Decision for Lorraine Wade Transport Manager
Written decision of the Deputy Traffic Commissioner for Scotland for Lorraine Wade, transport manager and driver Darren Wade
IN THE SCOTTISH TRAFFIC AREA
LORRAINE WADE, TRANSPORT MANAGER
DARREN WADE, DRIVER
DECISION OF THE DEPUTY TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER FOR SCOTLAND
Decision
Lorraine Wade is issued with a warning that her conduct as the former transport manager of DLZ, in failing to prevent Darren Wade from (1) misusing a driver card belonging to another and (2) driving without a card, was completely unacceptable. I direct that should Lorraine Wade apply to be a transport manager or to hold an operator’s licence or to be the director of a limited company, or a partner of a partnership, that applies for or holds an operator’s licence, any such application should be referred to a Traffic Commissioner to be determined after a public inquiry which would consider her conduct as the former transport manager for DLZ.
Darren Wade is not fit to hold a Large Goods Vehicle driver’s licence in terms of s. 115(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. I find that his LGV licence should be revoked and he should be disqualified from holding a LGV licence indefinitely in terms of s.117(2)(a) of the 1988 Act. I direct that the revocation and disqualification should take effect from 23:59 on 1st May 2026.
Background
Lorraine Wade was the transport manager for DLZ Continental Transport Ltd (“DLZ”) from 21 February 2022 (the date of the grant of DLZ’s Goods Vehicle Standard International Operator’s Licence). Mrs Wade was the secretary and a director of DLZ from 19 March 2021 (the date of incorporation) until 30 January 2025. Mrs Wade owned more than 75% of the shares of DLZ. Mrs Wade’s husband, Darren Wade, was a director of DLZ from 15 July 2022 to 1 January 2023, and from 30 June 2024 until 10 January 2025. DLZ was sold on or around 10 January 2025 and new directors were appointed.
Lorraine Wade is not a transport manager on any other licence.
Darren Wade was a director of DLZ at the time when he was suspected of having used another driver’s card and of driving without a card. He is not involved in any other operator’s licences. He holds a Large Goods Vehicle driver’s licence.
The Call to Public Inquiry
DLZ were called to a Public Inquiry by letter dated 15 April 2025. The issues of concern included:-
- Whether DLZ had failed to declare that a director, Darren Wade, had been involved in a company that had gone into liquidations owing money;
- Whether DLZ had observed the rules on drivers’ hours and tachographs and kept proper records (s.26(1)(f) of the Goods Vehicle (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (“the 1995 Act”);
- Whether DLZ had failed to notify the OTC of changes which affected the licence ((s.26(1)(f) of the 1995 Act)
- Whether DLZ’s transport manager, Lorraine Wade, had been exercising continuous and effective management of DLZ’s transport activities.
Lorraine Wade was called to the Public Inquiry by letter dated 15 April 2025 to consider whether she continued to meet the requirements to be of good repute and was exercising effective and continuous management of DLZ’s transport operation.
The Driver Conduct Hearing
Darren Wade was called to a driver conduct hearing, conjoined with the Public Inquiry for DLZ, by letter dated 6 May 2025. That letter included a Driver Conduct Statement prepared by Traffic Examiner Barry Wardrop.
The Public Inquiry and conjoined Driver Conduct Hearing
The Public Inquiry and conjoined Driver Conduct Hearing were held on 20 May 2025. Lorraine Wade did not attend the Public Inquiry. Lorraine Wade emailed my office on 14 May 2025. Lorraine Wade referred to the call-up letter and stated that she would not be attending the Public Inquiry. Lorraine Wade attached written representations to be considered at the Public Inquiry, which I have considered.
Darren Wade did not attend the Driver Conduct Hearing. Darren Wade emailed my office on 14 May 2025 to state that he would not be attending. Darren Wade attached written representations, which I have considered.
