Decision for Level Up Scaffolding NW Ltd OC2079769
Confirmation of the Traffic Commissioner's decision in the Scottish Traffic Area.
IN THE NORTH WEST TRAFFIC AREA
LEVEL UP SCAFFOLDING NW LTD – OC2079769
WRITTEN DECISION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER
PUBLIC INQUIRY HELD IN GOLBORNE ON 11 AUGUST 2026
DECISION:
Under provision of section 26(1)(f) and 26(1)(h) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (“the Act”), this operator’s licence is revoked with immediate effect.
Under provision of section 28 of the Act, Level Up Scaffolding NW Ltd and directors Mr. Martyn Conner and Mr. Ricky Lawrence, are each disqualified from holding or obtaining an operator’s licence for an indefinite period of time.
Level Up Scaffolding NW Ltd (“Level Up”) is a limited company which, until today, held a Restricted Goods Vehicle Operator’s licence authorising two vehicles. The licence was granted on 17 June 2025.
The operator has a single operating centre, recorded as Unit 2, Border Bus Garage, Caldewgate, Carlisle CA2 5TJ. Preventative maintenance inspections are said to be carried out internally, and externally by MM Commercials Ltd at 6-weekly intervals.
Background
Whilst this restricted licence was granted just over a year ago it has already been issued with three prohibition notices, two of which were for load security and also resulted in fixed penalty notices.
The licence had been granted following a public inquiry on 16 June 2025 which was held due to connections with a Mr. Sammon (who was a director at that time). Mr. Sammon had been linked by way of a previous licence which had been revoked due to a lack of engagement with DVSA. The application for Level Up was granted upon the offer of undertakings including (1) that Mr. Sammon would be removed as a director; (2) the provision of financial records to satisfy financial standing; and (3) an independent audit of the operator’s systems for compliance.
The finance undertaking was fulfilled but the licence-holder failed to submit the audit report within the required timescale. Furthermore, the DVSA have since sought to complete a maintenance investigation and the licence-holder has failed to engage with that investigation, providing no evidence of maintenance records or systems. During the DVSA investigation it has been suggested that Mr. Sammon may be the director de facto despite the clear intentions of the Traffic Commissioner at the June 2025 public inquiry. The Maintenance Investigation Visit Report (“MIVR”) concluded as “Report to OTC”.
Whilst two vehicles were previously specified on the operator’s licence NU63VPB was removed immediately after the DVSA commenced its inquiries. Mr. Conner then advised that the remaining vehicle, NU63XBP had been sold. Whilst this is supported by DVLA records, the operator was unable to produce any historical records for either vehicle (despite the requirement to retain maintenance records) and NU63XBP remains to be specified on the operator’s licence.
Accordingly this public inquiry is convened to determine whether the licence-holder is complying with the undertakings and conditions of the operator’s licence and whether there has been a material change in circumstances of the licence-holder since the licence was granted, namely (1) that the licence-holder is no-longer fit to hold an operator’s licence; (2) that the licence-holder has the required financial resources to ensure vehicles are maintained in a fit and serviceable condition; and (3) that the licence-holder is no longer using the operator licence to carry goods in relation to its business.
Public Inquiry
The public inquiry took place on Tuesday 11 August 2026 at the Golborne Hearing Centre. An additional 30 minutes was allowed after the notified start date, however, the licence-holder failed to attend. DVSA were in attendance by Examiner Mark Hirons.
My bundle of papers includes a copy of the calling in letter, sent by post and email to the addresses provided to the operator for correspondence. The postage address, 63 Beaumont Road, Carlisle, United Kingdom, CA2 4RJ, remains the recorded correspondence address on both VOL and Companies House.
The Royal Mail postage tracking system shows that the calling in letter was delivered, and signed for, on 27 June 2026.
The calling in letter set out a number of case management directions to be complied with. These included the requirements to provide: (1) a list of attendees; (2) evidence of available finances; (3) evidence of systems for managing drivers and drivers’ hours; and (4) evidence of maintenance records.
These case management directions were not complied with and my office has received no communication explaining the operator’s absence or seeking an adjournment. I firstly considered whether the hearing should proceed. I took account of the guidance issued by the Senior Traffic Commissioner at paragraph 27 of Statutory Document 9, which states
The Traffic Commissioner is entitled to expect that the party called to a hearing will submit any application for an adjournment.
