Decision for Julie Lamb, the former director of Just Haulage Limited (OD2076359)
Written decision of the Deputy Traffic Commissioner in the West Midlands for Julie Lamb, the former director of Just Haulage Limited
IN THE WEST MIDLANDS TRAFFIC AREA
JULIE LAMB, THE FORMER DIRECTOR OF JUST HAULAGE LIMITED - OD2076359
DECISION OF DEPUTY TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER G. PENGELLY
DECISION
The former director, Ms. Lamb, is DISQUALIFIED from:
- Holding or obtaining any type of operator’s licence;
- Being a director of, or holding a controlling interest in, any company that holds or applies to obtain any type of operator’s license;
- Being a director of, or holding a controlling interest in, any company that is a subsidiary of any company that holds or applies to obtain any type of operator’s licence;
- Being a partner in any partnership that holds or applies to obtain any type of operator’s licence;
In any traffic area in Great Britain.
These orders of disqualification are made under section 28 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 and start at 23:45 hours on 17 March 2026 and end on 17 March 2027 – it is a TWELVE-MONTH order.
Background
This is my decision in respect of Julie Lamb, the former director of Just Haulage Limited (“the operator”); I understand the operator has now changed its name.
On 22.01.26, I issued my decision in respect of the operator and its former Transport Manager (“TM”), Craig Hipkins, following a public inquiry (“PI”) that took place in Birmingham on 13.01.26.
That PI was heard alongside a driver conduct hearing (“DCH”) in respect of Paul Jones; I adjourned the latter (see, further, paragraph 25, below).
My 22.01.26 decision was to revoke the operator’s standard license and to find that both the operator and Mr. Hipkins had lost their good repute; I disqualified Mr. Hipkins for a period of twelve months as a TM.
This decision should be read alongside my decision dated 22.01.26.
The Call to Public Inquiry
The call-up letter to the operator was dated 24.11.25; it required the attendance of the operator’s director – at that time, that was Ms. Lamb on her own.
There was an application on 17.12.25 to remove Ms. Lamb and add Mr. Daley as director; there was then a subsequent application, dated 08.01.26, to add Mr. Penfold as director.
As I explained in my 22.01.26 decision, there was a change of ownership of the operator in the immediate buildup to the PI.
After receiving the proposed attendance list before the PI, the administrative staff of this Traffic Area sent an email to the operator, in terms, asking if Ms. Lamb would be in attendance. There was a reply in the negative. The administrative staff sent a further email, dated 03.01.26, stating that “…the previous director… may be still required to attend”.
Ms. Lamb did not attend the PI.
In my 22.01.26 decision, whilst I was satisfied that Ms. Lamb was aware of the date and time of the PI - and the seriousness of the matters to be considered at it from the perspective of the operator - I was not satisfied that she had had sufficient opportunity to be heard on a matter that might affect her significantly as an individual, i.e. whether she should be disqualified from the industry for a period of time (see paragraph eleven, above). Serious consequences can flow from someone who is disqualified applying for another license.
In my decision of 22.01.26, I initially gave Ms. Lamb until 12.02.26 to either make written representations or request an oral hearing to consider the issue of her disqualification from the industry. That deadline was contained in the decision notice itself; the latter was referred to in a letter addressed to the operator’s directors dated 23.01.26.
At my request, the administrative staff of this Traffic Area sent a further letter, dated 09.02.26, setting out that no reply had been received and laying out Ms. Lamb’s options if she wished to engage further with the process. I extended my previous deadline to 23.02.26. That letter was sent to all the addresses that the administrative staff had for both the operator and Ms. Lamb.
On 20.02.26, Mr. Daley – Ms. Lamb’s partner – wrote an email to this Traffic Area’s administrative staff in these terms, “…I can confirm that Julie has received the letter, and will not be making any representations, as she has no intention of working in the transport sector again”.
Based on the above steps, I am satisfied that there has been good service on Ms. Lamb of my decision; she has now had sufficient opportunity to engage with me, if she so desired, on the question of whether she should be disqualified.
The Public Inquiry
As indicated above (paragraph four), the PI took place at the Office of the Traffic Commissioner in Birmingham on 13.01.26.
Mr. Daley and Mr. Penfold were in attendance in person; the former TM was present remotely.
For the reasons set out above (paragraph 13), I was satisfied that Mr. Lamb had notice of the PI and waived her right to attend the PI in her capacity as former director of the operator.
The Evidence
At the PI, neither Mr. Hipkins, Mr. Penfold, nor Mr. Daley took material issue with the contents of either of VE Matthews’ written reports.
Ms. Lamb, on account of her non-attendance at the PI, has not challenged the reports; nor has she sought to challenge the reports since.
The reports from VE Matthews were dated, respectively, July 2025 (“the MIVR”) and January 2026 (“the addendum”).