Traffic Examiner Barry Wardrop attended the Public Inquiry and conjoined Driver Conduct Hearing on 20 May 2025. The new owners did not attend the Public Inquiry as VOL had not been updated with the new addresses for DLZ. The PI Brief had been sent to Lorraine Wade’s address and so the new owners were not aware of the Public Inquiry. I was satisfied on the basis of the information before me in the PI Brief and TE Wardrop’s evidence that the matters that resulted in the Public Inquiry took place before the change in ownership. I therefore took no action against DLZ’s operator’s licence.
The Evidence
TE Wardrop adopted his PI Brief and the Driver Conduct Statement as his evidence. On 20 September 2024 TE Wardrop had requested information from DLZ including VU digital data and driver card data from 1 June to 31 August 2024, evidence of the system used for compliance with the Working Time Directive, infringement reports for the same period and missing mileage reports for the same period.
DLZ provided VU data for one vehicle and two drivers. When TE Wardrop visited DLZ on 18 November 2024 he discovered that DLZ did not have any systems in place to comply with the WTD and it had not generated any infringement or missing mileage reports.
TE Wardrop was advised by Lorraine Wade and Darren Wade that there were two drivers. Darren Wade was the main driver. Craig McDonald drove on an ad hoc basis. Mr McDonald was only used to drive locally to allow Darren Wade to take appropriate rest. Mr McDonald was never used to drive in England, or for international journeys or on double manned journeys with Darren Wade.
TE Wardrop’s initial suspicion was that Darren Wade had been using Mr McDonald’s driver card. TE Wardrop carried out an analysis of the vehicle unit and driver card data that showed that Mr McDonald’s driver card had been used on 30 days during the analysis period of 1 June to 16 September 2024. Mr McDonald’s driver CPC had expired on 4 December 2021.
TE Wardrop interviewed Mr McDonald on 7 January 2025. In that interview Mr McDonald stated he did runs “now and again for Darren. I hate driving…Normally it’s when he runs out of driving time and I go and collect the truck and Lorraine takes me, or sometimes it’s her dad”.
He stated that he was not paid because he was family and that he had not driven DLZ’s vehicle on those occasions. At first Mr McDonald said that he had carried out 31 days of driving for DLZ during the analysis period. When TE Wardrop explained that a number of the journeys were to England Mr McDonald changed his position and he denied ever driving to England. When he was asked if he had driven on journeys, Mr McDonald replied “No comment”. At the end of the interview TE Wardrop asked:-
“Q. have you ever carried out any of the driving on your driver card between 4th June 2024 0 16th September 2024?
A: No
Q: How did your card get into the possession of someone else?
A: I must have dropped it in the lorry.
Q: What do you mean dropped it?
A: It must have fell out of my pocket when I was in the lorry.
Q: When did you realise you didn’t have it?
A: I actually thought I had lost it.”
TE Wardrop’s analysis showed that Mr McDonald’s driver card had been used on the following days to drive to England, and, on occasions, Europe, along with Darren Wade’s driver card:-
- 4 June 2024 – ANPR showed that the vehicle had been sighted in the York area.
- 6 June 2024 and 7 June 2024 the vehicle had travelled to and from France.
- 8 June 2024 the vehicle was sighted in Luton.
- 16 June 2024 the vehicle was sighted in Northallerton.
- 17 and 18 June 2024 the vehicle was sighted in North Lanarkshire and then in Northallerton.
- 23 and 24 June 2024 the vehicle had travelled to France, the Netherlands and Belgium returning to the UK on 25 June 2024.
- 29 June 2024 the vehicle was sighted in Goole.
- 30 June 2024 the vehicle was sighted in Wakefield.
- 2 July 2024 the vehicle was sighted in Wakefield.
- 6 July 2024 the vehicle was sighted in Northallerton.
- 12 July 2024 the vehicle was sighted in Wakefield.
- 31 July 2024 the vehicle was sighted in Workington.
