Decision for Joseph Singleton & Peter Singleton (OC2037470) and Transport Manager Mr Peter Singleton and AJ & MV Transport Limited (OC2083041)
Written decision of the Traffic Commissioner for the North West traffic area for Joseph Singleton & Peter Singleton, Transport Manager Mr Peter Singleton and AJ & MV Transport Limited
IN THE NORTH WEST TRAFFIC AREA
JOSEPH SINGLETON & PETER SINGLETON – OC2037470
AND
TRANSPORT MANAGER MR PETER SINGLETON
AND
AJ & MV TRANSPORT LIMITED – OC2083041
WRITTEN DECISION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER
CONJOINED PUBLIC INQUIRY HELD IN GOLBORNE ON 11 DECEMBER 2025
The Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (“the 1995 Act”)
DECISION
Joseph Singleton & Peter Singleton Pursuant to adverse findings under Section 26(1)(b), 26(1)(c), 26(1)(e), 26(1)(f), 26(1)(h), 27(1)(a) and 27(1)(b) of the 1995 Act this partnership licence is revoked with effect from 23:45 on Friday 09 January 2026.
Transport Manager Peter Singleton Under provision of Paragraphs 16(1) and 16(2) of Schedule 3 of the 1995 Act I find that Mr. Peter Singleton is no longer of good repute and he is disqualified from acting as a transport manager for an indefinite period of time.
AJ & MV Transport Limited Under provision of Section 13(5) this application is refused as the requirement within Section 13A, to be of good repute, has not been satisfied.
“Joseph Singleton and Mr. Peter Singleton” is a Partnership which holds a Standard Goods Vehicle Operator’s Licence authorising 3 vehicles and 3 trailers. Mr. Peter Singleton has been the nominated transport manager since the licence was granted on 19 November 2020.
AJ & MV Transport Limited was incorporated on 30 October 2020 and has remained dormant since then. Mr. Joseph Singleton is the sole Director since incorporation and an application for a Standard Goods Vehicle Operator’s Licence authorising 4 vehicles and 4 trailers was created on 02 June 2025.
As this application was submitted after the events that led to the Partnership being called to Public Inquiry, it was determined that both cases would be considered together at the same Hearing.
Background
This Partnership first came to the attention of the DVSA on 03 December 2024 where vehicle PO17UFN was issued with an S-Marked prohibition. A subsequent maintenance investigation visit, by DVSA, concluded with a report scored as “Report to OTC” – the worst scoring available.
Of 13 areas assessed, only three were considered to be satisfactory. A wide range of issues were identified which suggested this Operator was failing to comply with the conditions and undertakings of the licence. In addition, the report concluded that Transport Manager, Mr. Peter Singleton, had failed to ensure effective and continuous management of transport operations as required in law.
The DVSA investigation indicated that drivers for the Partnership were all engaged on a self-employed capacity and contrary to the advice from HMRC and the Senior Traffic Commissioner, with evidence indicating that the Operator may not have appropriate control over drivers and may, separately, be gaining an unfair commercial advantage through the avoidance of PAYE contributions and other costs.
In addition, this office has been advised that the Partnership had failed to fully engage with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (“SEPA”) regarding an allegation of unlawful dumping at Cronberry Ring, East Ayrshire. This resulted in a fixed monetary penalty (“FMP”) being issued to Mr. Peter Singleton for refusing to attend an interview.
There was a further concern that the operator may have been using vehicles not specified on their Operator’s licence. It is noted that a range of vehicles appear to have been held by the Operator and moved on and off the licence throughout a period between 2022 and 2024. This would be a breach of the condition of the licence and may also indicate that it had exceeded the authorised capacity of the operating centre.
On account of the issues set out above, the Inquiry was convened to consider whether the Partnership had failed to comply with the conditions and undertakings of the Operator’s licence, and whether the Partnership continued to meet the continuous and mandatory requirements to be of good repute, to have professional competence, and to have the required financial standing.
