Decision for KS Timber (OF1128916) and JBJ Pallets Essex Ltd (OF2081753)
Written confirmation of the decision of the Traffic Commissioner in the East of England for KS Timber, JBJ Pallets Essex Ltd and Rae Reid, Transport Manager
IN THE EASTERN TRAFFIC AREA
KS TIMBER LTD - OF1128916
AND
RAE REID – TRANSPORT MANAGER
AND
JBJ PALLETS ESSEX LTD - OF2081753
CONFIRMATION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER’S DECISION
Decision
The licences will be revoked from 23:45 on 17 November 2026 to allow for the new application to be made consolidating all transport operations.
The repute of the transport manager is tarnished.
Background
KS Timber Ltd holds a Standard National Vehicle Operator’s Licence authorising 9 vehicles and 1 trailer. KS Timber Limited sources and sells timber and fencing products to account customers, including large commercial contractors and builders. The Directors are Kevin David Sorenson and Carol Wager. Representations confirm that they are persons of significant control in equal share. Rae Reid has been named as the Transport Manager since 18 November 2020. All drivers are employed PAYE.
There are two Operating Centres: The Timber Yard, Wharf Road, Stanford Le Hope SS17 0EQ and Havenhurst, Rookery Hill, The Manorway, Stanford-Le-Hope SS17 9LB. Preventative Maintenance Inspections are said to be carried out in-house (by Neil Dennision) at 6-weekly intervals. The operator employs a full-time mechanic and maintains its own vehicles at the Havenhurst site, in a dedicated workshop. The workshop was said to be well equipped with modern tooling and lifts. It is not equipped with a roller brake tester. Representations describe the sites as timber yards located on industrial estates. There are offices at both locations, with retail premises at Wharf Road.
JBJ Pallets Essex Ltd seeks a Standard National Vehicle Operator’s Licence authorising 7 vehicles only (but see below). It was incorporated on 23 November 2022. The Directors are Kevin David Sorenson and Carol Wager. Rae Reid has been nominated to act as the Transport Manager.
The applicant has proposed using the same address at The Timber Yard Wharf Road Stanford Le Hope Stanford Le Hope SS17 0EQ and The Pallets Yard, Units 4,5,6 & 7 Rookery Hill, Stanford-Le-Hope SS17 9LB as Operating Centres. Maintenance is suggested to be in-house by Neil Dennison at 6-weekly intervals.
The applicant Directors are named in the same capacity for Nordic Timber Limited, which holds a Restricted Goods Vehicle Operator’s Licence (OF2009721) authorising 3 vehicles and 1 trailer. It apparently closed on 31 March 2025 but surrender was not offered until 1 September 2026. Mr Sorenson is also the Director of Wharf Timber Ltd, which holds a Restricted Licence authorising 8 vehicles and 1 trailer, with the same Operating Centre. It manufactures timber and fencing products which are sold to domestic customers. The company is effectively a mini-builders merchant which sells to small builders and the public. The timber products are manufactured on site at Rookery Hill. They deliver their own products paid for upon delivery. He is also listed as the sole director of KS Wharf Commercials Ltd. The Companies House register suggests that it is involved in freight transport by road, but it does not hold an Operator’s Licence. I was told it was set up to trade vehicles; a short-lived business venture that did not take off. He is the sole Director of Plywood Supplies Ltd (dormant) and joint Director of Rookery Hill Timber Treatment Ltd. That company provides timber treatment services and is operated from Havenhurst. Kevin Sorenson and Carol Wager are Directors of Wharf Group Ltd, which was incorporated on 20 October 2015 to protect the brand name with a view to future expansion.
Ms Reid qualified on 18 April 2016, with refreshers in 2024 and 2026. Representations also referred to her additional appointments for Adler & Allan Ltd and TZ Logistics Ltd. She currently devotes 8.5 hours per week to her duties for the operator spread over Tuesdays and Fridays. She apparently spends 8 hours a week as Transport Manager for TZ Logistics Ltd (OK20535960 over Mondays and Tuesdays, and 15 hours a week for Adler & Allan Ltd (OF1033884) spread over Wednesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays. She has proposed devoting 8 hours a week to the applicant spread over Wednesdays, Fridays, and Saturdays. The VOL record suggests that Ms Reid is the given contact for Wharf Timber Ltd. In evidence it became clear that she deals with compliance documentation for that operator too.
