Decision for Kingpin Recycling Ltd (OD2017644)
Written decision of the Deputy Traffic Commissioner in the West Midlands for Kingpin Recycling Ltd
IN THE WEST MIDLANDS TRAFFIC AREA
KINGPIN RECYCLING LTD – OD2017644
DECISION OF THE DEPUTY TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER
Decision
Pursuant to adverse findings under section 26(1)(b) and (h) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995, and further to the undertakings given below, licence OD2017644 is curtailed under section 26(1) of the Act with effect from 23:45 hours on 29 June 2026 limiting the number of vehicles authorised under the licence from 12 vehicles to six indefinitely.
If the operator’s directors, Michael O’Callaghan, Patrick McBride, Mark Cartwright and Deborah Cartwright together with its former director, Eugene Donelly, apply to be involved in operator licensing again in any guise, this must be referred to the traffic commissioner and not dealt with under any purported delegated authority.
Reference to pages in the public inquiry brief are in square brackets e.g. [101].
Background
This conjoined hearing is called under sections 26 and 28 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (GVLOA 1995) relating to alleged breaches of operator licence OD2017644 by Kingpin Recycling Ltd (the operator) along with concerns about driver conduct for Stuart Braid, Salim Feraga, Christopher Goodacre and Stuart Reaney.
The public inquiry at 10.00am on 24 June 2026 was attended by Patrick McBride, one of the operator’s four directors; Eugene Donelly, its former managing director; Liam Duffy, the operator’s financial controller; Andrew Somerville, the operator’s site manager; Faith Hill, the fleet co-ordinator; along with Mr Braid and Mr Feraga. Prior to the hearing Mr Goodacre stated in correspondence with the Office of the Traffic Commissioner (OTC) that he could not attend because he had business appointments. He acknowledged that the proceedings would go ahead in his absence [456g]. Mr Reaney did not attend and had not communicated with the OTC. The operator was represented by Carolyn Evans solicitor from CE Transport Law Solicitors. Driver Stuart Braid was represented by Paul Mason solicitor from Lewis Nedas Law.
The history of this matter is in the inquiry brief with background in the case summary [3-5] and call-in letter of 7 May 2026 [7-21]. I need not repeat this. In outline, the operator was granted a restricted goods vehicle licence on 5 August 2021. It is currently authorised for 12 vehicles and 14 trailers with 12 vehicles in possession working from its operating centre at Unit C8, WEM Industrial Estate, Shrewsbury SY4 5SD. Its main area of business is the re-use and recycling of used tyres.
On 29 July 2025 a DVSA roadside encounter of vehicle FJ15FZZ driven by Stuart Reaney found driver card and management infringements. The subsequent traffic examiner investigation report of 3 March 2026 [56-234] concluded that:
“The analysis identified 28 separate occasions where vehicles were driven without a driver card inserted, totalling 3,323 km, involving multiple drivers. The operator failed to produce complete tachograph records or driver card data.
Interviews with drivers revealed varying levels of understanding of the rules and, in some cases, admissions that driver cards were intentionally removed to avoid recording excessive duty time. Explanations given were inconsistent with the tachograph and ANPR evidence.
The Transport Examiner Vehicle Report resulted in a score of 31 — requiring referral to the Office of the Traffic Commissioner. Although the operator has now begun implementing compliance measures, including appointing a responsible manager and seeking external consultancy support, these actions were taken only after intervention and do not mitigate the seriousness of the historic failings identified.
The operator has fallen significantly short of the standards required of a restricted licence holder, particularly in relation to their responsibilities to ensure proper record-keeping, driver management, and oversight of vehicle use. The extent of missing mileage, lack of tachograph management, and the failure to identify or address widespread non-compliance indicate a serious breakdown in systems and control.
I see no reason why in the future, with the correct support, management and control, Kingpin Recycling Limited cannot be a fully compliant operator in the future.