Due to the findings of the DVSA report, and the prohibitions issued to vehicles used by the Operator, Mr. Peter Singleton was also called to attend in his capacity as Transport Manager.
As Mr. Joseph Singleton is the sole Director for AJ & MV Transport Ltd, application OC2083041, submitted by that company, was also called to be included within proceedings where a determination would be made as to whether that applicant met the statutory requirements to obtain an Operator’s licence.
Prior to the Public Inquiry
On 15 September 2025 this office had received the following message from Mr. Peter Singleton:
“I would like to inform the Office of the Traffic Commissioner that I Peter Singleton , Transport Manager for Joseph and Peter Singleton OC2037470 and Willow Landscapes and Grounds Maintenance Ltd OC2029372 will upon completion of applications be retiring from the profession in its entirety due to my age and deteriorating health.
Joseph Singleton the other partner of Joseph and Peter Singleton currently has an application pending as AJ and MV Transport Ltd OC2083041 of which I will have no involvement with in any way.
I am also Transport Manager for Willow Landscapes and Grounds Maintenance Ltd OC2029372 which currently holds a Standard National licence. I will be submitting an application to change the entity of this operation to a Restricted licence due to the nature of work carried out.
Should the Office of the Traffic Commissioner grant both of these requests I shall retire from the profession indefinitely.”
On 06 November 2025 the calling-in letters were issued to (i) the Partnership, (ii) the applicant company and (iii) Mr. Peter Singleton as Transport Manager calling them all to the conjoined Public Inquiry. On that date Mr. Peter Singleton remained a Partner and Transport Manager for licence OC2037470 and remained Transport Manager for OC2029372.
As Mr. Peter Singleton had not responded to the Public Inquiry calling-in letter and had failed to comply with the case management directions within it, a reminder email was issued to him on 08 December 2025. No response has been received.
Public Inquiry
The Public Inquiry took place on Thursday 11 December 2025 at the Golborne Hearing Centre. Mr. Joseph Singleton was in attendance in his capacity as first Partner of licence OC2037470, and as the sole Director of the applicant company AJ & MV Transport Limited. He was joined by Mr. Benjamin Smith, nominated Transport Manager for the applicant company. Mr. Peter Singleton, second Partner and Transport Manager, failed to attend.
I was informed that Mr. Peter Singleton was the father of Mr. Joseph Singleton, but they no longer speak. As such Mr. Joseph Singleton was unaware as to why his father was not in attendance. I considered that (i) the calling-in letters had been issued to the given addresses and good service has been made, (ii) Mr. Joseph Singleton was in attendance indicating proper service in general, and (iii) Mr. Peter Singleton had indicated an intention of “retiring from the profession in its entirety due to.. age and deteriorating health”. Accordingly, I determined on the balance of probability that this was an intentional decision not to attend.
In the alternative, I have consideration to the helpful reminder from the Upper Tribunal, within 2010/056 Mohamed Aslam trading as Instant Freight:
“The Tribunal has stated on many occasions that operator’s licensing depends on trust. One important aspect of that trust is that the Traffic Commissioner must be able to rely on an operator having in place: (a) an address at which he can reliably receive important correspondence, (whether it be from VOSA, the Office of the Traffic Commissioner, the office in Leeds or any other significant source), and, (b) a system which ensures that correspondence is fully answered, within any time limit which has been set, or else within a reasonable time and that if documents are requested that they are sent..”
I determined that it was both just and fair to proceed with the Inquiry.
Evidence
At the commencement of the Public Inquiry I highlighted what I identified to be the concerns for consideration. These were, in respect of the Partnership licence (i) a failure to comply with case management directions, (ii) the S-Marked Prohibition and unsatisfactory MIVR, (iii) a reliance on self employed drivers, (iv) the FMP issued by SEPA, (v) concern over the unlawful use of vehicles, (vi) financial standing and (vii) professional competence. Thereafter consideration would move to the application by the Limited Company.
