Decision for LZtrans Limited OM2041945
Confirmation of the Deputy Traffic Commissioner's decision in the Scottish Traffic Area.
IN THE SCOTTISH TRAFFIC AREA
LZTRANS LIMITED – OM2041945
AND
LUKASZ WOJCIECH ZUZIAK – TRANSPORT MANAGER
CONFIRMATION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER’S DECISION
Decision
The licence is permanently curtailed to 10 vehicles.
The repute of Transport Manager Lukasz Wojciech Zuziak is tarnished but not lost.
The operator undertakes to:
- Use only employed drivers, from a date 4 months from the date of the hearing by 29/09/2026.
- Engage the services of a transport consultant who will assist the operator in establishing systems, policies, and record keeping to ensure and demonstrate compliance.
- Engage an external body to conduct an audit of the operation’s compliance, and for the report and any action plan to be sent to this office within 6 months, by 30/11/2026.
Background
Mr Lukasz Zuziak (Director and Transport Manager) and Mr Maciej Kucharczyk (Director) appeared at public inquiry. Mr Zuziak was also called in his capacity as Transport Manager. This is a haulage business with authorisation for 12 vehicles and 12 trailers. There are 8 vehicles in possession. I was presented with a 3-page letter at or around 10am. I allowed that to be received, although late, and took into account its contents.
Case Management Compliance
This was a prime example of a hearing where compliance with the case management directions, frustratingly, required to be dealt with first. Essentially, DVSA had been unable to prepare a proper pre-PI report because the operator did not produce the requested raw data for tacho/drivers cards. Their position was that they had sent the DVSA’s request to their contact at Aquarius – the system they use for monitoring drivers’ hours and other matters. What was produced was not raw data, but a report. I do not consider this to be a deliberate attempt to deceive, but nor was it acceptable since it was not what DVSA had asked for. The operator cannot devolve case management requirements to its service providers. It was the operator’s duty to have proper regard to the directions and to assure itself that these had been met. It was a breach of the directions, and it is a failing which I note against the operator. However, as noted, it was not a dishonest failing and I do not give it more weight than that of an aggravation to what I find below.
Financial Standing
I consider that financial standing is met. It is right that a [REDACTED] facility is in place, but the available balance is also generally quite high, and the monthly snapshots tend to put the operator well above the required threshold. Further, [REDACTED] has been spent on maintenance this year. I can therefore have comfort that those funds that may be required will actually be available and spent on maintenance or other safety-critical investments.
Drivers Hours and Management
The present hearing was essentially sparked by a driver being stopped who was not recording other work and who had an infringement of working over 4.5 hours.
A problem noted in the follow up assessment was that there was no proper policies or system for drivers’ discipline or hours. This is not acceptable.
As a matter of practicality, attention is apparently paid to these matters. Drivers are to download their card every week. Mr Zuziak reviews these via Aquarius. If there are infringements then he uses the debrief module of that software. Drivers are required to sign the infringement report on their phone. Mr Zuziak telephones and warns a driver not to breach their permitted working hours. A driver was recently fired for repeat infringements, who had been with the company for a short time.
I consider that a broadly appropriate approach is in place. However, the lack of records and written systems is a real, not technical, failing. Systems ensure consistent compliance. A lack of them invites the process to fail under pressure. As was seen by the infringement identified against the stopped driver, the system is plainly not working as it should.
What currently may be fairly described as the best of intentions urgently requires to be formalised and supported with a written policy, along with an acceptable system of record keeping.
Mr Zuziak accepts he does not have good record keeping for his disciplinary warnings. He tells me that last week a driver went over his driving time on a trip to Chelmsford. The driver phoned Mr Zuziak and alerted him. Mr Zuziak phoned the customer and arranged for a trailer to be swapped so the driver can have his break. This was the right thing to do, but I have nothing before me to demonstrate the guidance given to that driver, or why he ended up over-time.
It was said in evidence that if the licence continues the operator is going to employ someone to provide administrative support. That, on its own, may be helpful but will not be sufficient to achieve acceptable compliance.
Mr Zuziak intends to undertake his Refresher CPC but this is on pause as a result of the current inquiry. He undertakes online training and tries to keep up to date weekly with the communications from the relevant trade bodies.
