Decision for M&M Catering Supplies Ltd (OH2061924)
Written decision of the Deputy Traffic Commissioner in the West of England for M&M Catering Supplies Ltd
IN THE WESTERN TRAFFIC AREA
M&M CATERING SUPPLIES LTD (OH2061924)
WRITTEN DECISION OF THE DEPUTY TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER
Decision
Restricted Goods Vehicle Operator’s Licence held by M&M Catering Supplies Ltd to be revoked under sections 26(1)(e), 26(1)(f) and 26(1)(h) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 with effect from 01 August 2026.
Director Mr Sert is disqualified from holding or obtaining an operator’s licence in any traffic area within Great Britain for a period of 12 months from 01 August 2026 under section 28 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995.
Background
The company M&M Catering Supplies Ltd had previously held a restricted goods vehicle operator’s licence (OH1013000) until 07/11/2022, the details of which are relevant to this licence and Inquiry.
Following a history of overloading offences, the company was called to a public inquiry on 29/09/2022. It was established at the Inquiry that the company had only been operating light goods vehicles up to 3.5t since 2018.
The outcome of that public inquiry was that the company was given a formal warning. The company also provided undertakings that a 7.5t vehicle would be added to the licence before October 2022 and that all authorised vehicles (including the light goods vehicles) would be fitted with onboard weighing systems.
By October 2022 the company had failed to register a vehicle of 7.5t or more therefore the OTC sent a propose to revoke letter on 04/11/2022. The company then failed to pay the continuation fee for the licence, so the revocation was not actioned as the license lapsed and ended under the ‘continuation not sought’ process.
The company did apply to the Traffic Commissioner to accept a late fee however this was refused therefore on 15/12/2022 the company applied for a new restricted goods vehicle licence which was granted with an additional undertaking that all authorised vehicles would be fitted with onboard weighing systems. The licence started on 07/02/2023 and authorises 4 vehicles. It is this licence to which this public inquiry relates. For this reason, from this point onwards, I shall refer to the company as the operator.
On 07/08/2024 vehicle CA66 HPO operated by the operator had a roadside encounter with the DVSA. An S-Marked prohibition was issued for tyre defects and an inoperative lamp. This caused a maintenance investigation to be commenced by DVSA which was carried out on 02/09/2024.
The maintenance investigation revealed multiple failings and consequently the operator was called to a public inquiry. I note at this stage that although this was the first public inquiry under licence OH2061924, it was the second public inquiry in so many years for the company.
At the public inquiry, Traffic Commissioner Mr Rooney found issues with overloading of LGV’s, 2 seriously damaged tyres, vehicle emissions light on, 100% MOT failure rate and some LGVs were presented for MOT in a dangerous condition.
The licence was allowed to continue with a statement of intent by the director that the light goods vehicles would be inspected every 8 weeks to the same standard as the HGV and driver defect reporting will also apply to the LGVs.
Additional undertakings were also accepted including the continuation of the services of a transport consultant, the LGVs to be replaced with newer vehicles and an independent audit of maintenance and loading or HGVs and LGVs to be carried out by the end of July 2025.
I note Mr Rooney warned the director that compliance must be close to perfect for him to retain the license should he come ‘on the radar’ again.
Upon receipt of the audit on 21/07/2025, the Traffic Commissioner was not satisfied as there remained multiple failings therefore a direction was made for a follow up audit to be conducted.
The follow up audit was received on 31/03/2026. The audit showed many failings remained, some of which had been highlighted previously. For this reason, the Traffic Commissioner called the operator to a public inquiry. I note here that this was to be the 2nd public inquiry for licence OH2061924 and the 3rd for the company in a period of less than 4 years.
The Call to Public Inquiry
The call up letter dated 13/05/2026 was sent to the Operator and specified 3 main areas which the Traffic Commissioner wished to be satisfied of in relation to the operator as follows:
-
The following statements you 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):
- that your vehicles would be inspected at the 6-week intervals you promised they would be;
-
You have not honoured the undertakings you signed up to when you applied for your licence (section 26(1)(f) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995), namely:
- that your vehicles [and trailers] would be kept fit and serviceable;
- 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 (section 26(1)(h) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995).
The Operator was also informed that the Traffic Commissioner was concerned the operator may have insufficient financial resources to keep the vehicles maintained in a fit and serviceable condition therefore they were required to show evidence of finances over the preceding 3 months. I note that the letter erroneously states the operator should show access to an average of £6,500 over that period (the correct figure for a restricted licence authorising 4 vehicles being £8,200).
The Public Inquiry
The Public Inquiry was scheduled to be held in the Tribunal room at the Office of the Traffic Commissioner, Jubilee House, Croydon Street, Bristol, BS5 0GB on 01/07/2026, starting at 10:30.
Prior to the public inquiry, the operator had served evidence of finances as required together with some written submissions. I noted the financial evidence showed an average of £4,270 available over the required period.
The director Mr Sert attended in good time for the hearing. He was not legally or professionally represented.
The Evidence
After introducing the hearing and explaining the process, I explained that I would consider the evidence I had read and any evidence given orally by Mr Sert before reaching my decisions. I also explained that the burden was on me to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities of any breaches of the requirements, undertakings and legislation.
I questioned Mr Sert on the shortcomings highlighted in both independent audits, paying particular attention on those matters which appeared in both (and therefore did not appear to have been resolved).
I was particularly concerned about the following issues:
- Vehicles not being inspected within the specified period.
- Driver detectable defects present with no DDR form or record.
- Defects present on vehicle WX23 TCO in both audits.
- A missed manufacturer safety recall on FJ22 UYC
- LGVs not being inspected as per the undertaking
- Director lacks evidence of formal training.