I concluded that good service of the calling in letter had been provided. I am also mindful that my public inquiry room is scheduled for hearings until October 2026, therefore any adjournment would not be brief. Further, the failure to comply with my requests for records and failure to engage with the public inquiry process is consistent with this operator’s approach to date. I conclude that the failure to attend is, to the civil standard, intentional. I am also conscious that DVSA have made the effort to attend.
On consideration of the above, I determined that the hearing would proceed. I took the opportunity to confirm some information with Mr. Hirons and in the absence of any further records or representations I retired to make the determination below on the basis of the best available evidence before me.
Issues
There are three areas for consideration:
- Compliance with undertakings and conditions – I need to be satisfied that this operator has, and is capable of, complying with the undertakings and conditions of its licence.
- Fitness – I am concerned with this operator’s failure to engage with the DVSA and this office. This leads to the question as to whether it can be trusted to hold an operator’s licence.
- Financial Resources – Whilst the requirement under s13D of the 1995 Act is discretionary, the absence of maintenance records is such that I am concerned the provision of the facilities and arrangements for maintaining the vehicles in a fit and serviceable condition may be prejudiced through insufficient financial resources.
Review of Evidence
Undertakings and Conditions
Since the grant of this licence in June 2025 the operator has been issued with three immediate prohibitions. Two were issued for insecure load / dangerous load condition, and one for tyre damage. Additionally, two fixed penalty notices were issued to drivers working on behalf of the licence-holder. Both penalty notices were issued in respect of load security offences.
As a result of the offences set out above, examiners from the DVSA attempted to undertake a maintenance investigation review. The examiner attempted, with little success, to arrange the provision of maintenance records for assessment. Subsequently the MIVR was concluded and submitted to my office for consideration.
The report considered thirteen areas and found only three to be satisfactory. No scoring was completed on the condition of vehicles as none could be examined. Five areas scored as “Unsatisfactory” and four areas were marked as “Report to OTC” – the worst scoring available.
The MIVR raised concerns in respect of the operator’s records and systems for compliance in relation to: (i) Inspection/Maintenance Records; (ii) Driver Defect Reporting; (iii) Vehicle Emissions; (iv) Wheel & Tyre Management; (v) Load Security; (vi) Prohibitions; (vii) Security Arrangements; (viii) Previous Assurances; and (ix) Responsible Person.
Having considered the DVSA report I am content to adopt the negative findings. The failure of the operator to engage with the investigation and the absence of any records allows the reasonable conclusion that the records are not being made available because they do not exist. It is very relevant that many of the shortcomings identified by the MIVR are within areas which are critical to road safety.
Fitness
The failings identified by the DVSA would, alone, indicate a material change, being that the operator may no longer be considered ‘not unfit’ to hold an operator’s licence. I go further, however, and give consideration to the issue of repute – at paragraph 18 of NT 2013/82 Arnold Transport Ltd, the Upper Tribunal highlighted the word ‘fitness’…
“…because it is critical to understanding the breadth of the requirement to be of good repute. It means, for example, that an operator who cannot be trusted to comply with the operator’s licensing regime is unlikely to be fit to hold an operator’s licence”.
In this case the operator failed to provide records to the DVSA despite receiving two requests to do so. This is consistent with the operator’s failure to comply with the case management directions for this hearing and the failure to attend this public inquiry.
Financial Resources
I am entirely satisfied that financial resources are a relevant consideration in this case. The DVSA report demonstrates significant weaknesses and absences within the maintenance systems. The calling in letter requested evidence of financial resources to satisfy that maintenance was not prejudiced through an absence of such resources. The failure to submit any financial records means that I cannot be satisfied that the deficiencies identified by the DVSA are unrelated to insufficient financial resources.
Findings
I conclude that the failure to attend the public inquiry is a deliberate attempt to avoid the scrutiny of the Traffic Commissioner. I make this conclusion as it is consistent with the recent approach to engagement with the enforcement and regulatory bodies.