Hearing
The hearing was originally listed for 26 May 2026 but was adjourned at the application of the operator to ensure the attendance of Directors and the Transport Manager. It was relisted for today, 22 September 2026, in Tribunal Room 1 of the Office of the Traffic Commissioner in Cambridge. The operator was present in the form of Carol Wager, Finance Director, accompanied by the Transport Manager, Rae Reid. At 4:45 pm on the day before the hearing, my office was notified that CE Transport Law no longer acted for any of the parties. I declined the application to adjourn, given the concerns arising from the evidence (set out below). Mrs Wager adopted the written representations at the hearing.
Issues
The public inquiry was called following notice that I was considering grounds to intervene in respect of this licence and specifically by reference to the following sections of the Goods Vehicle (Licensing of Operators) Act:
- 26(1)(b) – conditions on licence to notify changes relating to the licence requirements changes affecting the licence and in particular that the Transport Manager meets Schedule 3
- 26(1)(c)(iii) – Prohibition Notices
- 26(1)(ca) – Fixed Penalty Notices
- 26(1)(e) – statements relating to maintenance and to abide by conditions on the licence
- 26(1)(f) – undertakings (vehicles to be kept fit and serviceable, effective driver defect reporting, complete maintenance records).
- 26(1)(h) – material change:
- 27(1)(a) – repute, financial standing, Transport Manager meeting Schedule 3.
- 28 – Disqualification.
Ms Reid was called separately to consider her repute as Transport Manager, by reference to the statutory duty to exercise effective and continuous management – section 27(1)(b), Schedule 3 and to consider whether I should make a direction in respect of her Certificate of Professional Competence.
The hearing was also called to allow the applicant further opportunity to pursue its application by showing that it meets the statutory criteria d specifically the following sections of the above Act:
- 13A(2)(b) – good repute including Director fitness.
- 13A(2)(c) – financial standing and 13D – available finance so that maintenance for the total authority is not prejudiced.
- 13A(3) – Transport Manager capable of meeting Schedule 3.
- 13C(2) – satisfactory arrangements for complying with drivers’ hours requirements.
- 13C(3) – satisfactory arrangements to ensure vehicles are not overloaded.
- 13C(4) – satisfactory arrangements and facilities for maintaining vehicles in a fit and serviceable condition.
The operator was directed to lodge evidence in support including financial, maintenance and other compliance documentation. Compliance documentation was to be submitted to DVSA by no later than 1 September 2026 with finance and any representations to be sent to my office by 8 September 2026. The financial evidence was sufficient to support the existing operator. No financial evidence was produced to support the application until the hearing.
Summary of Evidence
The application by JBJ Pallets Essex Ltd was received on 8 April 2025. The financial evidence supplied was not sufficient to support the application and also put the financial standing of the operator, K S Timber Ltd, at issue. The operator, K S Timber Ltd previously failed to provided evidence to meet the prescribed sum by way of a 3-month average. The sum demonstrated was below the required level for 9 vehicles, but the bank statements suggested additional undisclosed accounts through internal transfers in the company’s own name. The same was true of the evidence provided by the applicant, JBJ Pallets Essex Ltd, with evidence of only one account produced but the suggestion of other accounts.
The application was put on the basis that the two entities would be run separately with measures in place to ensure distinct management, vehicle use, and operational control, but see below. K S Timber Ltd operates out of the operating centre in Wharf Road, Stanford–Le-Hope. Staff of K S Timber Ltd located there, deal with the day-to-day running of that operation. Drivers are employed by KS Timber Ltd and based at this depot. Ms Reid was said to manage the vehicle and driver compliance when working at this depot. The vehicles are used to deliver timber materials, but it became clear that vehicles were not run for the operator, although there was some cross invoicing.
JBJ Pallets Essex Ltd was to operate from the Rookery Hill site. Two existing employees would deal with operations from there. Drivers are employed by JBJ Pallets Essex Ltd and are based at this depot. Those vehicles are used to deliver and collect recycled pallets The same in-house fitter was said to be based at Rookery Hill.
During the processing of that application, it was noted that the nominated Transport Manager was employed through her own limited company, but not the applicant company. When raised it appeared that there was no genuine link with either entity, but that the contractual relationship was with Cornerstone Transport Compliance Ltd. Ms Reid subsequently ceased to charge through Cornerstone Transport Compliance Ltd. Two new contracts between Rae Reid and i) K S Timber Ltd and ii) JBJ Pallets Essex Ltd. The contract with JBJ Pallets Essex Ltd suggested that Ms Rae would only be paid £300 per month, for an authorisation of 7 vehicles, compared to the contract with KS Timber Ltd suggesting payments of £1,733.33, for managing 9 vehicles. Representations acknowledged the error and referred to additional training by Ms Reid but then further complicated the issue by suggesting that she would be engaged by the Wharf Group Ltd. In evidence I heard that the applicant only intended to seek authority to operate 3 vehicles.