- 14 August 2024 the vehicle was sighted in Wakefield.
- 15 August 2024 the vehicle was sighted in Highbridge.
- 19 August 2024 the vehicle was sighted in Maidstone.
- 20 August 2024 the vehicle was sighted in Manchester.
- 25 August 2024 the vehicle was sighted in Workington.
- 1 September 2024 the vehicle was sighted in Workington.
- 4 September 2024 the vehicle was sighted in Dumfries and Galloway returning northwards.
- 6 September 2024 the vehicle was sighted on the A66 between Penrith and the junction with the A1(M).
- 9 September 2024 the vehicle was sighted in Wakefield.
- 14 September 2024 the vehicle was sighted in Wakefield.
- 16 September 2024 the vehicle was sighted in Northumberland.
Both Mr McDonald, Lorraine Wade and Darren Wade had told TE Wardrop that Mr McDonald only did local work. TE Wardrop concluded from his analysis that Darren Wade had been using Mr McDonald’s card to make 30 false records which concealed 47 drivers’ hours offences:-
- Exceed daily driving – 10 offences.
- Insufficient daily rest – 15 offences.
- Exceeding 4.5 hours driving without taking the required breaks – 11 offences.
- Exceeding 90 hours fortnightly driving – 6 offences.
- Exceeding 56 hours weekly driving – 1 offence.
- Insufficient weekly rest – 4 offences.
Some of these offences were particularly serious:-
(1) 23 -24 June 2024 Darren Wade exceeded the daily driving limit of 10 hours and drove for 21 hours 33 minutes.
(2) 25 June 2024 he failed to take a daily rest of 9 hours and took 4 hours 28 minutes, he exceeded the daily driving limit of 10 hours and drove for 16 hours 12 minutes, and he exceeded the 4 ½ hours driving without a break and drove for 6 hours 47 minutes.
(3) 30 June 2024 he failed to take a daily rest of at least 9 hours and only took a daily rest of 4 hours 55 minutes, he exceeded the 4 ½ hours driving without a break and drove for 7 hours 14 minutes.
(4) 2 July 2024 he failed to take a daily rest of 9 hours and only took 4 hours 52 minutes rest, he exceeded the daily driving of 10 hours and carried out 17 hours 45 minutes driving.
(5) 6 July 2024 he failed to take a daily rest of 9 hours and only took 7 hours 33 minutes.
(6) 18-19 August 2024 he failed to take a daily rest of 9 hours and only took 6 hours 27 minutes, he exceeded 4 ½ hours driving without a break and drove for 6 hours 9 minutes.
(7) 19-20 August 2024, the next day, he failed to take a daily rest of 9 hours and only took 5 hours 48 minutes and he exceeded the daily driving limit of 10 hours by driving for 12 hours.
(8) 23-24 August 2024 he failed to take a daily rest of 9 hours and only took 6 hours 46 minutes, and he exceeded the daily driving limit of 10 hours by driving for 12 hours 57 minutes.
TE Wardrop also investigated instances of driving without a driver card (pp132-135 of the PI Brief and pp 55-58 of the DCH Statement). He identified 18 days that were of concern. Darren Wade admitted that he had been the driver. He explained that he had not used a card when he had driven into customers’ premises to allow him to take a shower. Some of these instances were short periods of driving without a card e.g. 3 mins on 8 June 2024. In other cases the driving was for longer periods:-
- 16 minutes on 7 June 2024
- 1 hour and 16 minutes on 7 July 2024
- 17 minutes on 3 September 2024
On eight of these occasions, Darren Wade had failed to take a daily rest of at least 9 hours.
On 24 February 2025 TE Wardrop interviewed Darren Wade to discuss TE Wardrop’s findings. Darren Wade answered a few preliminary questions. When TE Wardrop moved on to ask about his suspicions that offences had been committed Darren Wade answered “no comment” to all the questions and terminated the interview before TE Wardrop had finished asking about all of the potential offences.
