Decision for Johnsons Scrap Metal Limited (OC0288066)
Written decision of the Traffic Commissioner for the West Midlands for Johnsons Scrap Metal Limited and David Johnson, transport manager
IN THE NORTH WEST TRAFFIC AREA
JOHNSONS SCRAP METAL LIMITED – OC0288066
&
Mr. DAVID JOHNSON – TRANSPORT MANAGER
WRITTEN DECISION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER
PUBLIC INQUIRY HELD IN GOLBORNE ON 11 February 2026
DECISION:
The operator licence is revoked with effect from 23:45 on 25 February 2026 under the provisions of Section 26(1)(b), 26(1)(c), 26(1)(e), 26(1)(f), 26(1)(h) and Section 27(1)(a) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (“The Act”)
Johnsons Scrap Metal Limited (“JSML”) has held a Standard National goods vehicle operator’s licence, authorising three vehicles, since 12 March 1996. The directors are listed, on both VOL and Companies House, as Mr. David Johnson, Ms. Brenda Johnson, Mr. Andrew Phillip Johnson, Mr. Ian Christopher Johnson, and Mr. Bruce Alexander Johnson. Until 15 January 2026 Mr. David Johnson was listed as transport manager.
Background
This operator was first brought to the attention of this office following the identification of a conviction in 2021 by the Health & Safety Executive. This office understands that JSML was investigated following a loading incident which resulted in injury to a 22-year-old worker. The company received a £10,000 fine and was ordered to pay costs.
Additionally, on 17 January 2025 the Environment Agency revoked the operator’s waste permit, preventing the operator from carrying out any form of waste operations including accepting or processing waste. This resulted from the operator’s failure to comply with an Environment Agency notice to reduce the quantity of non-hazardous waste stored within a permitted area, and a finding that “The Environment Agency considers that you are not competent to operate the regulated facility in accordance with the environmental permit”.
Neither the conviction or waste permit revocation, which are events that may affect good repute, were notified to the Traffic Commissioner as per the condition of your Goods Vehicle Operator’s licence.
On 17 October 2025 the DVSA conducted a Maintenance Investigation Visit Report (“MIVR”) which concluded with a score of “Report to the Office of the Traffic Commissioner (OTC)”. This indicates very serious concern. Of thirteen areas assessed only three were marked as “Satisfactory”. Seven areas were marked as “Unsatisfactory”, and three areas were of such concern that they were marked as “Report to OTC”.
Additionally, during the unannounced visit, the operator’s two vehicles – specified on the licence and confirmed as being in service – were issued with prohibition notices. This raised further, and serious, concern as to the fitness of vehicles being used, particularly in light of the fact that this operator has a fail rate at annual test which greatly exceeds the national average.
This office has requested an explanation as to the convictions, and whilst a holding note was received, the substantive response was not forthcoming. Additionally, following the MIVR, the DVSA requested the operator’s response to the findings, and – again – acknowledgement has been provided, but no response has been forthcoming.
In light of the issues set out above this operator was called to a public inquiry to consider whether there has been a failure to comply with the undertakings and conditions of the licence; whether there has been a material change in the circumstances of the licence holder in that they are no longer able to receive and/or process waste; whether the operator continues to satisfy the continuous and mandatory requirements of a standard licence to be of good repute, of appropriate financial standing, and professionally competent.
Additionally, Transport Manager David Johnson was called to attend to consider whether he continues to meet the requirements to be of good repute, professionally competent and able to continuously and effectively manage transport services.
Pre-Hearing
Calling in letters were issued by both post and email, to the given addresses, on 07 January 2026. Both letters 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 09 January 2026 a letter was received from Mr. David Johnson advising that he left his employment with JSML on 26 December 2025 and is no longer an employee, director or shareholder. The letter went on to state that he would not be attending the hearing, and the company should be contacted should any further information be required. On 14 January 2026 this office replied to acknowledge the letter and advise that the hearing would proceed.
Separately, on 09 February 2026 this office wrote to the company to advise that the case management directions had not yet been complied with, and DVSA had provided a statement to that effect.
