The OTC therefore sent ‘propose to revoke’ correspondence to the operator on 20/1/2022, and the licence was formally revoked on 17/2/2022.
Thereafter, the company was made the subject of a creditors’ voluntary liquidation, with the winding-up commencing on 8/7/2022 - and the company was dissolved on 22/10/2023. There were substantial debts unpaid to creditors, including around £[redacted] to HMRC and around £[redacted]to banks and employees.
When the current application before me was completed, Mr Kraus had to answer two questions relating to financial history. First, “Has anyone you’ve named in this application (including directors and Transport Managers) ever been involved with a company or business that has gone (or is going into) liquidation owing money?” Mr Kraus answered “No”. Second, “Confirm you are aware that you must tell the Traffic Commissioner immediately of any insolvency proceedings that occur between the submission of your application and a decision being made on the application.” Mr Kraus answered “Confirmed”.
Needless to say, this application was referred to public inquiry and a request for an interim licence was refused.
In advance of the public inquiry, Mr Kraus submitted a statement in which he said that prior to the 2021 public inquiry concerning JV Trade Ltd his own health had begun to deteriorate, and he was finding it difficult to manage day-to-day responsibilities. He went to Slovakia where he had extended family and was familiar with the healthcare system. This he thought, would give him the best opportunity to receive treatment and support in dealing with his own health issues.
At the public inquiry before me, Mr Kraus said that he had suffered kidney failure at exactly the time of the 2021 public inquiry. He went back to Slovakia principally to divorce his wife, but then he became ill whilst there. He also had severe psoriasis.
Given that these explanations are inconsistent with each other and are completely different from that given in the email of 7/12/2021, and no mention whatsoever was made of Mr Kraus’s health issues at the public inquiry of 18/8/2021 (the Traffic Commissioner’s written decision is in the brief), I asked for medical evidence to support the claim that Mr Kraus had - for overwhelming medical reasons - been unable to comply with the undertakings given, or to properly and promptly communicate with the OTC (or, even, with Mr Talty).
Mr Kraus could not produce any medical evidence at the public inquiry before me, so I allowed him a short time to submit such evidence, and I reserved my decision to allow for such evidence to be submitted. A number of medical letters and reports have been submitted. A summary of the medical evidence is to be found in the ANNEX to this decision, which should not be made public. Suffice to say that this evidence comes nowhere near establishing that Mr Kraus had a reasonable excuse for non-compliance with the undertakings given at the 2021 public inquiry.
For the sake of completeness, I heard evidence from Mr Kraus about the liquidation of JV Trade Ltd (the facts summarised in this decision were not disputed), and Mr Kraus maintained that he had not intended to give untrue or inaccurate answers in the application form. I also heard from Mr Talty as to the support he was (again) willing to offer in order to help this operator achieve compliance, should an operator’s licence be granted. I am grateful to Mr Talty for his assistance.
The approach to repute when dealing with an application is not the same as the approach when deciding whether or not to take regulatory action against an existing licence holder - see the Upper Tribunal decision in Aspey Trucks Ltd 2010/49 (at paragraph 10):
“In a case such as this, the Deputy Traffic Commissioner was not looking at putting someone out of business. Rather, he was deciding whether or not to give his official seal of approval … In this respect, Traffic Commissioners are the gatekeepers to the industry – and the public, other operators, and customers and competitors alike, all expect that those permitted to join the industry will not blemish or undermine its good name or abuse the privileges that it bestows.”
Mr Kraus’s evidence is inconsistent and unpersuasive. He certainly had and has issues as disclosed in the medical evidence, but nothing that explains or justifies his complete lack of compliance after the 2021 public inquiry - and having had an opportunity of seeing Mr Kraus and hearing his evidence, I do not trust him to comply with undertakings now. Quite apart from the total failure to keep the promises made at a public inquiry in front of a Traffic Commissioner, there were serious maintenance failings that only reliable support from a transport consultant could ameliorate. But not only did Mr Kraus treat the Traffic Commissioner with disrespect by his conduct, but also Mr Talty. I recognise that Mr Talty is now willing to take Mr Kraus back on as a client, but I do not share his willingness to try again. And although the application form did disclose the fact of the previous public inquiry and subsequent revocation, it concealed the insolvency, winding-up, liquidation, and substantial unpaid debts. Mr Talty subsequently disclosed all this, on behalf of the applicant - but, without Mr Talty’s intervention, I have significant doubts that these matters would have been revealed.
Having regard to Mr Kraus’s past conduct as an operator and as a transport manager, I am not satisfied that this operator has good repute or that the company’s proposed transport manager has good repute. Even if he is well enough, I am not satisfied that Mr Kraus will give sufficient priority to compliance and cooperation – in both his role as a director, and as nominated transport manager. Thus, I am not satisfied that the applicant has professional competence.
The application for an operator’s licence by JK-Raus Ltd is, therefore, refused.
Mark Hinchliffe
Deputy Traffic Commissioner
22/1/2026