“Failure to comply with Case Management Directions”
The Partnership calling-in letter requested three pieces of information to be provided ahead of the Public Inquiry. They were (i) evidence of financial standing, (ii) maintenance records for all vehicles since 09 April 2025 and (iii) HMRC Real Time Information (“RTI”) reports from weekly and monthly payroll.
In relation to the financial standing I was advised that evidence, such as bank statements, could not be obtained because the money held to support financial standing was held solely in Mr. Peter Singleton’s name. The accounts which facilitated the day-to-day management of finances was held, separately and solely, in Mr. Joseph Singleton’s name. As this was supposed to be a Partnership I made further inquiries. I was thereafter informed that, whilst this was a Partnership licence it was, in reality and in practice, a sole trader enterprise by Mr. Jospeh Singleton. Mr. Peter Singleton’s involvement did not stray beyond the role of transport manager.
This raises as number of issues. Firstly, it indicates that Mr. Joseph Singleton, as a sole trader, has unlawfully been operating vehicles since 2020 under an Operator’s licence belonging to a separate legal entity - licences are not transferable. It also doesn’t explain the lack of financial records. I accept that they would likely have been in the wrong entity name, but the financial records for “the business” should have been available and I am entitled to infer, by their absence, that the financial standing requirement is not satisfied. That the evidence would be in the incorrect name confirms that financial standing, for the Partnership, is not satisfied.
Maintenance Records were produced, but much later than required. This put unnecessary pressure on the DVSA Examiner to conduct his assessment and report. I am grateful for VE Mitchell for finding time in his calendar to provide that assessment. The late provision of records is unquestionably a negative feature on the Partnership and both Partners.
RTI reports had been requested following the determination that the Operator was reliant on self-employed drivers. Mr. Joseph Singleton confirmed that all drivers are self-employed as sole traders or limited companies. He is aware of the STC guidance and has planned to move away from this practice should the Limited company licence be granted. This is, I was told, part of the reason for applying under the Limited company – but no explanation was provided as to why this change had not commenced or progressed since the issue was identified in February 2025.
“The S-Marked Prohibition and Unsatisfactory MIVR”
The findings of the DVSA in relation to the prohibition and the MIVR were not disputed.
Mr. Joseph Singleton advised me that, due to the nature of transport operations (rough terrain) issues with tyres would be expected. These accounted for some of the prohibitions. Drivers were instructed to complete visual checks when leaving some sites, but no records or evidence was kept.
The S-Marking resulted from a loose wheel stud identified at a stop on 03 December 2024. The wheel had been replaced the day prior and the issue had not been picked up by either the fitter or the driver. Three prohibitions were issued on that date, two relating to the wheel studs and one concerning the failure of a direction indicator. These should all have been identified during an effective driver walk around check.
The MIVR found further failings in respect of Inspection and Maintenance Records, Driver Defect Reporting, Inspection Facilities (for those inspections conducted at the operating centre), Emissions, Wheel & Tyre Management, Load Security and the responsible person was considered to have ineffective control. An assessment of the inspection records (“SIPCAT Report”) concluded that 26% of inspections were conducted late, 26% were not compliant with guidance, 41% were conducted without an adequate brake assessment and 4% had dangerous defects.
A response was provided by the Operator at the time of the report setting out improvements to be made. However, an assessment of more recent materials – conducted by the DVSA in November 2025 – identified some continued failings. PMI sheets were still not properly completed, declarations of roadworthiness were not signed off and records remained incomplete. As before, there was evidence of driver detectable defects at inspection with no record of a corresponding driver defect report. An updated SIPCAT highlighted that 11% of inspections continued to be late.
Some explanation was provided for shortcomings, but no explanation was provided for the lack of proper oversight from the Operator. Despite initial assurances, it transpired that Mr. Joseph Singleton was not familiar with inspection records or brake test reports and would be unable to properly review, question or challenge any issues. I was also advised that it was accepted by the Operator that Mr. Peter Singleton had also failed, as Transport Manager in his management and oversight responsibilities.