In each of those reports, VE Matthews explains the significant shortcomings he identified in respect of this operator’s maintenance regime following his visit in July 2025 and, in the addendum, following his review of the materials sent to him in advance of the PI.
Mr Matthews’ visit, in July 2025, was triggered because of an ‘S-marked’ DVSA prohibition imposed in the Durham area on 30.04.25 concerning the condition of trailer ‘2885 and the tractor with registration ending ‘UCE. There remains a ‘live’ issue in respect of the facts of that that will be resolved at the resumed DCH on 06.03.26.
I have reminded myself of the oral evidence of those who attended the PI – Mr. Hipkins, Mr. Daley, and Mr. Penfold.
I have reminded myself of the written evidence in the bundle at the PI.
Among those papers was an undated reply of Ms. Lamb to the MIVR that commences at page 98.
Findings of fact
The burden of proof is on the DVSA in respect of any of the allegations it makes – Ms. Lamb does not have to prove anything. The standard of proof is the civil standard: where I am satisfied that something is more likely than not to have happened, then my duty is to find that matter ‘proved’; where I am not satisfied that something is more likely than not to have happened in an allegation, my duty is to find the matter ‘not proved’.
In this decision, I adopt all the findings of fact rehearsed in my decision dated 22.01.26 at paragraph 41. Those findings of fact are directly relevant to this issue too.
Moving through each of the findings I made at paragraph 41 of my 22.01.26 decision, I now explain – in respect of each sub-paragraph - the weight I have placed upon each matter for the purpose of this decision on the question of disqualification:
- I place little weight on this factor. It is simply an example of a sustained lack of appropriate supervision of the operator’s drivers by the TM and, thus, a lack of grip by the latter on the operation. It provides some insight into the degree of distance that must have existed between the directors/management of the operator and the TM for this situation to be allowed to persist for so long;
- I place some weight on this factor because it demonstrates the absence of a reliable, consistent system in respect of a critical issue in the life of any goods vehicle operator, namely, the roadworthiness of its vehicles. For there to be no consistent system in place in July 2025 indicates a lack of supervision or oversight of the TM by the operator’s directors. It is the latter who applied for the goods license in the first place and must have been aware of the significant responsibilities that come with it;
- I place significant weight on this factor. The fact that there was no PMI for this trailer for such a sustained period indicates a serious lack of supervision of the TM by the operator’s directors;
- I place little weight on this factor. Without resolving the factual dispute that persists between the DVSA and Mr. Jones (paragraph 25, above), it is simply an example of the poor quality of ‘walkaround checks’ that must have been being conducted by the operator’s drivers. The TM’s task was to ensure that drivers were part of an effective maintenance and safety regime for this operator. The fact that the TM was ineffective in this respect, as in many other respects, reflects a lack of supervision of the TM by the operator’s directors;
- I place some weight on this factor. The lack of an effective driver defect reporting system means that drivers were not properly integrated within the operator’s maintenance and safety regime as another set of ‘eyes and ears’ to raise and resolve issues. As of July 2025, too much reliance was therefore placed on the external maintenance provider’s assessments at PMI; the inadequacy of the PMI records in July 2025 is more concerning when viewed in that context (paragraph 31(b), above). It was the TM’s task to ensure that drivers were properly integrated in the operator’s safety and maintenance regime. The fact that no effective system was in place to achieve that, again, indicates a lack of effectiveness on the part of the TM – given the obligations imposed by the license on the operator’s directors, the operator’s directors should have noticed that the TM was ineffective. The factor identified in the next sub-paragraph should certainly have been something the directors became aware of;
- I place significant weight on this factor. Whatever the degree of trust and confidence an operator’s director reposes in their TM, such a high MOT failure rate should certainly have come to the directors’ attention and given rise to serious questions being asked of the TM, calling the latter’s competence into question. The directors’ lack of awareness of this issue, or their failure to comprehend its seriousness, indicates a great deal of distance between the directors and the operation;
- I place little weight on this factor because Ms. Lamb had seemingly ceased to have any involvement in the operator towards the end of 2025;
- The same reasoning as the preceding sub-paragraph;
- This matter is not relevant to my decision today;
- I place some weight on this factor. There is no suggestion of Ms. Lamb being anything other than co-operative with the DVSA;
- I place little weight on this factor. Whilst there was evidence of some improvement between July 2025 and the end of 2025, there ultimately was not a picture before me at the PI of a consistent and effective maintenance regime after Ms. Lamb’s involvement in the operator came to an end;
- This matter is not relevant to my decision today.
I recognise, and give credit for, Ms. Lamb’s engagement with the DVSA in her detailed response to them following their visit in July 2025. I have not in any way held it against Ms. Lamb that she did not attend the PI in January 2026 or that she has not engaged with me following notification of the outcome of it.