Mr Sert explained that he had held goods vehicle operators’ licences for 29 years, he had good knowledge of the industry and compliance and in any event the shortcomings were not serious. Mr Sert also explained that he now had additional compliance support.
I explained that a number of serious shortcomings had been identified and not rectified. His compliance record did not demonstrate good knowledge, and I noted that he had the compliance support prior to the audits and it did not appear to have made any difference.
Mr Sert explained that following the last public inquiry he had moved to digital recording systems however these did not always work owing to connection or software issues. When challenged as to why he did not keep manual paper records in such circumstances he assured me he would do so in future.
I asked him about the missed safety inspection for the HGV, and he explained this was around Christmas time when the maintenance provider closed for the festive period and was unable to do the inspection until after New Year. I was not persuaded by this explanation, explaining that Christmas and New Year occur at the same time every year therefore some proper forward planning would avoid this.
In terms of missing DDR’s and vehicles presented in unroadworthy condition, Mr Sert explained that sometimes defects occur that day whilst the vehicle is in use. He also explained that the drivers of the light goods vehicles had less experience of inspections.
On the subject of light goods vehicles, I asked Mr Sert why they had not been inspected in accordance with the statement of intent. Mr Sert explained that the maintenance provider had informed him it was not necessary, particularly in relation to brake testing. I reminded him of the statement of intent which he accepted however he explained this would be expensive to uphold.
I asked Mr Sert about each of the shortcomings and reasons why improvements had not been made. I was unimpressed with the responses and formed the view that Mr Sert either thought he knew best or that he simply disregarded undertakings and requirements.
I then moved on to training and Mr Sert informed me he had paid a transport manager £400 for half a day’s training therefore he did not require any further training. He impressed upon me that he was very experienced and had learned his lessons.
I was again, unimpressed with his attitude towards the requirements and had to remind him that lessons had clearly not been learned as this was the 3rd public inquiry he had attended.
I finally asked Mr Sert about the finances and had to explain the requirement to have access to the specified funds. Mr Sert explained that the business was solvent and he had no difficulty accessing the funds despite the evidence not showing this. I asked where these funds were and he explained he had personal funds from other businesses he could use although he accepted there was no evidence of that before me.
Findings of fact
Taking account of the written evidence and the operator’s oral evidence, I found the following breaches were proved on the balance of probability:
-
The following statements made when applying for the licence were not fulfilled (section 26(1)(e) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995):
-
that vehicles would be inspected at the 6-week intervals you promised they would be;
-
The operator had not honoured the undertakings signed up to when the licence was applied for (section 26(1)(f) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995), namely:
- that vehicles [and trailers] would be kept fit and serviceable;
-
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 (section 26(1)(h) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995), specifically I was not satisfied that the provision of the facilities and arrangements for maintaining the vehicles in a fit and serviceable condition was not prejudiced by reason of the applicant’s having insufficient financial resources for that purpose.
Decision & Reasons
I considered the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document 10 and found there to be several factors which increased the seriousness of this case which included:
- Ineffective management control.
- Ineffective or insufficient driver training with insufficient or ineffective monitoring and disciplinary procedures in place.
- Insufficient evidence of effective changes made to ensure future compliance.
- Road safety critical defects on any vehicle or trailer in service or any “S” marked prohibition
- Low average MOT pass rates.
- Evidence of previous unsatisfactory maintenance investigations, and public inquiries.
I found the only one of the suggested positive features listed in Statutory Document 10 to apply was the operator’s compliance with the investigation.
I next considered the seriousness of the case and concluded that in light of the number of negative features and in particular the previous public inquiries and failure to implement changes this was a severe to serious case.
I therefore went on to consider whether the operator could be trusted to run a compliant operation in the future (The ‘Priority Freight’ question [2009/225 Priority Freight Ltd & Paul Williams]). Considering this was Mr Sert’s 3rd attendance at public inquiry in less than 4 years and similar shortcomings had been identified across 2 recent audits; I concluded that the answer was no.
Before concluding on the outcome, I carefully considered whether a curtailment of the licence to 1 vehicle would suffice as the level of available finances would support 1 vehicle however I concluded this would not be sufficient for 2 reasons. Firstly the operator would have to have available finances to maintain his 3 light goods vehicles (notwithstanding they do not appear on the licence) and secondly any such curtailment would not reduce the requirements or regulatory burden on the operator as they are currently only operating 1 HGV and the shortcomings arose whilst they were operating 1 HGV.
For these reasons I concluded that the operators’ license OH2061924 held by M&M Catering Supplies Ltd should be revoked.
I next considered the issue of disqualification of Mr Sert under section 28 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995. I considered the evidence of Mr Sert who told me that he needed to operate his 7.5t vehicle to carry on the business however I was not persuaded by this as he has previously run his operation with only the smaller LGV’s. I am not persuaded that the revocation shall necessarily bring the business to an end.
For this reason, my answer to the Bryan Haulage’ question [2002/217 Bryan Haulage (No.2)] – Is the conduct such that the operator ought to be put out of business? Was less important. Whilst I concluded that in light of the compliance history and repeated nature of the shortcomings, I would likely answer this ‘yes’, I was not convinced that the revocation would have that effect. Given my conclusions as to whether he could be trusted to run a compliant operation in the future and the likely limited impact on the business I had no hesitation in concluding Mr Sert should be disqualified.
I therefore concluded that Mr Sert should be disqualified from holding or obtaining any operators licence in any traffic area within Great Britain (or being a director in any company who holds or applies for such license). I found no reason to impose the disqualification for a longer period than the statutory minimum therefore this disqualification shall be for 12 months.
Rakesh Sharma
Deputy Traffic Commissioner
12/07/2026