Decision for Lixor Sales & Marketing (OH2064261)
Decision of the Deputy Traffic Commissioner in the West of England for Lixor Sales & Marketing and driver George Watson Laird
IN THE WESTERN TRAFFIC AREA
LIXOR SALES & MARKETING LIMITED (OH2064261)
And
DRIVER CONDUCT HEARING – GEORGE WATSON LAIRD
DECISION OF THE DEPUTY TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER
Decision
The Restricted Goods Vehicle Operators Licence (OH2064261) in the name of Lixor Sales & Marketing is revoked under sections 26(1)(b), 26(1)(c)(iii), 26(1)(e), 26(1)(f) & 26(1)(h) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995.
(Revocation to take effect from 12 noon on 26/06/2026)
Driver George Watson Laird – Substantive LGV entitlement suspended for 4 weeks (with effect from 00:00 on 08/05/2026)
The Licence
The operator holds a restricted goods vehicle operator’s licence authorising 2 vehicles and 2 trailers. The Operator currently has 1 vehicle in possession. The licence was originally issued 08 June 2023. The sole director is Avtar Singh Hargun (known as Avtar Singh).
The Maintenance provider listed on the licence is ND Car & Commercial Services.
Background to the Public Inquiry
On 05/06/2025 there was a roadside encounter involving vehicle FD63 ELJ which was being driven by George Laird. During the encounter, a number of issues were identified.
Firstly, the vehicle was displaying 2 standard international operator licence discs issued to the Wincanton Group (OH0000468 & OG0074211) however this operator’s disc was not displayed.
The vehicle excise had expired, and the driver’s card had expired.
The tachograph calibration was overdue, and the vehicle unit had not been downloaded for 706 days.
Roadworthiness defects were identified in relation to the ABS system, a leaking brake pipe (causing the system to not hold full brake pressure) and a nearside front indicator. The roadworthiness defects resulted in an immediate S-marked prohibition.
Another curious issue raised at the encounter was the driver seemed unsure about who he was driving for, initially stating he was driving for Atlantis Building Supplies.
As a result of the roadside encounter, the DVSA carried out a maintenance investigation on 31/07/2025.
The maintenance investigation resulted in an unsatisfactory rating with the following areas of shortcomings noted:
- Inspection and maintenance records (including no VOR or recall system)
- Driver defect reporting.
- Inspection facilities and maintenance arrangements (including no maintenance contract).
- Vehicle emissions system (no AdBlue or mileage checks).
- Wheel and tyre management.
- Load security.
- Prohibition assessment (the S-marked prohibition).
Further enquiries had also raised concerns regarding the operator’s financial position as the company’s accounts were late and a compulsory strike off had been commenced in October 2024.
Subsequent to the maintenance investigation, on 18/11/2025 a Traffic Examiner visit was carried out by DVSA. Several shortcomings were identified as follows:
- Driver licensing
- Driver training
- Drivers hours and record keeping
- Working time directive
- Vehicle monitoring systems
The Operator’s responses to shortcomings and concerns (noted by DVSA as being 12 days late), were described as being 6 emails containing poor quality photographs. Many required items were missing and the only maintenance contract provided was in the name of Atlantis Building Supplies.
By the time of the Public Inquiry no financial evidence had been received from the Operator.
Upon review of these concerns and responses, the Traffic Commissioner sent the operator the ‘Propose to Revoke’ letter. The Operator responded to the letter the day before the proposed revocation.
The Call to Public Inquiry & Driver Conduct Hearing (DCH)
The call up letter dated 26 March 2026 was sent to the operator. The call up letter specified the following issues:
- You have breached the conditions on your licence, namely:
To cooperate with DVSA and notify of events affecting financial resources and fitness to hold a licence.
Your vehicles or drivers have been issued with prohibition notices by DVSA or the police in the past five years.
- The following statements you made when applying for the licence were either false or have not been fulfilled:
The company would abide by any conditions which may be imposed on the licence.
- You have not honoured the undertakings you signed up to when you applied for your licence, namely,
That your vehicles and trailers would be kept fit and serviceable;
That you would observe the rules on drivers hours and tachographs and keep proper records;
That you would keep records for 15 months of driver defect reports, safety inspections and routine maintenance and make them available on request;
Drivers would report promptly any defects or symptoms of defects that could prevent the safe operation of vehicles and/or trailers, and that any defects would be promptly recorded in writing;
- Since the licence was issued, there has been a material change in the circumstances of its holder, namely that you may no longer be of the required fitness or hold the required financial resources to hold a restricted goods vehicle operator licence.
The operator was also notified that due to the matters listed above, the traffic commissioner was also concerned that the company may not have sufficient financial resources to hold an operator’s licence for the number of vehicles authorised.
