Decision for K&A Drive Solutions Ltd OH2073774 and David Holden (Transport Manager)
Written Decision of the Deputy Traffic Commissioner.
IN THE WEST OF ENGLAND TRAFFIC AREA
K&A DRIVE SOLUTIONS LTD (OH2073774)
TRANSPORT MANAGER DAVID HOLDEN
WRITTEN DECISION OF THE DEPUTY TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER
In the matter of the Goods Vehicle (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995
Public Inquiry held at Bristol on 31 July 2026
Decision
K&A DRIVE SOLUTIONS LTD OH2073774
On findings in accordance with Sections 26(1)(b), 26(1)(ciii), 26(1)(e), 26(1)(f) and 27(1)(a) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995, direct that the standard national goods vehicle operator’s licence of K&A Drive Solutions Ltd OH2073774 is revoked with immediate effect.
The operator K&A Drive Solutions Ltd is disqualified from holding or obtaining any type of operator’s licence in any traffic area, with immediate effect and until further order, pursuant to Section 28(1) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995.
The director Tsvetan Kostadinov Atanasov is disqualified from holding or obtaining any type of operator’s licence in any traffic area, and from being director of any company holding or obtaining such a licence with immediate effect and until further order, pursuant to Section 28(1) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995.
TRANSPORT MANAGER DAVID HOLDEN
The good repute of Transport Manager David Holden is lost, pursuant to Schedule 3 of the Act. In accordance with paragraph 16 of that Schedule, David Holden is disqualified from acting as a transport manager on any operator’s licence with immediate effect and until further order.
Introduction
K&A Drive Solutions Ltd (“The Operator”) has held a standard national goods vehicle operator’s licence OH2073774 since 12 November 2024 authorising the use of one vehicle and one trailer, with that number currently in possession.
The Operator’s sole director is Tsvetan Kostadinov Atanasov.
The transport manager (“TM”) named on the licence since its start was David Holden.
The application for the licence was considered at a public inquiry in November 2024 because of concern about possible links to another licence holding entity. The traffic commissioner was satisfied by the evidence heard and the licence was granted with immediate effect. The operator, director Atanasov and TM Holden had not otherwise come to the attention of a traffic commissioner.
The basis of referral to the public inquiry is set out in the case summary and evidence included in the brief. In summary, the operator’s vehicle was issued with an “S” marked prohibition in March 2026. That prompted the DVSA to investigate the operator’s wider approach to maintenance by means of a desk-based assessment (“DBA”). The DBA report contained several unsatisfactory findings.
The operator applied to surrender the licence on 18 March 2026. This was a week after the prohibition but prior to the completion of the DBA report.
Mr Holden also wrote to the Office of the Traffic Commissioner (“OTC”) on 8 May 2026 asking for his name to be removed from the licence. He said he had resigned as transport manager on 18 March 2026, but the operator had not removed him from the licence as requested. For reasons that are unclear, Mr Holden was not removed from the licence record until I directed that should be done on 16 July 2026.
The traffic commissioner was made aware of the DBA report’s findings and decided that a public inquiry should be called to consider if regulatory action was required. The application to surrender was not accepted.
The Call to Public Inquiry
The Operator was called up to public inquiry by letter dated 19 June 2026.
The call up letter gave notice that the grounds for regulatory action in Sections 26(1)(b), 26(1)(ciii), 26(1)(e) and 26(1)(f) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (“the Act”) were to be considered as well as the mandatory provisions of Section 27(1)(a) and the provisions for disqualification in Section 28 of the Act.
Mr Holden was called up in his capacity as transport manager by letter also dated 19 June 2026 that gave notice of consideration of the requirement of good repute and professional competence in Schedule 3 of the Act.
The Public Inquiry
The Public Inquiry was heard at Bristol today. Mr Atanasov did not attend, and the operator was not represented.
The operator had not complied with any of the case management directions. A caseworker from the Office of the Traffic Commissioner contacted Mr Atanasov by phone at my request on 17 July 2026. He stated that he was not operating at present and was working as a taxi driver. He indicated that he was aware of the public inquiry and would attend or send an email explaining the position. Nothing further has been heard from Mr Atanasov.
As anticipated by his previous correspondence, Mr Holden did not attend.
After I directed that Mr Holden should be removed from the licence record, I also asked that a letter be sent to him reminding him that he was still expected to attend the public inquiry so that his good repute and professional competence could be considered.
Mr Holden responded by email dated 17 July 2026 stating that he would not attend the public inquiry as he had “no current requirement to rely upon my Transport Manager Certificate of Professional Competence”. He added that he fully appreciated, “that the Traffic Commissioner may view my decision negatively and that any findings arising from the Public Inquiry may have an impact on my future ability to act as a Transport Manager. I accept those potential consequences.”
I am satisfied that the call up letter (and subsequent correspondence) was properly sent to both the operator and former TM at the addresses they had nominated on their respective licence record. I apply the presumption of good service. I have taken account of the guidance of the Upper Tribunal in Phillip Drake [2023] UKUT 98 (AAC) and Ocean King Ltd [2024] UKUT 333 (AAC) on the use of correspondence addresses provided by operators on the licence record.
I considered the guidance offered by the Senior Traffic Commissioner in Statutory Document Number 9 and specifically the contents of Paragraph 33 of the same, “In line with most tribunals there is a rebuttable presumption that a hearing will proceed as listed even in the absence of parties provided that: the traffic commissioner is satisfied that the party has been given the required notice, has been served with sufficient evidence, and that there are no other factors where the interests of justice require an adjournment.”
I am satisfied that both Mr Atanasov and Mr Holden are aware of the public inquiry proceedings and have consciously decided not to attend. I determine it is appropriate to proceed in their absence.