Discussion
I am concerned with the period between early 2025 and late 2025 when Ms. Lamb was the sole director of this operator; I do not hold Ms. Lamb accountable for periods of time where she had seemingly ceased to be involved.
Ms. Lamb was clearly distant from the operation during that period; she was not appropriately holding the operator’s TM to account.
Mr. Hipkins was ineffective.
Mr. Hipkins made no attempt to hide his ineffectiveness – it was there for all to see in the PMI sheets and the MOT outcomes.
When an operator applies for a goods vehicle license, they agree to abide by the undertakings and conditions of such a license – those undertakings and conditions are written on the license.
Being a director of any undertaking that holds a goods vehicle license is a solemn and serious undertaking.
Heavy goods vehicles, if operated in an unsafe or dangerous condition, can cause loss of life on our roads or serious injury to people.
Ms. Lamb was reckless in the way that she went about directing an operation that has such serious responsibilities to others.
For the period that Ms. Lamb was director, the operator put road safety at risk; the pertinent findings in that respect were at paragraphs 41(a), (c)-(f) of my decision dated 22.01.26.
My analysis of those findings, at paragraphs 30(a)-(f), above, in this decision, indicate Ms. Lamb’s lack of effective control over this operation – on any view, she was far too distant from the operation to be effective.
As the Transport Tribunal held in the appeal case of 1999/L56 Alison Jones (trading as Jones Motors, Shamrock Coaches and Thomas Motor Services), the role of an operator’s director is to “constantly monitor and supervise” the people to whom compliance responsibility is delegated under the Goods Vehicle (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995.
I also have regard to the Transport Tribunal’s decision in the appeal case of 2006/27 Fenlon (“Fenlon”), where it was said,
- “…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” (emphasis added)
I have also considered the other appeal cases about disqualification including 2018/072 St Mickalos Company Ltd & M Timinis and 2010/29 David Finch Haulage.
Ms. Lamb did not constantly monitor and supervise the operation; by her failure to do so, she put road safety at risk in the ways I have identified above.
I understand that having revoked the operator’s license, I could simply leave matters there and take no action in respect of Ms. Lamb.
My concern is that whatever Ms. Lamb’s stated intentions (via her partner) (paragraph 16, above), that such a course would not sufficiently protect the public and indicate to other operators’ directors and TMs the scale of the departure, by this operator, from the path of being a safe, compliant operator.
I do consider that I need to disqualify Ms. Lamb. Over the period I have referred to in 2025, Ms. Lamb was either:
- Insufficiently involved in the day-to-day work of the operator to properly hold its employees and TM to account; or
- Sufficiently involved but content to let the operation be run in the unsafe and non-compliant way.
I find it hard to accept sub-paragraph (b) because there is little evidence of it in the bundle and it is inherently less likely than (a); some of the issues with the operator would have been obvious to anyone, e.g. paragraph 31(f), above. I find that (a) is more likely to be the case on the evidence I have read and heard.
On the finding in the previous paragraph, the degree of distance that Ms. Lamb placed between herself and the operation she directed is inconsistent with the seriousness/gravity of a license-holder’s responsibilities. She did not play the part she was required to play in the regulatory scheme that exists in Great Britain to regulate the haulage industry: Fenlon (paragraph 44, above).
Were this operator’s failures to meet the minimum safety and maintenance requirements of the industry for such a sustained period in 2025 to become widely known and tolerated by Traffic Commissioners or their deputies, it would cause other safe and complaint operators to question their own good practices and, in turn, damage the prospects of those minimum standards being upheld by other operators across the industry: Fenlon (paragraph 44, above).
For the reasons given above, I do not trust Ms. Lamb to hold the responsibilities that come with having an operator’s license (paragraphs 38-39, 43-44, above).
My decision to remove her from the industry is proportionate to the facts as I have found them to be (paragraphs 30, 31, and 48-49, above).
I consider that the least period of disqualification that is appropriate is a period of twelve months.
I consider that that is long enough to ensure that she has an opportunity to reflect on her management of this operator but is not so long that it operates as a punishment or otherwise makes it impossible for her to re-enter the industry when she is ready to assume the solemn and serious responsibilities that come with being part of an undertaking that holds a goods vehicle license.
Decision
The former director, Ms. Lamb, is DISQUALIFIED from:
- Holding or obtaining any type of operator’s licence;
- Being a director of, or holding a controlling interest in, any company that holds or applies to obtain any type of operator’s license;
- Being a director of, or holding a controlling interest in, any company that is a subsidiary of any company that holds or applies to obtain any type of operator’s licence;
- Being a partner in any partnership that holds or applies to obtain any type of operator’s licence;
In any traffic area in Great Britain.
These orders of disqualification are made under section 28 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 and start at 23:45 hours on 17 March 2026 and end on 17 March 2027 – it is a TWELVE-MONTH order.
G. Pengelly
Deputy Traffic Commissioner
04.03.26