“Self-employed drivers”
I was advised that all drivers are engaged on a self-employed basis with none engaged as PAYE employees. Mr. Joseph Singleton was aware of some concerns held by traffic commissioners, but not all. His plan going forward was to only engage drivers on PAYE and I was provided with a driver recruitment pack and a driver handbook for the Limited Company – but no evidence was provided of similar, or any, steps taken by the Partnership.
There is, displayed by the driver defect reporting and driver training shortcomings, a lack of adequate control by the Partnership. I was given no evidence of training and no evidence of any disciplinary processes (theoretical or actual). The Partnership did not provide me with an Employee Handbook, or Driver Recruitment and Disciplinary Policy, as the applicant company did.
“Fixed Monetary Penalty (SEPA)”
Due to an ongoing investigation little could be disclosed on this aspect, but it was accepted by Mr. Joseph Singleton that he had been fined for failing to attend an interview and had paid that fine without appeal. He stated, however, that he had fully engaged with the investigation – and continues to do so – and felt that there was little to be achieved or gained by a formal interview.
“Unlawful use of vehicles”
Over the duration of the Operator’s licence there are a volume of vehicles added to and removed from the licence on multiple occasions. I was advised however that the Operator leased vehicles and had cherished plates. This resulted in a higher volume of registration numbers aligned to the licence with a relatively small authorisation. The adding and removing of vehicles is, actually, quite limited and there is little evidence to support wrongdoing.
During this part of the Hearing some confusion arose regarding more recent changes to the fleet as the user access had been removed. Whilst it was identified that the removal of vehicles was an automated process linked to the five yearly renewal of the licence (due around the time of the Hearing) it was also confirmed that Mr. Joseph Singleton accessed the VOL system using the username and password allocated to Mr. Peter Singleton. This is contrary to the declaration by the user that usernames and passwords would not be shared. I find that this is a breach of the trust required between Traffic Commissioners and licence holders, as well as an inadequate approach to risk management noting the all too frequent attacks on IT systems across the industry.
“Financial Standing”
As set out above, no evidence of financial standing was provided. I was also told that no finances are held by a Partnership with separate bank accounts held by each Partner.
“Professional Competence”
As set out above, Transport Manager Peter Singleton failed to attend this Public Inquiry. I note that he remains registered as the approved Transport Manager on licence OC2029372, held in the name Willow Landscapes and Grounds Maintenance Ltd. This office has also not been notified of his resignation, cessation or removal as Transport Manager for the Partnership.
In evidence I was advised by Mr. Joseph Singleton that his father, Mr. Peter Singleton stopped acting in any effective manner “about one year ago” (therefore approximately December 2024). This change in circumstances was not notified to this office within 28 days as per the conditions of the licence. It also infers that the licence holder continued to benefit from a Standard Goods Vehicle Operator’s Licence despite not having the required professional competence, met through the engagement of a CPC qualified transport manager who ensures continuous and effective management of transport services. This has risked road safety, allowed the licence holder to benefit from a commercial advantage, and represents as failure to comply with the mandatory requirements.
These allegations could not be put to the Transport Manager as Mr. Peter Singleton has elected not to attend and, in doing so, has denied me the opportunity to make necessary inquiries. This strikes right at the very heart of trust in both the Transport Manager and the Partnership.
“Application for AJ & MV TRANSPORT LIMITED”
The calling-in letter inviting the applicant company to the Public Inquiry set out the concerns to be addressed and gave a case management direction for the provision of:
“(i) Details of your proposed vehicle maintenance system, including:
- Sample safety inspection records;
- The proposed daily defect reporting system;
- The maintenance contract;
- Forward planner.