Representations admitted that the lines between operations had become blurred, but suggested that, rather than employing effective management to ensure compliance, this should be accepted due to the volume of companies involved. In effect suggesting that commercial considerations be given priority. It was accepted that the financial evidence reflected the movement of funds between the companies.
It was only with the receipt of representations that I became aware that a new application might have been lodged by the Wharf Group Ltd for a standard national licence with authority for 14 vehicles and 8 trailers. I was told that this would meet the transport needs of all of the companies outlined and upon its grant all other licences would be surrendered. Transport functions of the other companies, including maintenance, drivers, vehicles, and the transport manager would be migrated to that applicant company. However, there was no intention to operate the companies as a group structure. Transport would be operated completely separately and run as a stand-alone business, subcontracting to the others. In fact, the application had yet to be received as that other entity is waiting for confirmation of a new bank account. Correspondence from the bank suggested that funds would then be transferred from the operator and the current applicant companies.
K S Timber Ltd had no adverse history recorded and an initial annual failure rate of 6.25% from two initial failures and one PRS. A delayed prohibition was issued to trailer C258851 on 13 October 2025. It was endorsed as ‘S’ marked for service brake efficiency low, overall performance below expectations. Ms Reid provided evidence of inquiries into test failures and action taken to prevent reoccurrence. DVSA appears to have accepted that this was a ‘random’ brake chamber failure on the test lane. The operator has adopted voluntary brake checks for trailers in advance of test. The failure to report further illustrates the need for training by Ms Reid. Representations signed by Carol Wager referred to 3 of 3 clear roadworthiness encounters during the preceding five years.
A transport compliance meeting takes place each month between the directors and Ms Reid to address compliance issues as they arise. A record of the meetings will be kept as an audit trail. I was therefore interested to receive an up-to-date assessment of compliance.
Mr Whitney’s update report of 17 September 2026 was based on limited information. The operator was directed to supply evidence of its systems for managing drivers to including raw tachograph files for vehicles NX18 HAE, PN16 BGX, & CN17 JBO and any relevant drivers of those vehicles for the same period, driver licence checks carried out over the previous six months, driver infringement reports for the previous three months, vehicle unit download reports (missing mileage) for the previous six months, evidence of training and disciplinary action.
However, the operator failed to comply with those directions. The tachograph data identified 9 drivers during the period 5 January to 3 July 2026, but the operator only produced licence checks for 4 drivers: C Wright, D Wright, M Matthews, and T Gordon (5 January, 21 April, and 15 July 2026). There were no checks on Drivers I R Duligal, D R Elbourn, M North, R W Theedom, and B L Ward. Ms Reid suggested that she had the records. They were not supplied. Similarly, the operator only produced infringement reports for the same 4 drivers, covering 27 April to 5 July 2026 and 22 to 28 June 2026 for Driver Trevor Gordon. Evidence suggested that Mr Gordon was only requested to sign the missing mileage policy on 1 September 2026, i.e. that date on which data and other documents had to be produced. Signed disciplinary records were only produced for 5 drivers. It was not possible to cross-check the alleged infringements against his tachoscan analysis as in four instances, the infringement dates were outside of the produced data.
Mr Whitney identified one instance, involving PN16 BGX, where the download was extended beyond the permitted maximum of 90-days (by 4 days). However, the maximum period for driver card downloads (28 days) was breached on 23 occasions and up to 35 days. Analysis of the vehicle data revealed 6 occasions when vehicles had been driven without a driver card inserted for distances between 5 and 164 km. These were identified in the missing mileage reports but marked: “All events explained on Aquarius portal.” That was not supplied to the Examiner. Tachoscan analysis identified 103 records of a total of 892 requiring additional scrutiny:
- 13 instances where driving exceeded 4.5 hours / insufficient break by between 1 and 10 minutes which would suggest a warning.
- 8 instances where work had exceeded 6 hours without a break or sufficient breaks as required under Working Time.
- 2 instances where the working week had exceeded 60 hours which may have been due to driver cards being left in the equipment overnight set on the “other work” mode.
- There were 8 instances where drivers had clearly left their driver cards in the equipment either overnight or over the whole weekend.