The Operator was informed that in order to satisfy the financial resources condition they would need to show access to an average of £4,800 over the last 3 months. Advice as to how this could be evidenced was contained in the call up letter.
The call up letter also informed the operator that if the Traffic Commissioner concludes that they are not complying with the laws, undertakings and conditions relevant to the licence, a range of powers are available including the revocation of the licence.
Separately, Mr Laird was sent a call up letter dated 27/03/2026 requiring him to attend a driver conduct hearing in relation to the issues found during the roadside encounter on 05/06/2025. The letter also advised the driver that should the Traffic Commissioner find he is not fit to hold the LGV entitlement, his entitlement could be suspended or revoked.
The Public Inquiry & DCH
The Public Inquiry was scheduled to be held at the Office of the Traffic Commissioner for the West of England, Jubilee House, Croydon Street, Bristol, BS5 0GB on 07/05/2026 commencing at 10:30am.
Mr Singh and Mr Laird arrived in good time for the hearing. Neither were legally or professionally represented.
Before commencing the Inquiry, I explained my concerns regarding the missing evidence to Mr Singh. In particular I explained the requirement under Section 13D of the Act. Mr Singh apologised for this ‘oversight’ and informed me that he would ensure financial and all other missing evidence was sent after the day of the hearing.
I explained that the purpose of the PI was for me to consider the evidence and it was not acceptable to offer to send evidence which was required for the PI after the date of the PI.
I then explained that I would hear the driver conduct hearing first and that Mr Laird could then be released or choose to stay for the PI. Mr Singh and Mr Laird agreed to this course of proceedings.
The Driver Conduct Hearing
I explained the purpose of the hearing and the jurisdiction of the Traffic Commissioner, reminding Mr Laird that any decisions taken by me would not affect his normal driving licence but could affect his LGV entitlement.
Mr Laird explained he had been driving since 1983 and had first passed his LGV test whilst he was serving in the Parachute Regiment. He had served for just over 10 years however following an injury to his back he had left the forces in 1990. He had been working as a driver ever since. Prior to this incident he had a good driving record.
He explained that he had sent his driver card to DVLA in Swansea although he candidly admitted that he had waited until it had already expired before sending it. I asked him about keeping manual records during the relevant period and he informed me that he had been keeping full manual records. Upon exploring this evidence further, it transpired he had been giving these to the operator however when I asked Mr Singh about this, although he confirmed the evidence, he informed me that he had not brought any such records to the hearing.
In terms of the matters which gave rise to the S-marked prohibition, Mr Laird informed me that he had carried out a walkaround check but admitted it could not have been of satisfactory standard as he had missed the indicator.
He was fully aware of the issues with the braking system as he was actually en-route to have these repaired. I asked him how he thought it was safe to drive, particularly with the braking system not maintaining pressure. Mr Laird explained that he had test driven the vehicle using the brakes before setting off and satisfied himself that there was sufficient braking force to drive to the repair garage. In telling me this, Mr Laird was at pains to tell me that whilst he was providing an explanation, he fully accepted his wrongdoing and did not dispute the assertion that he should not have driven the vehicle.
Upon further questioning I was satisfied that he has sufficient knowledge of driver’s hours and safety/walkaround checks and had simply allowed his standards to fall below an acceptable level.
I queried Mr Laird about who he was driving for, and he informed me that he had thought it was Atlantis Building Supplies as much of the paperwork etc always seemed to be in that name. As he took no part in the running of the operator’s company, he had never had cause to query this further and realistically if he was being paid it did not make any difference to him which company name the payment was coming from or the paperwork was in.
I found Mr Laird to be open and honest in his evidence. He did not attempt to mislead me or make his own situation seem better than it was. On balance I concluded that it was more likely than not that he had been keeping at least some manual records and it was more likely than not that the operator simply had not kept these or had not thought to bring them to the hearing.
Having reached that finding, I was able to consider the guidance in the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document no. 6 and reduce the indication of a revocation to one of 4 weeks suspension of LGV driving entitlement.
I announced the decision – 4-week suspension commencing on 08/05/2026 at 00:00hrs.
Mr Laird informed me that he intended to remain for the Public Inquiry and was happy to answer further questions.
The Public Inquiry - Evidence
Having re-visited my concerns about the failure of the Operator to send required evidence prior to the hearing, I started to go through the issues of concern or shortcomings, asking Mr Singh for his explanations and what remedial measures had been taken since the DVSA investigation and visit.
Dealing first with the company, Mr Singh explained that Atlantis Building Supplies is a company owned by his brother and running from the same site as the Operator. The evidence he gave seemed somewhat in conflict with which he provided to the DVSA examiner previously. He now gave evidence that the 2 companies are run entirely separately however his evidence to DVSA indicated more of a connection between them following advice from their accountant in relation to tax efficiency.