On 16 January 2026 a letter was received from Mr. Bruce Johnson “as a respondent in the above case” advising that Mr. David Johnson had sadly passed away on 16 January 2026.
This office provided a letter of condolence and sought confirmation as to whether the company wished to adjourn the hearing, or in the alternative, wished to surrender the licence. No response was received.
Public Inquiry
Firstly, I vacate the hearing in respect of Transport Manager David Johnson. I am advised that he has passed away and I do not consider it appropriate to give any further consideration to matters that concern him.
The public inquiry took place on Wednesday 18 February at the Golborne Hearing Centre. The operator was not in attendance. In advance I considered whether the hearing should proceed. I took account of the guidance issued by the Senior Traffic Commissioner at paragraph 27 of Statutory Document 9, which states
The Traffic Commissioner is entitled to expect that the party called to a hearing will submit any application for an adjournment.
I am satisfied that the calling in letters had been received and understood as Mr. Bruce Johnson opened his 16 January letter with “I am writing as a respondent in the above case”. I note that my offer of an adjournment, or surrender of the licence, went unanswered. I have regard to the fact that this is likely a family business and the death of a family member is a challenging time, and I also have regard to the fact that Mr. Bruce Johnson took time to write to this office on the same date as Mr. David Johnson’s passing. As such, I consider it not unreasonable to have expected some further communication in the month that has since passed.
Importantly, I remind myself of the serious issues that have led to this inquiry being convened. The concerns raised go to the heart of road safety and I consider it to be in the interests of justice, and road safety, to proceed.
Summary of Evidence and findings
Conviction & Revocation of Waste Permit
Within my bundle of papers, I have evidence that JSML was convicted under Section 2(1) of the Health & Safety at Work Act 1974, and fined £10,000. This occurred at a hearing dated 25 February 2021 and the conviction and fine were not notified to this office.
Additionally, my evidence also advises that JSML had its waste permit revoked on 17 January 2025. The report continues to state that “the revocation means that Johnson’s Scrap Metal Ltd, trading under Johnson’s Skip Hire, is no longer able to carry out any form of waste operations, including accepting or processing waste”.
These reports are relevant as they may have a direct impact on good repute and financial standing. The revocation of the waste permit may also indicate a material change in that an operator’s licence is no longer required or may not lawfully be used without contravening the waste permit revocation.
As with all such concerns, these were put to the operator for a response. On 28 November 2025 Mr. Andrew Johnson responded to state “I am writing to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 26/11/2025. An explanation of the circumstances of the report will follow.” However, no such explanation was forthcoming despite the passage of time.
Maintenance Investigation Visit Report
Of twelve areas assessed by DVSA only three were considered to be “Satisfactory”. Seven areas were scored as “Unsatisfactory”, and two were scored as “Report to OTC” – the worst scoring available. Concerns were raised with regard to the Legal Entity of the licence holder, as well as operator systems for compliance in relation to: (i) the condition of vehicles; (ii) Inspection / Maintenance Records; (iii) Driver Defect Reporting; (iv) Inspection Facilities & Maintenance Arrangements; (v) Emissions; (vi) Wheel & Tyre Management; (vii) Load Security; (viii) Prohibition Assessment; (ix) Security Arrangements; and (x)Transport Manager / Responsible Person. Many of the shortcomings relate directly to areas critical for road safety, and both vehicles were issued with prohibitions upon the fleet check.
The operator’s OCRS is showing as Red, with a 100% mechanical prohibition rate (against a national average of 23.55%), and an initial fail rate at annual test of 83.33% (against a national average of 11.70%).
Vehicle Examiner Cornilius Mitchell provided the MIVR to the company directors and sought a comprehensive written explanation into the reasons for the recorded shortcomings, as well as comment on the steps being taken to prevent future failings. No response was forthcoming.
Licence Conditions and Material Change
The letter from Mr. David Johnson set out that he has resigned as transport manager and director on 26 December 2025. None of these changes were notified to this office and still remain unchanged on both the VOL system and on Companies House. This represents a failure to comply with the conditions of the operator’s licence and appears consistent with the company general approach to communications with regulatory and enforcement authorities.