The review of the evidence as set out above, and the absence of any records or representations to challenge that evidence, satisfies me that I should record adverse findings under the following sections:
- Section 26(1)(f) – That the operator has failed to comply with the undertakings of its licence, namely (1) a specific undertaking for an independent compliance audit during January 2026, and (2) the general undertakings to make proper arrangements so that (i) the rules on drivers’ hours and tachographs are observed and proper records kept; (ii) Motor vehicles and trailers, including hired vehicles and trailers, are kept fit and serviceable; (iii) 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 (iv) 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 granted there has been a material change in the circumstances of the licence holder which were relevant to the grant of this licence, namely that the licence-holder no longer satisfies the requirements: (1) to be ‘not unfit’ to hold an operator’s licence; and (2) to satisfy me that the provision of the facilities and arrangements for maintaining vehicles in a fit and serviceable condition is not prejudiced by insufficient financial resources.
I make the finding on fitness due to the failure to engage with the enforcement and regulatory bodies, the failure to attend this public inquiry, and the failure to comply with undertakings of this licence. As regard finances, the operator was directed to provide evidence of financial resources and failed to do so. In the absence of that evidence, I cannot be satisfied that the facilities and arrangements for maintaining vehicles in a fit and serviceable condition are not prejudiced by insufficient financial resources.
These adverse findings satisfy me that this is an operator that I cannot trust to comply with the operator licensing regime. On consideration 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”. The complete absence of records and failure to engage with the enforcement and regulatory bodies are clear and deliberate acts which compromise road safety. Further it has eroded any trust that I could possibly have in this licence-holder.
In its decision on 2006/277 Fenlon, the Upper Tribunal stated:
“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.”
Whilst I recognise that this is a Restricted licence holder, I note the comments from the Upper Tribunal in Redsky Wholesalers Ltd v UKUT [2013] UKUT 194 (AAC) indicating that asking the ‘Priority Freight’ and ‘Bryan Haulage’ questions can be helpful in determining the proportionality of approach. I therefore 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 in respect of this licence leads me to conclude that this is an operator that cannot be trusted and that I do not trust.
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. In contrast I have no positive features other than a single passed annual test. The negative features of this case far outweigh that single positive.
I remind myself that this is not merely a case involving absent records. This is an operator with a non-compliant background; an unfulfilled undertaking; and an MIVR which raises concerns with systems critical to road safety. The prohibitions and fixed penalty notices – issued during the short period between May and December 2025 – demonstrate that this is not just an administrative shortcoming, but a genuine threat to road safety.
I therefore make a direction under the provision of section 26(1)(f) and 26(1)(h) of the Act that this licence be revoked with immediate effect. I note that revocation under s.26 is a discretionary matter, but I conclude that this is the appropriate action. I have no assurances that a curtailment or a period of suspension would serve the purpose of enabling the operator to make right the failings. I have already stated that I do not trust this operator and I have set out my reasons for that. I do not consider anything other than revocation to be in the interests of the public or other, compliant, operators. I do not consider a period for the orderly cessation of transport services to be necessary as the licence-holder has claimed to the DVSA that it has sold its in-scope vehicles.
Disqualification
Having revoked the licence for the reasons set out, I take account of the guidance provided by the Senior Traffic Commissioner at Paragraph 108 of Statutory Document No. 10. This operator has failed to attend a public inquiry and wasted valuable hearing room time. It also failed to fully engage with the DVSA’s investigations. I am mindful that disqualification is not something that should be applied routinely, but there must be a deterrent for those that are considering ignoring communications and directions from enforcement or regulatory authorities.
The directors were provided with the opportunity to attend this public inquiry and explain the operator’s conduct but chose not to do so. In the absence of any evidence allowing me to distinguish their position from that of the licence-holder, I hold them jointly responsible for the failures identified above. The result is that I cannot trust any party related to this operator licence. I therefore disqualify Level Up Scaffolding NW Ltd, and each of its directors, from holding or obtaining an operator’s licence for an indefinite period of time.
Unlike a specified period, this allows either party to apply to have this order of disqualification lifted. The party will, however, be required to attend before a Traffic Commissioner and provide a full explanation to the issues above.
David Mullan
Traffic Commissioner for the North West of England
11 August 2026