I questioned Mr Singh about the late accounts and previous compulsory strike off proceedings. His explanation was that they had changed accountants and it had taken some time to get accounting systems sorted out but that everything was resolved and it was no reflection on the financial viability of the company.
I asked Mr Singh about the vehicle and the Operator licences displayed which did not belong to this Operator. Mr Singh assured me the correct disc was in the vehicle although he accepted the other discs had not been removed prior to use. The vehicle had been purchased second-hand and they had overlooked this.
Regarding the excise duty being unpaid, Mr Singh accepted responsibility although clarified they had not owned the vehicle for the whole duration of the untaxed period. He described this as an administrative oversight. He confirmed that the vehicle had only been used in the yard previously and that he had delegated staff members to deal with matters such as excise duty.
Mr Singh was aware of the defects to the vehicle however he had relied on his driver to make decisions about roadworthiness. This evidence led me to explore the lack of VOR system.
Upon exploring the lack of VOR system it was evident that Mr Singh had very little knowledge of this and although he assured me systems were now in place, it was evident at the time of the investigation he had not considered this to be necessary as he was only operating one vehicle with one driver.
In terms of maintenance, Mr Singh admitted that they no longer used the maintenance provider listed on the licence. I note DVSA had confirmed the new provider to be reputable however Mr Singh did not appear to have carried out his own enquiries, and he had also not notified a change of provider.
In terms of the somewhat limited further evidence which the Operator had sent, I asked Mr Singh about why the Inspections had been late. Mr Singh apologised and stated that the previous provider was often unable to schedule them in at the correct time. I also highlighted that there were also missing roller brake test on the provided inspections. For these, Mr Singh had no explanation other than to tell me 2 of his family members had passed away. Whilst not unsympathetic, I could not see the relevance.
I asked Mr Singh about the vehicle and driver downloads. He explained that as the vehicle had not been in the Operators possession for the full period, he could not account for that. In relation to records of driver’s hours and tachograph downloads (including manual entries) I was assured the records were kept however he was unable to provide me any evidence of this. When questioned, Mr Singh was unsure of how long various records should be kept and obviously unaware of how often downloads should be done (simply telling me they download the VU and driver card at the end of every shift – again without any supporting evidence).
We then dealt more generally about forward planning systems and Mr Singh again gave assurances that all of their systems were now up and running to a high standard. I pointed out that the evidence provided to DVSA did not demonstrate this and I still had not seen any effective VOR system, defect reporting system, safety recall system, driver licence checking system, tyre/wheel management system or load security training. Mr Singh repeated his assurances but again was unable to provide evidence.
Further assurances were given by Mr Singh that walkaround checks are now monitored, driver defect reports are collated and checked, and he personally walks around the vehicle with the driver each morning.
I afforded Mr Singh the opportunity of addressing me in final submissions and asked him regarding the effect a short suspension and a revocation would have on the business. Mr Singh confirmed a suspension would have a dramatic effect as they have 4 employees and it is likely the business would not survive. A revocation would end the business.
In submissions, Mr Singh accepted the shortcomings and told me he had no excuse for the lackadaisical approach he had shown previously. He recognised that none of the shortcomings he had described as being ‘oversights’ were justifiable but that he is now fully aware of his responsibilities and what is required.
Analysis of the Evidence & Findings of fact
I had serious concerns about some of the evidence given by Mr Singh. I was faced with an Operator who had clearly been running a non-compliant operation and had allowed those failings to continue to the extent that safety was impacted. I concluded through my questioning that Mr Singh had insufficient knowledge of the licensing requirements and had failed to put most of the required systems in place. By the time of the Public Inquiry his knowledge still showed concerning gaps, and he was unable to provide evidence to back up almost any of his assurances.
I have remaining doubts about the business and unanswered questions about the interplay between this Operator and Mr Singh’s brother’s company, for example the vehicle on the licence was registered in the name of Atlantis Building Supplies.
The Operator had been illegally operating an untaxed vehicle and due to their complete lack of record keeping I was unable to conclude how long this had been going on for.
Similarly, whilst there is evidence of more recent maintenance and repairs to the vehicle, due to the wholly inadequate record keeping I am unable to assess what condition this vehicle was in previously.
I found Mr Singh’s assurances about finances and the financial viability of the company to be wholly unpersuasive. Having been provided with no financial evidence and considering the relatively small size of the Operation, I found it hard to believe accounting system changes would have resulted in late accounts and a compulsory strike off application. This is an operation employing 4 people including Mr Singh and Mr Laird and operating 1 vehicle out of a single operating centre.