Driver Walkaround Checks
Again, a significant problem here is record keeping and a lack of written policies. This is – again – a real problem, because it is heavily based on Mr Zuziak’s personal involvement, and does not provide any obvious means to check whether drivers have carried out these checks properly.
The drivers are to record 15 minutes for checks on the trailer and the same period for the truck. It is plain that this is not always happening, or if it is, is not being recorded. The drivers phone Mr Zuziak immediately and the faults are not recorded. There is no policy in place for wheel and tyre checks. A tyre maintenance firm attends at the yard and checks the tyres, but this does not seem to be systematised. Nonetheless, vehicles are being checked and faults dealt with. At worse, this could be considered a haphazard approach, and at best might be described as ad hoc. Of course, an approach that lacks systems or policies generally requires more attention from the operator and is more prone to breaking down. An organised approach will therefore help this business rather than presenting an administrative burden.
The current process now needs to be supported by written policies, systems that do not rely solely on Mr Zuziak, and proper record keeping.
Inductions and licence checks
New drivers are inducted. Mr Zuziak meets them in the yard to explain the yard rules, the office rules, load security, pick up and delivery rules, and tachograph duties. If the driver is relatively inexperienced Mr Zuziak sits in the cab for an assessment.
Mr Zuziak checks the licence every three months. This, mercifully, is recorded, though none were produced. The operator creates a PDF for each driver with CPC, driving licence and offences data. This is a solid record, but – again – was not before me.
Because of the lack of documentary evidence, I had to place more weight on whether I found the witnesses credible and reliable. I did. I thought that they were earnest about running a safe operation, but require to seriously re-evaluate the formality and professionalism of their systems, policies and record keeping.
There are clear breaches of s26(1)(f) of the 1995 Act, in that Rules on drivers hours and tachographs have not been properly observed; and drivers are not making reports of defects in writing.
Driver employment status
I had very serious concerns about the current practice of engaging the drivers through their own limited companies. This practice has the potential to undermine effective control, but it certainly undermines fair competition.
As a starting point, the RHA’s own guidance tells us that where the drivers are not owner-operators, such an engagement is not likely to be “self employment”. Similarly, in my view, it is not likely to be employment by the limited company. These matters will always be fact-specific, but in my view, the present arrangement is simply a front designed to disguise a normal employment situation.
I had regard to the case of Bridgestep Limited [2020] UKUT 0121 (AAC). In that case the Upper Tribunal set out (emphasis added):
“.25. Turning then to the employment status of the drivers, whilst the Appellants now rely upon documents showing that many LGV drivers classify themselves as self-employed within the UK, that information is of little assistance without an analysis as to which sectors of the industry those drivers are deployed, for example, how many are employed in parcel delivery? The legitimacy or otherwise of a driver’s self-employment status is fact specific and as the Factsheet produced by the RHA on self-employment contained within the bundle makes clear:
“Unless they are an owner-driver, it is very rare for a lorry driver to be legally “self-employed”.
The company’s drivers in this instance were not owner-drivers and the clauses in the contract which were designed to give the drivers a degree of control over the vehicles provided to the drivers by the company and over their work, for example, by being entitled to provide another driver as a substitute, were fundamentally undermined by the Driver’s Handbook. We repeat, there is nothing before the Tribunal to confirm that the arrangement between the company and its drivers was compliant with the HMRC guidelines. In his witness statement, Mr Bridge avers that he was aware of legal issues in relation to the arrangement the company had with the drivers as a result of a number of “blue chip” companies enquiring as to whether the company was “HMRC compliant”. This was in 2018. Paragraph 21(a) above summarises Mr Bridge’s evidence as to the company’s response to those inquiries. It was unsatisfactory.
.26. We are satisfied that the TC’s determinations about the company’s arrangements with its drivers are beyond criticism. This was a bad case in which the company and transport manager had made a conscious decision to enter into an arrangement with the company’s drivers which was highly questionable if not a sham. The reasons for doing so were anti-competitive being as they were, concerned solely with the cost of employing the drivers and by reducing that cost, gaining a competitive advantage over other compliant operators. Whilst the vast majority of new operations make the right decision to employ their drivers, paying national insurance, pension contributions, holiday and sickness entitlement, these Appellants did not do so. The consequence of that decision was that the company and the transport manager felt unable to give any instruction to drivers whether it be in relation to route planning or otherwise and as a consequence, were unable to have continuous and effective management of the transport operation. That is plain and obvious from the contract of services that was later provided to the TC with some of the clauses set out in paragraph 13 above. In short, the company and transport manager had abdicated their responsibility for ensuring that the transport operation was compliant and safe in order to save money. This was the real mischief that was revealed during the public inquiry.