Mr Whitney noted evidence of training by Rae Reid and Carol Wager, but none was produced for Kevin Sorenson. The operator had recorded driver CPC modular training on 15 August 2026 delivered to 7 drivers, covering bridge strikes and vehicle safe loading.
He concluded that drivers needed to be better managed to ensure removal of driver cards at the termination of duty and to ensure correct use of the mode switch. Drivers should take the breaks required under the Working Time Regulations and ensure that those breaks are indicated on the tachograph records. Other than identified shunting or maintenance, there should be no reason for the driver card not to be inserted. Tachoscan had highlighted 6 instances including missing mileage up to 165km on 25 March 2026. The record suggested that the relevant drivers had been spoken to, but no reason was recorded. He noted the limited driver licence checks. Infringement and disciplinary records related to either drivers’ hours, Working Time, or both, but involved Carol Wager rather than the Transport Manager. He suggested that the Transport Manager was spread too thin across her appointments.
Representations confirmed that vehicles are fitted with digital tachographs which are downloaded monthly and driver cards are downloaded weekly. Ms Reid indicated that she had been downloading data as required but could not explain Mr Witney’s findings. The operator has moved to Aquarius software to monitor driver hours, as Ms Reid found it easier to use. Ms Reid produces monthly infringement and missing mileage reports to be signed by the drivers. Working time is managed on a 17-week period. She inputs absences to ensure correct data and monitoring. Drivers receive an induction with a yearly refresher. In the last 5 years between there had been 2 clear roadside encounters.
The update report from Vehicle Examiner Giuseppe Torraca of 3 September 2026 was based on an analysis of records relating to PN16 BGX, CN17 JBO, and 3 trailers from 14 October 2025 onwards including a total of 36 Preventative Maintenance Inspection records between 14 October 2025 and 1 September 2026. One inspection of PN16 BGX was late by 7 days on 21 July 2026. Representations stated that the vehicle was off-road for test preparation, but there was no VOR record. I was assured that this would not happen again. Representations referred to a vehicle off road sheet, which includes details of the vehicle, registration, mileage, and reason for being taken out of service. A sign is placed in the window to ensure it is clearly visible that the vehicle should not be used. Keys are locked securely in the workshop or office dependant on location and details added to the wall planner. Previously, Mr Dennison had retained the keys and there was a form of recording. I was told that Ms Reid conducts vehicle safety recall checks on a quarterly basis using the Gov.uk website, printed and added to the vehicle file.
The majority of Preventative Maintenance Inspection records were not fully or correctly completed, mainly due to decelerometer brake checks with no temperature checks/readings being recorded. A number of those decelerometer checks occurred after the Preventative Maintenance Inspection record had been signed off. There was some evidence of laden roller brake testing, but not enough to satisfy the guidance.
None of the brake performance assessments that had been carried out were recorded on the Preventative Maintenance Inspection record, but printouts from the decelerometer tests and roller brake tester were provided. A number of Preventative Maintenance Inspections recorded defects on page 1, with no defect information or rectification on page 2. Nevertheless, the Preventative Maintenance Inspection record was signed off. None of the records provided recorded tyre pressures, and some did not record tyre condition and tyre size information. Ms Reid admitted that she failed to supply copies of the “garage sheet.” Mr Dennison failed to transpose those notes on to the required record.
Mr Torraca saw some evidence of correctly completed driver defect reports. The defect reports also showed the reported defects as rectified and were signed off. There was some evidence of wheel torque and re-torques being conducted after wheel removal. He was provided with a spreadsheet planning document which records the different activities carried out/to be carried out. He concluded that improvements were required.
Representations confirm that the operator relied on the minimum of 4 roller brake tests per year, supplemented by decelerometer checks, but no temperature checks. That did not conform with the Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness, despite the suggestion otherwise. The operator has now decided to implement laden roller brake testing at every inspection. It was suggested that this represented a positive step away from arrangements which fell below the basic standard. It has now completed a review of its own Preventative Maintenance Inspection records after it was shown that tyre information was not being consistently recorded. The mechanic has been reminded of the importance of accurately recording these details on each inspection. A Preventative Maintenance Inspection audit sheet has been adopted which will remind the Transport Manager of what to check. Ms Reid now monitors the use of fuel and AdBlue and ratios.
A tyre and wheel torque policy have been adopted to change tyres at 3 mm. A wheel off log is used to record when wheels have been appropriately fixed with a torque tag retained. The records will be retained on vehicle files and cross referenced to inspection records. Wheel nut indicators have been fitted to each vehicle.