At the conclusion of the hearing, having heard and considered all available evidence including the Operator’s full admissions I made the following findings of fact on the balance of probabilities:
-
The Operator had breached the terms of the licence by failing to notify the Traffic Commissioner of events which affect financial resources section 26(1)(b) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995)
-
The Operator’s vehicles or drivers have been issued with prohibition notices by DVSA or the police in the past five years (section 26(1)(c)(iii) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995)
-
The following statements made when applying for the licence were either false or have not been fulfilled (section 26(1)(e) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995):
(i)The Operator would abide by any conditions which may be imposed on the licence.
-
The Operator has failed to honour the undertakings signed up to when applying for the licence (section 26(1)(f) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995), namely:
- Vehicles & trailers would be kept fit and serviceable;
- You would observe the rules on driver’s hours and tachographs and keep proper records;
- You would keep records for 15 months of driver defect reports, safety inspections, routine maintenance and make them available on request;
-
Drivers would report promptly defects or symptoms of defects that could prevent the safe operation of vehicles and/or trailers & that any defects would be promptly recorded in writing.
- Since the licence was issued, there has been a material change in the circumstances of its holder, namely the company may no longer be of appropriate fitness or have sufficient financial resources to hold the licence (section 26(1)(h) of the Goods Vehicles (Licencing of Operators) Act 1995)
In terms of financial resources, despite the assurances I was given, I was unable to conclude that the Operator had sufficient financial resources to ensure they were able to maintain the vehicles in a fit and serviceable condition (the requirement under section 13D of the Act).
Assessing my Findings
I considered the findings I had made to be wide ranging. Some related to safety critical requirements and others important regulatory requirements. By the time of the roadside encounter in June 2025, the Operator had only been operating for 2 years yet had allowed his systems to fall away to the extent many were non-existent (or more likely in my assessment they had never actually been put into place despite the undertakings signed up to upon application).
Evidence of change and improved compliance was incomplete and some of the evidence presented with a view to demonstrating the required improvements highlighted continuing concerns (for example the missing brake tests on Inspections).
This disregard for the legal and regulatory requirements led to an unacceptable risk to road users and combined with my assessment that the Operator still lacked the required knowledge in many areas by the time of the Public Inquiry has led me to the inescapable conclusion that the Operator is not (or is no longer) fit to hold the licence.
Having assessed my findings, I moved on to determine what (if any) regulatory action was required.
I first asked myself the question – How likely is it that this operator will, in future, operate in compliance with the Operators’ Licensing regime? (the ‘Redsky Wholesalers’ question – 2013/086 Redsky Wholesalers Ltd). In light of the continuing areas of non-compliance, failure to provide the required evidence and concerning lack of knowledge of the regulatory regime I concluded it was unlikely.
Moving on to the ‘Priority Freight’ question [2009/225 Priority Freight Ltd & Paul Williams] – Is this an operator I can trust to be compliant in the future? I concluded the answer was no. In light of the fact the Operator has continued with areas of concern and shortcomings despite the DVSA investigations and the lack of evidence of sufficient finances I determined that I am unable to trust that he would comply in the future.
As Mr Singh confirmed that a revocation would put the company out of business, I asked myself the ‘Bryan Haulage’ question [2002/217 Bryan Haulage (No.2)] – Is the conduct such that the operator ought to be put out of business. This is always a difficult question therefore I considered all regulatory outcomes before reaching my conclusion. It was clear to me with the continuing non-compliance that taking no action was not appropriate. A curtailment would do nothing as the Operator is only operating 1 vehicle despite having authorisation for 2. I felt that the Operator had already had several months to demonstrate full compliance yet by the time of the PI there were still concerning shortcomings and a continuing lack of knowledge. For these reasons I concluded that revocation was the only regulatory outcome which would afford protection from the risks associated with this operation. For this reason, I answered the question in the affirmative.
Decision
The Restricted Goods Vehicle Operator’s Licence in the name of Lixor Sales & Marketing Limited (OH2064261) is revoked under sections 26(1)(b), 26(1)(c)(iii), 26(1)(e), 26(1)(f) & 26(1)(h) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 with effect from 12:00 noon on 26/06/2026.
Final Considerations
I carefully considered whether to order the Operator to be disqualified under section 28 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995. Whilst I have assessed the Operator to be not fit to hold the licence, it is likely many of the failings and shortcomings were caused by what Mr Singh candidly described as his lackadaisical approach. Whilst I may have some reservations, I was unable to conclude the failings and shortcomings were based on dishonest or wilful acts and in those circumstances it is not beyond the realms of possibility that if he puts his mind to matters of compliance, Mr Singh could be assessed as fit to hold a licence in the future. For these reasons I make no disqualification order under section 28 of the Act.
Rakesh Sharma
Deputy Traffic Commissioner
24/05/2026