On the same day TE Wardrop interviewed Lorraine Wade. Lorraine Wade confirmed that she had told TE Wardrop that Mr McDonald had only driven locally to help when Darren Wade was out of time, that he had never driven abroad or in England and that double manning had never happened. When Lorraine Wade was asked about TE Wardrop’s suspicions that offences had been committed by Darren Wade she replied “no comment” to all of his questions.
Lorraine Wade’s written representations did not address TE Wardrop’s concerns that Darren Wade had been using Mr McDonald’s card and that Darren Wade had been driving without using a driver card, in both cases in order to conceal offences. Her only comment was:-
“…Finally, I must express my deep concern at being accused of dishonesty by Mr Wardrop. This was not only unfounded but also personally distressing. Such character judgments are inappropriate and unprofessional, especially when made without evidence…”
Darren Wade’s written representations did not address TE Wardrop’s concerns that Darren Wade had been using Mr McDonald’s card and that Darren Wade had been driving without using a driver card, in both cases
to conceal drivers’ hours offences.
Findings of fact
I have no hesitation in agreeing with TE Wardrop’s conclusion that Darren Wade had made a false record on 30 occasions, concealing 47 drivers’ hours offences for the reasons that follow.
Mr McDonald’s final position at interview was that he had not done any of the driving in question. I find that his final position was the truth. His final position is supported by the fact that on 23 occasions Mr McDonald’s card had been in the vehicle when it been sighted in England or Europe, however Mr McDonald, Darren Wade and Lorraine Wade all confirmed to TE Wardrop that Mr McDonald had not driven in England or Europe.
TE Wardrop’s investigation was thorough. He identified patterns of driving and quick changeovers of Mr McDonald’s card and Darren Wade’s card that strongly suggested that Darren Wade had been using Mr McDonald’s card to create false entries and to conceal drivers’ hours offences. His conclusions were supported by the digital data. I find it significant that neither Lorraine Wade nor Darren Wade offered any criticism of TE Wardrop’s analysis nor any alternative explanation in their written representations.
I find that Darren Wade’s misuse of Mr McDonald’s card on 30 occasions, concealing 47 offences (as detailed in para. 18 above) means that it is reasonable to infer that, on the balance of probabilities, Darren Wade drove on at least 8 occasions when he had not taken sufficient rest, that he would have been fatigued as a result, and therefore he would have been an actual danger to other road users. While the other occasions might not have resulted in actual danger to other road users, failing to take mandatory rests did create a risk of danger to other road users. It also resulted in Darren Wade having a competitive advantage as he was able to drive for longer than compliant drivers.
Darren Wade admitted driving without a card on 18 occasions. While most of these occasions were periods of between three and eight minutes, on three occasions the driving was for 16 minutes, 17 minutes and 1 hour and 16 minutes. Darren Wade should have used his driver card on each and every occasion. The failure to record the three longer periods of driving is particularly serious. I need to decide if the driving without a card was deliberate or if it was done without intent to deceive. Obviously I do not have Darren Wade’s evidence from the DCH as he did not attend, but I do have Darren Wade’s statement to TE Wardrop:-
“He stated these instances were carried out by him, driving into premises to allow him to take a shower. He stated he would have parked within proximity to the customers premises and driven into the yard.”
In Darren Wade’s written representations, he stated that the missing mileage was when he should have used his card for “Out of Scope” activities such as using the toilet or having a shower at collection points. That does not account for or explain why the vehicle was being driven without a card in it. If Darren Wade was using the toilet ,or having a shower, then obviously the vehicle would not have been moving. The shorter periods of missing mileage might be explained by him having “pulled” his card when he got to the collection point and then moving the vehicle without a card, which might be done without intent to deceive. However, that would not explain the longer periods of 16 minutes, 17 minutes and particularly 1 hour and 15 minutes driving without a card. In deciding whether or not to the driving without a card was deliberate or without intent to deceive I am entitled to take into account the following: (1) I have found that Darren Wade has dishonestly used Mr McDonald’s driver card on 30 occasions, (2) Darren Wade did this in order to conceal driving offences, and (3) Darren Wade has chosen not to attend the DCH. These factors lead me to conclude that Darren Wade is not trustworthy. I consider that the evidence that has been produced by TE Wardrop means that Darren Wade needs to explain why he should be believed when he says that he did not intend to deceive when he drove without a card. I do not accept Darren Wade’s explanation as I do not believe it.