However, as it currently stands, it is considered that Kingpin Recycling Limited were not complying with the Statement of Intent, in regard to the undertakings submitted at the time of application for the Operator’s Licence, OD2017644. [79]
The DVSA pre-inquiry report of 12 June 2026 concluded that there was evidence of improvement with licence checks and toolbox talks although there remained gaps including e.g. the lack of operator licensing training across the management team.
The call-in letter referred to potential breaches of section 26(1)(b), (c)(iii), (ca) (e), (f) and (h) of the GVLOA 1995. Due to the alleged breaches, concern was also raised that the operator may not have sufficient financial resources to hold an operator’s licence for the number of vehicles authorised. The call-in letter to the drivers explained that the hearing would consider whether they should retain their LGV driving entitlement [389, 408, 466 & 502].
Evidence and findings
Relevant evidence included the DVSA reports along with evidence received from the operator in relation to operations, management and finances in accordance with the case management directions and a statement for driver Braid. I noted at the outset of the hearing that I was satisfied as to the question of financial standing. I heard oral evidence from Mr Braid, Mr Feraga, Mr McBride, Mr Donelly, Mr Somerville. As this is an existing licence, the burden is on me to be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence as against the civil standard of proof, (i.e. on the balance of probabilities or, more likely than not) before making an adverse finding. Applying those standards to the evidence before me I make the findings below.
The non-compliance and drivers’ hours infringements arose between May and August 2025. They were multiple and serious and it appears that the drivers during this period were largely unregulated and unmanaged by the operator. The nature of the work for the operator’s drivers is intense and physical involving the loading of heavy used tyres onto the vehicles manually. This may be up to 100 tyres that need to be hauled into curtain sided vehicles. From the discussion during the hearing it appeared that that the actual time spent driving was generally less than half of the time spent at work. Much of the time involved loading the vehicles. Left unmanaged between May and August 2025 the drivers appeared to work outside the drivers’ rules whether intentionally or, unknowingly, as I found to be the case with Mr Feraga. I find that there were significant compliance failings as a result of the lack of control and oversight by the operator.
Paragraph 79 of the operator’s representations accept that the compliance failings identified by the traffic examiner were serious and justify regulatory intervention [334]. However, the operator adds that the investigation period between April and August 2025 coincided with a period of internal difficulties that culminated in the dismissal of Eugene Donelly. There is disagreement between the operator and Mr Donelly as to who may be responsible for the compliance failings, although the operator accepts the collective responsibility of all of the directors under the licence.
The above said, I find that once the operator and its directors were alive to the shortcomings relating to the licence, they took action to address this. They appointed Mr Somerville as a site manager and Ms Hill as the fleet co-ordinator. They reorganised the operational planning to help ensure that drivers were not put in a position that they would have to work outside of the rules. Mr Somerville explained that on his appointment in September 2025 he sought work cooperatively with the DVSA to fully understand the driver activities. They also embarked on driving training and invested in increased technology to improve oversight and control. I recognise that the investment and improvement in operational management and structures have continued, with directors attending OLAT training and the imminent appointment of a dedicated transport manager on 7 July 2026.
Having regard to the above, I find that there have been the following breaches of the GVLOA 1995:
- section 26(1)(b) and a breach of licence conditions and 26(1)(f) relating to undertakings including that the rules on drivers’ hours and tachographs are observed; and,
- section 26(1)(h) and that there has been a material change in the circumstances of the operator and that a roadside encounter on 29 July 2025 noting alleged offences were highlighted against the driver of the vehicle and the findings of the subsequent DVSA investigation.
Decisions
Having made the above findings, I remind myself of paragraph 4 of the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document 10: The principles of decision making & the concept of proportionality (SD10) and that the legislation exists to promote road safety and fair competition and that commissioners will: “ … have regard to the principle of proportionality in deciding what intervention is commensurate with the circumstances of each individual case”. Paragraph 50 of SD10 also notes that a traffic commissioner should consider all the relevant negatives and positives when balancing the relevant factors that inform a decision.