(ii) details of how you will comply with the laws regarding drivers’ hours including evidence of your proposed systems for:
- Driver licence checks;
- Drivers’ hours infringement reports;
- Vehicle unit download reports;
- Evidence of continuous and professional development;
- Evidence of a recruitment and disciplinary process for drivers and managers.”
In advance of the Hearing the Operator’s evidence was limited to (i) a certificate for a 2-day TM CPC refresher for Mr. Smith dated 21 November 2025, (ii) a certificate for an OLAT course completed by Mr. Joseph Singleton dated 24 November 2025, (iii) a basic and generic Employee Handbook, (iv) a basic and generic driver & recruitment policy booklet and (v) a single page response to the concerns set out.
I am unsure why Mr. Joseph Singleton waited until 24 November 2025 to attend an OLAT course considering he has held a licence since 2020 and in consideration of the unsatisfactory findings of the DVSA report in February 2025. To his credit Mr. Joseph Singleton shares this view and accepts that things might have been considerably different had he taken the course – which he found greatly beneficial – much sooner.
I give little weight to the generic booklets produced. These are light in detail, give no reference to this business or to the type of work undertaken and fail to have any detailed policies. I note, for example, the obvious omission of bridge strike policy and not much in the way of direction on mobile phone use, satellite navigation use and the company’s approach to alcohol and drugs.
A page response was provided in respect of four concerns raised. Those were (i) Good Repute, (ii) Financial Standing, (iii) Drivers’ Hours Arrangements and (iv) Maintenance Arrangements. Bank statements were provided, but the response was absent on issues that might affect (positively or negatively) good repute. The response to systems for ensuring compliance with drivers’ hours and maintenance consisted of two paragraphs and no supporting evidence. This is particularly surprising considering the issues identified within the DVSA report and I consider it was a missed opportunity for this applicant to provide any tangible evidence of its proposed systems and processes.
I do note that some evidence was issued to DVSA but that related to the Partnership licence, therefore, it does not necessarily reflect the approach of the newly nominated Transport Manager, and – as it illustrates continued issues – doesn’t present matters in a favourable light. I reminded the Operator that, in the case of an application, the burden lies with it to satisfy me that the legislative requirements are satisfied.
Findings
As with all civil proceedings the burden of proof is on the balance of probabilities.
“Failure to comply with Case Management Directions”
Recognising that maintenance records were provided to DVSA, these were late and – coupled with the failure to comply with other case management directions – represents a negative feature.
“The S-Marked Prohibition and Unsatisfactory MIVR”
As set out above, the findings of the DVSA in relation to the prohibition and the MIVR were not disputed. This illustrates that a range of undertakings were not complied with. The more recent records show some slight improvement but much of the concern identified in February 2025 remain unresolved. Mr. Joseph Singleton sought to place the blame on the Transport Manager and the maintenance provider, reluctantly accepting that he remains ultimately responsible.
Many shortcomings relate to road safety critical areas. This Partnership is without an effective transport manager and Mr. Joseph Singleton is ill equipped to provide the necessary oversight. I reminded him at the Inquiry that he cannot shirk his responsibility simply because he has engaged a transport manager, quoting the Upper Tribunal’s decision in 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. That means that they cannot plead ignorance or put the blame on the transport manager because they are required to have sufficient knowledge of the regulatory regime to ensure compliance in general and the proper performance of the transport manager’s duties in particular.”
“Self-employed Drivers”
The long-term reliance on self-employed / Limited company drivers is an issue particularly in the absence of evidence of sufficient supervision and control. I do not consider it a coincidence that this Operator has so many failings and the drivers are not subject to employment and the responsibilities that brings to both employers and employees. This Operator has likely also gained a competitive financial advantage on its competitors by avoiding the expense of HMRC contributions and employee benefits.