Further, when TE Wardrop analysed the data for the 18 days he found 8 occasions when Darren Wade had failed to take a daily rest of at least 9 hours:-
- 7 June 2024 – 6 hours 42 minutes of daily rest
- 7 July 2024 – 7 hours 33 minutes of daily rest
- 11 July 2024 – 3 hours 27 minutes of daily rest
- 19 August 2024 – 4 hours 6 minutes of daily rest
- 27-28 August 2024 – 7 hours 31 minutes of daily rest
- 4 September 2024 – 8 hours of daily rest
- 10 September 2024 – 8 hours 17 minutes of daily rest
- 17 September 2024 – 7 hours 41 minutes of daily rest
The daily rests of 3 hours 27 minutes and 4 hours 6 minutes are particularly concerning. I find it reasonable to infer that, on the balance of probabilities, Darren Wade drove on numerous occasions when he had not taken sufficient rest, that he would have been fatigued as a result, and therefore he would have been an actual danger to other road users. While the other occasions might not have resulted in actual danger to other road users, failing to take mandatory rests did create a risk of danger to other road users. It also resulted in Darren Wade having a competitive advantage as he was able to drive for longer than compliant drivers.
I find, therefore, on the balance of probabilities Darren Wade had been using Mr McDonald’s card to create false records and to conceal offences. I also find that Darren Wade had been driving without a card, again to conceal offences. I find that that he drove when he was fatigued causing an actual risk to other road users. I find that when he drove on other occasions there was a potential risk to other road users because Darren Wade may have been fatigued. Darren Wade’s motivation to commit these offences was to benefit the business of which he and his wife, Lorraine Wade, were directors and owners.
This was a small operation involving only one vehicle and one driver, Darren Wade. Lorraine Wade was Darren Wade’s wife. She was a director at the time of the offences along with Darren Wade. Her representations do not deal with the serious allegations that were made against her. She does not offer, for example, any explanation of how these offences might have been carried out without her knowledge. I do not believe that she can have been ignorant of what was going on. I find that, on the balance of probabilities, Lorraine Wade was aware of Darren Wade’s use of Mr McDonald’s card and of his driving without a card. As a transport manager she should have prevented him from doing so. In failing to do so she breached the trust that I need to have that transport managers will prevent drivers from breaching the rules about drivers’ hours and tachographs. It is reasonable to infer that she did not prevent Darren Wade’s behaviour because it was in her commercial interests.
Lorraine Wade refused to attend the Public Inquiry. She did not give any adequate reason for failing to attend. I did not have, therefore, the benefit of her evidence. I consider that her failure to attend was a deliberate act of non-cooperation with the Office of the Traffic Commissioner.
Darren Wade refused to attend the Driver Conduct Hearing. He did not give any adequate reason for failing to attend. I did not have, therefore, the benefit of his evidence. I consider that his failure to attend was a deliberate act of non-cooperation with the Office of the Traffic Commissioner.
Findings in relation to Lorraine Wade, transport manager
Lorraine Wade is no longer a transport manager on any licence. I do not have the power to find that she has lost her repute and to disqualify her from acting as a transport manager in terms of Paragraph 16(2) of Schedule 3 of the 1995 Act (see 2018/38 Stephen John Lambie affirming 2017/38 J & K Environmental Services Ltd and Liliana Monole (No. 2)).