As with Bridgestep, the drivers were not owner-operators. They were, in my view, plainly treated as employees. They had no ability to delegate their duties, nor to dictate their working patterns. They drove routes and followed the direction of the operator. Indeed, Mr Zuziak spoke of “firing” a driver over repeated infringements.
A public inquiry is not a legal test for operators, and only a limited amount can turn on a single turn of phrase, but I consider that being able to “fire” a driver reinforces my concern that the drivers are essentially employees, and the limited companies are merely a device to reduce costs including income tax, national insurance, pension contributions, sickness and holiday pay. It is, as the UT noted in Bridgestep, anti-competitive. Most operators “make the right decision” and employ drivers properly. If the UT considers that this is the “right” way, then creating a device in the way I have found this operator to have done must be the “wrong” way. Nothing turns on the distinction between self-employment and employment via a limited company. They are equivalent measures to unfairly reduce overheads.
During the hearing I put the operator on notice that I was seriously concerned about this arrangement, and whether – especially given the UT’s guidance in Bridgestep – I could allow a licence to continue where I considered that the engagement of drivers was a) simply a front, designed as a tax and overhead reduction strategy, b) that undermines fair competition, and c) was impliedly described by the UT as the “wrong” approach.
I was mindful that any undertakings must be given freely, and that an operator cannot be cajoled or pressured into giving one. However, I also considered that it was essential for procedural fairness for me to give the unrepresented operator a clear indication that the licence may well be at very serious risk of revocation if no change was offered. I allowed two adjournments for the operator’s directors to discuss matters in private, in order to reduce the potential that they felt unfairly pressured within a Public Inquiry to offer an undertaking in this regard.
In the event, and with some clear regret, the operator offered to move to a system of employing drivers (“the right decision” per the UT). They anticipate many drivers will leave their employ (or, as the operator might well have it, would cease to offer the services of their limited company to the operator). I therefore allowed the operator 4 months from the date of the hearing to achieve that.
Balancing Exercise
The poor record keeping, lack of policies, general informality of systems, and the employment of drivers via limited companies accumulate to a serious set of failings.
I considered whether this operation was so deficient that it should be put out of business (2002/217 Bryan Haulage). In my view, the answer to that is no. In mitigation to the failings are appropriate undertakings to remedy them, a lack of any deliberate dishonesty, no evidence of safety critical defects, and a willingness to bring the operation up to compliance.
I also considered the question posed by the appellate Tribunal in 2009/225 Priority Freight, namely how likely the operator is to comply in future. There will be an audit carried out and the report sent to me, so that offers comfort in terms of this test. In addition, I found the operator’s directors to be straightforward. They did not always agree with what I put to them, and I did not get any impression that they were simply paying lip service to compliance. They accepted the need to change, and their progress towards acceptable change will be supported by a transport consultant and monitored by an audit.
Undertakings
The operator undertakes to:
- Use only employed drivers, from a date 4 months from the date of the hearing by 29/09/2026.
- Engage the services of a transport consultant who will assist the operator in establishing systems, policies, and record keeping to ensure and demonstrate compliance.
- Engage an external body to conduct an audit of the operation’s compliance, and for the report and any action plan to be sent to this office within 6 months, by 30/11/2026.
Disposal
As a result of the lack of proper written systems and policies, I permanently curtail the licence to 10 vehicles, an action which I am told will not bring business-threatening financial hardship. This action stops the operation from expanding without further authorisation. I consider it to be proportional and appropriate given the serious failings.
I stepped back from stronger regulatory action given the undertakings offered. Naturally, if these are not adhered to, or the audit demonstrates poor compliance, this licence will be at plain risk of revocation in the future. I also decided the repute of Transport Manager Lukasz Wojciech Zuziak is tarnished but not lost.
KT Young
Deputy Traffic Commissioner for Scotland
19 June 2026