Good Repute, Professional Competence and Financial Standing
In this case good repute has been adversely affected by this operator’s failure to respond to reasonable inquiries, the seriousness of the matters identified within the MIVR, the disengagement from the regulatory and enforcement bodies, the Health & Safety conviction, and the revocation of the waste permit.
Further, no new application to appoint an alternative transport manager has been made, and no request for a period of grace has been submitted.
The previous fine and revocation of the waste permit give reasonable cause to believe that financial standing has been affected. The calling in letter set out my concerns that the shortcomings within the MIVR may have been caused by an absence of financial standing and the case management directions required the provision of evidence to satisfy those concerns. As the case management directions were not complied with I have no evidence before me that financial standing is satisfied.
DECISION
Based on the above evidence I make adverse findings under the following legislation:
-
Section 26(1)(b) - that the licence-holder has contravened any condition attached to the licence, namely the requirement to notify events, within 28 days of their occurrence, which affect good repute, financial standing and professional competence.
-
Section 26(1)(c) – that during the five years ending with the date on which the direction is given there has been a prohibition of the driving of a vehicle of which the licence-holder was the owner when the prohibition was imposed.
-
Section 26(1)(e) – the operator has made a statement of fact which has not been fulfilled; namely the declaration that the conditions and undertakings would be complied with
-
Section 26(1)(f) – An undertaking of the licence has not been complied with, namely to have proper systems to ensure that motor vehicles and trailers, including hired vehicles, are kept fit and serviceable – as evidenced by the prohibitions, MIVR findings, and the poor performance at annual test
-
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 issue of the licence, namely that the revocation of the waste permit has adversely affected the ability of the licence-holding company to lawfully carry out its goods operations.
-
Section 27(1)(a) - that the operator no longer meets the requirements of Section 13A, namely (i) to be of good repute; (ii) to have appropriate financial standing; and (iii) to be ‘professionally competent’ (to designated a an appropriate transport manager)
Whilst consideration of regulatory action under Section 26 is discretionary, the adverse findings under Section 27 are such that I am obliged to revoke the licence unless such a direction would be disproportionate in the circumstances. I note that the operator has been put on notice, has failed to communicate with this office and has, therefore, not provided any mitigation which might lead me to conclude that revocation is not a proportionate outcome.
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. The evidence before me, and my conclusions as set out, leads me to conclude that this is not an operator who I can currently trust to comply. I include within my considerations the previous disengagement with enforcement and regulatory inquiries as well as the failure to attend today’s hearing (or request an adjournment under the circumstances).
I go on to consider the question posed by the Upper Tribunal in 2002/217 Bryan Haulage namely, is the conduct such that the operator ought to be put out of business? I answer this in the positive. The issues of this case are well laid out above and I have little to no positive features to counterbalance the very serious negatives.
On balance I consider that any decision short of revocation would be inappropriate, and I therefore direct that this licence is revoked with effect from 23:45 on 25 February 2026. This short period is set to allow the operator to be notified and for vehicles to be returned to the yard. I do not consider any extended period to be appropriate in consideration of the very high risk to road safety identified within the MIVR and the operator’s failure to engage with DVSA and the Traffic Commissioner.
Disqualification
Having revoked the licence for the reasons set out, I take account of the guidance provided by the Senior Traffic Commissioner at Paragraph 108 of Statutory Document number 10. This operator has failed to attend a public inquiry and wasted valuable hearing room time. It also failed to fully engage with the DVSA’s investigations. I am mindful that disqualification is not something that should be applied routinely, but there must be a deterrent for those that are considering ignoring communications and directions from enforcement or regulatory authorities. I therefore disqualify the licence-holding company and all current directors from holding or obtaining an operator’s licence for an indefinite period of time.
Unlike a defined period of two or five years, it remains open to those parties to ask this office to lift this disqualification at any time, but they must be prepared to attend a public inquiry and explain the failures in this instance in order for any such request to be considered.
David Mullan
Traffic Commissioner for the North West of England
18 February 2025