However, I do have the power to issue a warning that Lorraine Wade’s conduct as the former transport manager was unacceptable. I direct that should Lorraine Wade apply to be a transport manager or to hold an operator’s licence or to be the director of a limited company, or a partner of a partnership, that applies for or holds an operator’s licence, any such application should be referred to a Traffic Commissioner to be determined after a public inquiry which would consider her conduct as the former transport manager for DLZ.
If I had the power to make such a finding I would have had no hesitation in finding that her knowledge of Darren Wade’s flouting of the drivers’ hours rules, and her failure to co-operate with me by refusing to attend the Public Inquiry, would have meant that it would have been proportionate to find that she had lost her repute. In those circumstances I would have disqualified her from acting as a transport manager for a long or indefinite period with reference to regard to Stat. Doc 3 and in particular para. 53.
Findings in relation to Darren Wade
Darren Wade’s creation of false tachographs and driving without a card gives rise to the question of whether Darren Wade, is fit to hold of a Large Goods Vehicle driver’s licence in terms of s.115 and 117 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. If I find that Darren Wade is not fit to hold a LGV driver’s licence I need to consider if his licence should be suspended or revoked in terms of s.116(2) of the 1988 Act.
I have had regard to Statutory Document no. 6 Vocational Driver Conduct and in particular Annex A.
Annex A recommends as an entry point for deliberately driving without a card “4 -week suspension per offence up to 6 offences & revoke and disqualify for 12 months for more than 6 offences”. It refers to Case Example 20. Where driving without a card was without intent to deceive it suggests “1 week suspension per offence up to 6 offences & revoke and disqualify for 12 months for more than 6 offences.”
Annex A recommends as an entry point for use of a digicard belonging to another “Revoke and disqualify for 12 months for a single offence – longer for 2 or more offences”. It refers to Case Examples 21, 22 and 23. Although Case Examples 21 and 22 involve the use of a magnet, the use of another person’s driver card is regarded as being as serious as the use of a magnet (see Case Example 23).
I have considered Annex C: Examples of Aggravating and Mitigating Features. In this case the aggravating features are: (1) offending resulted in actual and potential fatigue resulting in undue risk to road safety; (2) the offences were numerous, (3) there was deliberate falsification of tachograph records; (4) the offences were committed over a sustained period of time; (5) the offences were carried out in order to benefit the business that he and his wife were directors of and (6) Darren Wade chose not to co-operate with me by refusing to attend the DCH.
The mitigating factors are: (1) Darren Wade does not have any previous convictions; (2) there has been no repetition since; and (3) in his written representations he stated that he had been under considerable emotional and mental strain at the time of the offences because of family circumstances.
I have to consider the weight that I attach to each factor. I have to make a judgement embracing the whole of Darren Wade’s conduct as a driver (see paras 60-61). I have to consider whether the conduct should result in revocation and disqualification, or if a lesser sanction might be a more proportionate response (para. 64). I am entitled to consider a longer period of disqualification where there has been the use of another driver’s digicard (para. 65). I am entitled to set down a marker regarding deterrence (para. 66)
I have had regard to paras 94-96:-
“Drivers’ hours (EC & domestic) / working time and tachograph offences”
The drivers’ hours, working time and tachograph rules assist in keeping the public safe when using public roads and it is always serious when a deliberate false record is made by a vocational driver.
The Court of Appeal has confirmed that it is appropriate in principle to pass a custodial sentence of significant length for offences related to falsifying records which involve the use of commercial vehicles on the roads in a way that concerns public safety and has potentially serious consequences. The concealment of evidence required for effective regulation of drivers’ hours should therefore result in a traffic commissioner taking a very serious view.
Traffic commissioners are likely to regard the falsification as more serious than the offence that it may be designed to conceal. Those who commit offences of this kind must understand that there will be serious consequences if and when the matter comes to light. A cumulative and significant period of disqualification which reflects the offence that has been subject to concealment, the falsification of records and/or use of a manipulation device, is the likely outcome. Subsequent conduct is also likely to be of limited weight.