“Fixed Monetary Penalty (SEPA)”
Whilst this matter is yet to be fully determined the payment of a FMP for failing to attend an interview with any enforcement or regulatory body is a matter of concern. I do not consider it is for Mr. Joseph Singleton to determine whether his attendance at interview would be worthwhile or not – that is a matter for the authorities. Whilst I balance this against the fact that he did attend this Public Inquiry, and he tells me that he has engaged with the SEPA investigation (without evidence or substantiation), I do conclude that the failure to attend the SEPA interview is a negative feature.
“Unlawful use of vehicles”
I am content that there is no evidence to indicate, to the civil standard, that there has been unlawful use of vehicles.
“Financial Standing”
As no evidence of financial standing has been provided, and I am told that no finances are held by the Partnership, then I have little discretion but to consider financial standing is no longer satisfied. This is a continuous and mandatory requirement which must be satisfied at all times.
“Professional Competence”
Transport Manager Peter Singleton has failed to attend this Public Inquiry. Disregarding that I was told that he has failed to effectively undertake this role since December 2024 – as he was not in attendance to challenge that claim – I do have regard to the wider evidence before me. The prohibitions, DVSA maintenance report, and DVSA pre-Inquiry report all indicate that the requirement to ensure continuous and effective management of transport services has not been complied with.
This, and the failure to attend the Hearing, are each and collectively, sufficient grounds to consider that Transport Manager Peter Singleton is no longer of the required good repute to hold such a position. It follows that, in case where a transport manager loses good repute, disqualification is a mandatory consequence. As I have been unable to meet Mr. Peter Singleton and make an assessment, I consider that indefinite disqualification is necessary and proportionate. This does not preclude him from reapplying to have good repute restored once a minimum period of twelve months has passed, but he will have to make himself available to a Traffic Commissioner to have any such a request considered.
Accordingly, this Partnership licence is no longer considered professionally competent. As with finances, professional competence is a mandatory and continuous requirement and the absence of it results in a starting point of revocation providing such a direction is not disproportionate.
“Good Repute”
There are a wide range of issues set out above. In considering the licence holder’s good repute I have regard to them all, but I give most weight to (i) the long term unlawful use of this Partnership licence by Mr. Joseph Singleton as a sole trader, (ii) the failure to notify this office of material changes as per the conditions of the licence, (iii) the failure to comply with a number of licence undertakings as evidenced by the prohibitions, maintenance investigation report & DVSA report for Public Inquiry and (iv) the failure of Partner Joseph Singleton to attend the Hearing. I am content that this licence-holding entity – being the Partnership – no longer holds the required good repute.
I also have consideration of the role of each Partner in the failings. On the one hand Mr. Peter Singleton has been completely absent (not just on the day of the Inquiry) and this is, itself, a significant issue which goes towards his good repute. I am content to find, with a high degree of confidence, that his good repute is lost.
To a similar degree, I consider that Mr. Joseph Singleton’s good repute is also lost. He advised me that he has conducted the business as a sole trader since the licence was granted and that his father was only involved, initially, as a transport manager. This is not the terms on which the licence was granted. By his admission he had control and therefore the failings of the Operator reflect his own failings.
Those failings, as set out above, are significant and I have little by way of positive features to balance against. I do give credit to Mr. Joseph Singleton attending this Public Inquiry and being open and transparent. I also note that he attended the OLAT course and found it very useful, and has given many promises of improvement going forward. I found him to be a charming and amicable individual, but a review of the evidence when drafting this decision leads me to conclude that the positives in respect of Mr. Joseph Singleton are far outweighed by the negatives. I conclude therefore that the good repute of Mr. Joseph Singleton is lost.