It was suggested that the current compliance measures would be mirrored in the application by Wharf Group Ltd. The Companies House register shows that company accounts were lodged for a dormant company on 23 December 2025. As identified above, Ms Reid has now adopted checks of Preventative Maintenance Inspection records using an audit sheet. An app-based defect reporting system has recently been adopted to improve oversight. I was assured that drivers had been trained on the new Aquarius system. However, defects are reported directly Mr Dennison, with no management input. Ms Reid was said to conduct random gate checks to monitor the sufficiency of the walk round checks. The check includes scrutiny of load security measures. Driver tachograph data will be monitored to ensure sufficient time is taken to conduct the walk round check and cross referenced. Vehicles have been equipped with a torch, a probe, and a tyre depth gauge. Load security is monitored as part of the gate check process. Drivers receive load security toolbox talks and on the new for old strap policy. Walk around check policy has been adopted and drivers receive toolbox talks and YouTube videos which are recorded driver file supplemented with short quizzes to check understanding. There will be a session on drivers’ hours this Friday.
Determination
Based on the evidence summarised above I was satisfied that I should record adverse findings against the operator under the following sections: 26(1)(c)(iii) – Prohibition Notices, 26(1)(ca) – Fixed Penalty Notices, 26(1)(f) – undertakings (vehicles to be kept fit and serviceable, effective driver defect reporting, complete maintenance records) and 26(1)(h) – material change in the effectiveness of compliance management.
The update reports suggested recent, if not ongoing challenges in meeting the undertakings and therefore basic requirements of the licence. What was described did not amount to effective or continuous management. There needed to be far greater scrutiny by the Transport Manager, and oversight by the Directors. In that context, the applicant company through Mrs Wager concluded that the application by JBJ Pallets Essex Ltd was not based on a sound footing. I had to agree, particularly when told that it was only being pursued, in order to then surrender it. I used considerable discretion to allow its withdrawal after I indicated that the applicant had failed to satisfy me against sections 13A(2)(b) through Director fitness and 13A(3) by reference to the CPC holder’s capacity to take additional responsibilities, with implications for sections 13C(2) to (4).
Representations suggested that the new application by Wharf Group Ltd offered a solution by consolidating all transport operations into one entity, which would then invoice the other companies relying on it for transport services. That will only prove to be the case if the Transport Manager tightens her management systems. That needs to be reflected in properly recorded disciplinary processes and in active management of the workshop. I was told that Mrs Wager and Ms Reid are both present for infringement reporting, but the outcome of driver interviews require more detailed recording and a potential appeal route. The Directors need to employ effective performance indicators and to hold the Transport Manager to account for shortcomings. I warned Ms Reid that I considered her repute as Transport Manager to be tarnished by the failures to date. It remained to be seen if these have finally been remedied.
Submissions emphasised the importance of trust. I agree, but do not share the confidence expressed in writing by Ms Wager. The failings should have been identified far sooner. The operator was given limited credit for taking remedial action in response to shortcomings which only emerged from a misguided application. As it acknowledged, procedures had to reviewed and changes made as they were inadequate. It was suggested that I should give credit for prompt rectification of the Transport Manager contractual arrangements when that should never have occurred. The guidance in genuine link has been in circulation for over 15 years now.
The written representations suggested that the operator had been open and transparent throughout and yet I only learned of the proposed application in the run up to the Public Inquiry. It was suggested that the Directors had recognised that the existing structure, involving multiple entities and operator licences, created unnecessary complexity in the management and oversight of the transport operation. A deliberate decision had therefore been taken to simplify that structure. That was suggested to be the means by which I might be satisfied as to future compliance. Systems and procedures were said to have been strengthened but relied on the same people to manage them. The operator’s repute was noticeably tarnished by these events.
In assessing the Director, I concluded that the situation had arisen partly from naivety. The Public Inquiry had prompted the Directors to take a closer look at the requirements of the different businesses and had opened their eyes to the licence requirements. (Mr Sorenson should also consider training.) The new application was posited as simplifying management, but the separation and payment between entities which led to this Public Inquiry were still present. I took evidence on the challenge of outsourcing transport for the various different entities upon which 38 people rely for their employment. I determined that deterrent action was required if operations were to continue but to also promote the simplification and effectiveness of management. Further to the adverse findings above, this licence will be revoked from 23:45 on 17 November 2026 to allow for the new application to be made consolidating all transport operations (named above).
R Turfitt
Traffic Commissioner
22 September 2026