Darren Wade chose not to attend the DCH. I do not, therefore, have any information about the effect that any sanction would have on Darren Wade. I consider that I am entitled to infer from the information available to me that Darren Wade will suffer financial hardship if he cannot drive LGVs.
I agree with the guidance provided in paras 95 and 96. Although Darren Wade has no prior record of driver’s hours offences these are serious matters. I attach little weight to the fact that there has been no subsequent offending. Similarly, I attach little weight to the fact that family circumstances (which are not explained) caused him to be under emotional and mental strain at the time of the offences. I am entitled to lay down a marker that these offences cannot be tolerated.
This is a case in which the aggravating factors clearly outweigh the mitigating factors. I find that Darren Wade is not fit to hold a Large Goods Vehicle driver’s licence in terms of s.115(1)(b).
I note that Annex A suggests a starting point for 2 or more offences of using a digicard belonging to another of revocation and disqualification for 12 months. Darren Wade used Mr McDonald’s card 30 times. In addition, Darren Wade’s misuse of Mr McDonald’s card concealed 47 drivers’ hours offences.
Annex A suggests a starting point for deliberate driving without a card of revocation and disqualification for 12 months for more than 6 offences. Where the driving without a card was without intent to deceive it suggests the same - revocation and disqualification for 12 months for more than 6 offences. Darren Wade deliberately drove without a card on 18 occasions.
Darren Wade’s misuse of Mr McDonald’s card to disguise the commission of offences is particularly serious. On at least 8 occasions Darren Wade would have driven while fatigued, causing an actual danger to other road users. Flouting the requirements to take appropriate rest would have created a risk of danger to other road users and enabled Darren Wade to drive for longer than compliant drivers, thus giving him an unfair competitive advantage. I have concluded that Darren Wade cannot be trusted to comply with the rules and regulations relating to driver’s hours and tachographs. He has shown that he is unwilling to co-operate with the DVSA, in his dealings with TE Wardrop, and with me, by his failure to attend the DCH.
In these circumstances although Darren Wade states that he was under emotional and mental strain because of family circumstances, and Darren Wade may suffer financial hardship if he cannot drive LGVs, these carry little weight. These are very serious matters. I am entitled to send out a message that Darren Wade’s behaviour cannot be tolerated. I am entitled to deter others from thinking that they might behave in a similar way. I need to take account of the fact that Darren Wade obtained a competitive advantage over other compliant drivers. I am satisfied that Darren Wade has demonstrated that he should not be allowed to drive large goods vehicles in the future. I find that Darren Wade’s licence should be revoked in terms of s.116(2) of the 1988 Act and that he should be disqualified from holding a large goods vehicle driver’s licence indefinitely in terms of s. 117(2)(a) of the 1988 Act. If I did not do so, I consider that the regulatory regime would be brought into dispute: others might think “if he can get away with it why should I bother complying?”.
Decision
I issue a warning to Lorraine Wade that her conduct as the former transport manager was unacceptable. I direct that should Lorraine Wade apply to be a transport manager or to hold an operator’s licence or to be the director of a limited company, or a partner of a partnership, that applies for or holds an operator’s licence, any such application should be referred to a Traffic Commissioner to be determined after a public inquiry which would consider her conduct as the former transport manager for DLZ.
I find that Darren Wade is not fit to hold a Large Goods Vehicle driver’s licence in terms of s. 115(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. I find that his LGV licence should be revoked and he should be disqualified from holding a LGV licence indefinitely in terms of s.117(2)(a) of the 1988 Act. I direct that the revocation and disqualification should take effect from 23:59 on 1st May 2026, in case Darren Wade choses to appeal against my decision, as he is entitled to do so in terms of s.119 of the 1988 Act.
Hugh J. Olson
Deputy Traffic Commissioner for Scotland
6 February 2026