Decision - Partnership Licence OC2037470
Having made the findings above I am satisfied that I should record adverse findings under the following sections:
-
Section 26(1)(b) – that the licence holder has contravened any condition attached to the licence, namely the failure to notify this office, within 28 days, of a change in entity, change in ownership, and change in financial standing;
-
Section 26(1)(c) – that during the past five years there has been a prohibition of the driving of a vehicle which the licence-holder was the owner when the prohibition was imposed;
-
Section 26(1)(e) – that the licence-holder made, for the purposes of its application for a licence, a statement of fact, whether to his knowledge or not was false, or a statement of expectation that has not been fulfilled – namely a declaration stating that it would comply with all undertakings and conditions of an Operator’s licence;
-
Section 26(1)(f) – that the licence holder has not fulfilled the undertakings recorded on its licence, namely that (i) motor vehicles and trailers, including hired vehicles and trailers, are kept fit and serviceable, (ii) drivers report promptly any defects or symptoms of defects that could prevent the safe operation of vehicles and/or trailers, and that any defects are promptly recorded in writing and (iii) records are kept (for 15 months) of all driver defect reports, all safety inspections, routine maintenance and repairs to vehicles and trailers and these are made available on request;
-
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 legal entity has changed;
-
Section 27(1)(a) – the licence holder no longer satisfies the requirement to be of the required financial standing;
-
Section 27(1)(a) - that the licence holder no longer satisfies the requirement to be professionally competent;
-
Section 27(1)(a) - that the licence holder no longer satisfies the requirement to be of good repute;
-
Section 27(1)(b) - that the transport manager designated by the licence holder no longer satisfies the requirement to be of good repute.
On review 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 to Serious”. There are persistent Operator licence failures with an inadequate response.
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 can so comply.
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 negative features of this case are well laid out above and whilst there are some positive features these are insufficient to counterbalance the negatives.
I therefore make a direction that the partnership licence be revoked. I direct that revocation takes effect from 23:45 on 02 January 2026. This allows a short period of time for transport operations to be brought to an orderly conclusion, extended to three calendar weeks on account of the Christmas and New Year period.
Any alternative decision would give the wrong message to the wider industry. The importance of this is set out in the decision of 2006/277 Michael James Fenlon t/a County Skips, where the Upper Tribunal commented:
“It has been said on many occasions that trust is one of the foundation stones of operator licensing. Traffic Commissioners must be able to trust operators to comply with all the relevant laws, rules and regulations because it would be a physical and financial impossibility to police every aspect of the licensing system all day and every day. In addition, operators must be able to trust other operators to observe the relevant laws, rules and regulations. If trust between operators breaks down and some operators believe that others are obtaining an unfair commercial advantage by ignoring laws, rules or regulations then standards will inevitably slip and the public will suffer.”
On account of the open and honest engagement from Mr. Joseph Singleton I do not make any direction to disqualify. I am mindful of the guidance from the Senior Traffic Commissioner and the Upper Tribunal that disqualification should not be routinely ordered. I find this is a case of lack of knowledge and absence of oversight rather than intention to deceive.
Decision – Transport Manager
The evidence and findings set out above is such that I am satisfied that Transport Manager Peter Singleton has failed, for a prolonged period, to comply with his statutory duty to ensure continuous and effective management of transport operations. He failed to attend this Inquiry and as such has denied me the opportunity make my inquiries. He has also denied himself the opportunity to answer my inquiries. The result of his inaction on the licence, and failure to engage with the regulatory body, is that I do not trust him to act in this capacity going forward.
I therefore find that Mr. Peter Singleton as transport manager has lost his good repute, and I disqualify him for an indefinite period of time. Unlike a time-specific period, it is open for him to apply to have his good repute restored once twelve months have passed, but this will require him to present himself to a Traffic Commissioner and provide explanations for the failing identified within this decision.
Decision – Application Licence OC2083041
Having found that Mr. Joseph Singleton has lost his good repute this application must fail as the applicant company, for which he is sole Director, has been unable to satisfy the requirement of Section 13(2)(b) of the 1995 Act – that the applicant is of the required good repute.
Section 13(5) is explicit “If the Traffic Commissioner determines that any of the requirements that the Commissioner has taken into consideration in accordance with subsection (1) or (2) are not satisfied, the Commissioner must refuse the application.”
Accordingly, this application is refused.
David Mullan
Traffic Commissioner for the North West of England
19 December 2025