Determination
K&A Drive Solutions Ltd OH2073774 and Director Atanasov
I record a finding that the Operator lacks professional competence as from 16 July 2026 when the last TM, Mr Holden, was removed from the licence record.
The operator has not nominated a new Transport Manager nor sought a period of grace (or provided evidence that would allow such a period of grace to be considered). The grounds for revocation in Section 27(1)(a) of the Act are established.
The operator has failed to provide financial evidence as directed. I further record a finding that the requirement of financial standing is no longer met. Similarly, the operator has not provided any information that would allow me to consider a period of grace. The grounds for revocation in Section 27(1)(a) of the Act are established in this regard as well.
I find the evidence of the DBA (coupled with the operator’s acceptance of that evidence in his response to the DVSA) supports adverse findings of fact under Sections 26(1)(b), 26(1)(ciii), 26(1)(e), and 26(1)(f) of the Act in relation to prohibitions, failure to honour the statements as to maintenance intervals and that conditions on the licence would be met, and failure to fulfil the undertakings that vehicles would be kept fit and serviceable and appropriate records kept.
Having reached the findings of fact recorded above, I have undertaken a balancing exercise by reference to the guidance in the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document Number 10 and have considered the positive and negative features. In the absence of meaningful cooperation from the operator, there are limited positive findings that I can identify. I do not give any credit to the operator for attempting to surrender the licence. That appears to have been a naked attempt to avoid the inevitable regulatory action following the prohibitions and commencement of the DVSA investigation.
I find the following negative features are present:
-
There was ineffective management control and there were insufficient systems in place to prevent operator licence compliance failings.
-
As the operator has apparently chosen to cease operating, there is no evidence that changes have been made to ensure future compliance.
-
The operator has a very high prohibition rate with recent prohibitions involving road safety critical and significant defects.
-
The operator has failed to attend the public inquiry or fully cooperate with the case management directions issued beforehand.
Having balanced these factors and considered the guidance in Statutory Document 10, I am of the view that the case falls in the “serious” to “severe” category when considering the starting point for regulatory action.
I have gone on to consider the test set out by the Upper Tribunal in Priority Freight 2009/225 of whether I can trust the operator to be compliant in future. The findings of the DVSA investigation call the ability of the operator to be compliant into grave doubt. The operator has not provided me with sufficient evidence to answer those doubts.
I answer the Priority Freight question in the negative and have gone on to ask the question of whether the operator deserves to be put out of business, as directed by the decision in Bryan Haulage (No.2) 217/2002. I have not been provided with any evidence by the operator to assist me in understanding the effect of a revocation order (and I note there is some suggestion the director is no longer operating the goods vehicle). The negative features described above are to an extent where I consider it is proportionate and necessary to direct the revocation of the licence even if that means the end of the business.
Turning to the question of disqualification, as the operator has only a single director in Mr Atanasov, I consider it is appropriate to approach the issue as one for both the company and its individual director.
I have applied a balancing exercise, and the features identified above in relation to regulatory action are equally pertinent to the question of disqualification. The negative features outweigh the positives, and I consider a period of disqualification is justified.
I have taken account of paragraph 108 of the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document Number 10 that provides some guidance on the length of any disqualification, states that for an operator’s first Public Inquiry, consideration of a disqualification period of between 1 and 3 years may be appropriate rising to 5 to 10 years for more serious cases that may include previous public inquiry history.
As stated above, I face the difficulty that Mr Atanasov’s failure to attend the public inquiry or otherwise engage meaningfully with the process means that I have not heard any further explanation from him of the failings identified in the DVSA evidence nor have I had the opportunity to hear from him about his future intentions and any proposed rehabilitative measures.
For those reasons, I do not consider I have sufficient information to direct a disqualification for a finite period as I am unable to fully assess what that period should be. I therefore direct a disqualification until further order. I make it clear it is not my intention that the operator or Mr Atanasov should remain disqualified indefinitely, but they must engage with the traffic commissioner if they wish for the disqualification order to be set aside or fixed for a definite period.
Former Transport Manager David Holden
Mr Holden as transport manager must accept responsibility for the adverse findings made against the operator above. A fully effective competent transport manager would have identified the serious failings in the operator’s approach to maintenance and record keeping.
I have balanced the same positive and negative features set out for the operator above, in considering Mr Holden’s position.
In the absence of representations from Mr Holden, on the evidence that I have seen to date, I conclude the negative features outweigh the positive features. Whilst he has not completely ignored the public inquiry process, it is a significant negative feature that he has failed to attend or offer any other explanation for his conduct as TM for this licence. His resignation as TM appears to have been prompted by the operator’s decision to surrender the licence and the DVSA intervention rather than any concerns on his part about whether he should continue to act as TM. I consider the shortcomings revealed in his approach as transport manager are such that it would be proportionate to find that his good repute is lost.
I have moved on to consider the length of the disqualification that must follow. I have considered the guidance offered by Statutory Document 10. I face the difficulty that Mr Holden’s failure to fully engage with the public inquiry process means that I have not heard any further explanation from him about the matters above. I only have a vague indication from him that he does not currently intend to use his “CPC” and have not had the opportunity to hear from him further about his current and future intentions in terms of rejoining the industry and any proposed rehabilitative measures.
For those reasons, I do not consider I have sufficient information to direct a disqualification for a finite period as I am unable to fully assess what that period should be. I therefore direct a disqualification until further order. I make it clear it is not my intention that Mr Holden should remain disqualified indefinitely or for an extended period. However, if he wishes to have the disqualification removed or reduced to a finite period, Mr Holden will need to provide further information and answer traffic commissioner questions (potentially involving a further hearing).
Gerallt Evans
Deputy Traffic Commissioner
31 July 2026