On the positive side the operator acted promptly when the level and extent of the non-compliance became evident and it has continued to take material and positive steps towards continuing compliance since then. However, because some of the plans and procedures are recent it is not possible draw upon extensive evidence of full compliance. The negative factors are that there have been material breaches of legislation and, at the point of intervention by the DVSA last year, there were serious failings in terms of its driver management and oversight. I also note that the operator has previously been called to a public inquiry although this was to consider the grant of the application in 2019 [3].
It appears to me that one of the difficulties is that the operator and its directors have not, until recently, fully understood the nature and extent of their responsibilities under the operator licensing regime. Yet, operators are deemed to have such knowledge. They make a declaration to that effect when applying for an operator’s licence and on any subsequent application to continue or vary the licence. They are also expected to have sufficient knowledge and understanding of the advice and guidance that is publicly available. The Upper Tribunal in LA & Z Leonida t/a ETS [2014] UKUT 0423 (AAC) noted that:
… 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.
Taking into account the positive and negative factors noted above and by reference to the suggested starting points of regulatory action found in SD10, Annex 4, I find that this case may be regarded as serious to moderate. The operator offered an undertaking that it would carry out an independent audit in six months’ time and also that it would continue to instruct specialist transport consultants. I also have regard to the effect of any regulatory action proposed on the business. I ask myself the question posed by the Upper Tribunal in 2009/225 Priority Freight & Paul Williams: do I trust this operator to be compliant in the future? Having regard to my findings, I answer that question: yes, it’s more likely than not.
In the light of the above, I accept the undertakings that were offered to me as set out in the operator’s representations of 12 June 2026 [336-337] and also in full below. I also agree with the submissions made by the operator that a curtailment of the licence from 12 vehicles to six would be a proportionate response. I therefore curtail the licence indefinitely from 12 vehicles to six vehicles from 23:45 hours today (29 June 2026). It is an indefinite curtailment term with a view to help the operator focus on securing continuing compliance for those six vehicles. It will enable its proposed transport manager to start in post with a reasonable and manageable fleet.
The operator is, of course, entitled to increase its fleet at any stage and any application may be made with the benefit of a favourable independent audit that records either satisfactory or mostly satisfactory findings. It would also be based upon considered and careful thought and input from its transport manager and specialist consultant. Thus, the indefinite curtailment to six vehicles should be seen as an incentive to move to full compliance at the earliest opportunity because the subsequent increase in fleet will be dependent upon demonstrating full compliance.
I make no decision in relation to the unfitness or otherwise of any of the directors, including the former director, Mr Donelly. However, the appointed directors had shared responsibility for the compliance failings and so I formally note that if the operator’s directors; Michael O’Callaghan, Patrick McBride, Mark Cartwright and Deborah Cartwright together with its former director Eugene Donelly, apply to be involved in operator licensing again in any guise this must be referred to the traffic commissioner and not dealt with under any purported delegated authority.
I provide separate decisions in relation to the driver conduct matters.
Undertakings
The operator undertakes to identify an independent body to carry out an audit of transport safety and compliance systems. The audit will assess the systems for complying with maintenance and/or drivers hours requirements, and the effectiveness with which those systems are implemented. The audit should cover at least the applicable elements detailed in the guidance on Operator Compliance Audits available at: www.gov.uk/government/publications/operator-compliance-audits. A copy of the report together with the operator’s detailed proposals for implementing the report’s recommendations is to be uploaded to the licence record via the Vehicle Operator Licensing self-service account, or, if the operator does not have a self-service account, emailed to notifications@vehicle-operator-licensing.service.gov.uk by 31 January 2027.
The company will continue to contract with a transport consultant for the provision of advice on assistance with compliance for at least one day per month until 24th June 2027. The Operator shall engage its nominated Transport Consultant to attend at least monthly to oversee compliance and provide relevant advice. If the nominated consultant resigns or his services are dispensed with then both the operator and consultant will notify the Office of the Traffic Commissioner in Birmingham within seven days.
29 June 2026
Dr Paul Stookes
Deputy Traffic Commissioner