Decision for Martin Hugh Franklin (PD1126105)
Written decision of the Traffic Commissioner in the West Midlands for Martin Hugh Franklin, sole trader and transport manager
IN THE WEST MIDLANDS TRAFFIC AREA
IN THE MATTER OF:
MARTIN HUGH FRANKLIN (SOLE TRADER AND TRANSPORT MANAGER)
OPERATOR LICENCE : PD1126105
BEFORE THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER MR M DORRINGTON
PUBLIC INQUIRY ON 04 MARCH 2026 AT 10.30AM
AT THE OFFICE OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER IN BIRMINGHAM
WRITTEN DECISION
SUMMARY OF DECISIONS MADE
The standard national public service vehicle operator’s licence, reference PD1126105, is revoked under sections 17(1)(a), 17(1)(b), 17(3)(a), 17(3)(aa) and 17(3)(c) of the 1981 Act. Revocation takes effect at 2345 hours on Friday 06 March 2026. No order of disqualification is made.
Transport manager Mr. Franklin has lost his good repute as a transport manager, in accordance with schedule 3 of the Act, and is disqualified as a transport manager with immediate effect under schedule 3, paragraph 7B(2) of the Act. The disqualification is for 12 months and will end on 04 March 2027. For the reason given later in this decision I cannot think of a suitable rehabilitation measure.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Martin Hugh Franklin was granted a standard national public service vehicle operator’s licence in 2014 that currently authorizes 1 vehicle. Mr. Franklin is also the specified transport manager on the licence. As a result of an “S” marked prohibition issued at MOT on 16 September 2025 for VRM CR06SCO for a dangerous defect a maintenance investigation visit report (“MIVR”) was undertaken by vehicle examiner Glenn Winn (“VE Winn”) on 17 October 2025. That scored the operator as being “unsatisfactory” in five areas and one area was marked as “Report to OTC” which is the most serious assessment that a VE can make. From this evidence a decision was made to call the operator and transport manager to a public inquiry by letter dated 30 January 2026.
The caseworker communicated with the operator on 12 February as no documents in response to the calling in letter, and attached case management directions, had been received. The caseworker noted that Mr. Franklin explained he was experiencing cashflow problems post COVID and that he was wanting to surrender his licence. He was, I was told, advised by the caseworker to attend the public inquiry.
Shortly before the public inquiry there was some activity with a message received from Mr. R Wilson, consultant, on VOL dated 03 March 2026 to say that, amongst other matters, Mr. Franklin would not be attending the hearing. I then received an email, via the caseworker, of 4 March enclosing a document entitled “M.H. Franklin submission in absence for P.I 4/3/26” and a further document by email dated 4 March 2026 from Mr. Wilson giving further details.
The reality is that the public inquiry was listed for 10.30am today and as at 10.50am no one has attended for the operator. Before me are the above documents and all of the documents in the electronic case bundle paginated to page 107. There were no other documents before me.
It was quite clear from correspondence that Mr. Franklin was not going to attend but in any event I did consider adjourning the case on my own volition but have decided that there is no persuasive reason to do so; Mr. Franklin has clearly been on notice about this hearing for some time, he has had the assistance of a transport consultant, he has decided not to attend and there is sufficient evidence in the papers before me to reach a fair decision in his absence from the papers alone. It is in the interests of justice to proceed to make a decision in his absence.
BURDEN AND STANDARD OF PROOF
The burden of proof is upon the DVSA and/or Office of the Traffic Commissioner to prove any allegations that have been made. The standard of proof is the civil law test; the balance of probabilities. In other words what is more likely than not to have occurred.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND REASONS
I have made the following findings of fact after applying the correct burden and standard of proof to the evidence that is before me. For the avoidance of any doubt all of my findings of fact can be taken to start with the words “It is more likely than not that…”
Mr. Franklin stated that he wanted to surrender his operator’s licence. No formal application (an SUR1 form) had been submitted but despite that his intention was clear. For the avoidance of any doubt I refuse his request to surrender this licence because the case is far too serious for me to do that. It is in the interests of justice, and in the public interest and interest of compliant operators that I consider taking regulatory action against this operator.
The evidence in the electronic bundle before me from the DVSA is cogent, credible and highly persuasive. I have accepted it as such. Noting the 9 page response to the MIVR from Mr. Wilson on behalf of Mr. Franklin at pages 55 to 63 of the bundle and from it that there was no material challenge to the VE Winn’s MIVR findings save for section 6 of the MIVR where Mr. Franklin strongly disputed that there were not suitable inspection and maintenance facilities available.
However, whilst I note that disagreement, the test is whether Mr. Franklin properly maintained his vehicle to a roadworthy standard. In that respect I formally find that all of the other DVSA findings in the MIVR (which were not challenged or materially challenged) are proven. I repeat them all and adopt them as my own findings of fact. Principle amongst those findings of fact are:
- Missing and or missed PMIs
- Forward planner not being properly used
- No written defect/recall system in place
- No PSV incident system in place
- A lack of driver defect reporting sheets provided and an acceptance in Mr. Franklin’s response to the MIVR that there was no suitable driver defect reporting system in place at the time of the MIVR
- Routine roller road brake testing was not routinely carried out
- Very poor MOT history – 100% initial failure rate and a 66% final failure rate from 4 MOT tests (see page 89 and onwards in the bundle – NB this does not include the failure at MOT re-test on 30 September 2025)
- An “S” marked and immediate prohibition for a dangerous defect identified at MOT on 19 September 2025 for VRM CR06SCO (see pages 78 to 80 of the bundle)
- That the vehicle was represented for MOT (required to remove the prohibition) on 30 September 2025 and the vehicle again failed after receiving a further delayed prohibition and was marked as “unfit for service” (see pages 81 to 82 of the bundle)
An MOT is the one day of the year, known about in advance, when a vehicle must meet the bare minimum standard of roadworthiness. If it fails an MOT it means the vehicle is not roadworthy. A failure at MOT also means the defect(s) that gave rise to the failure were present before the vehicle was presented for test; ie when in service.
The MOT failure on 19 September is extremely worrying; the defect is marked as “Do not drive until repaired (dangerous defects)!” with further defects recorded as “Repair immediately (major defects)” – see page 79.
The vehicle was clearly driven to the MOT and was clearly in use previously to that day on a public road since all of those defects are not likely to have just occurred spontaneously on the day of the MOT and if any pre MOT maintenance inspection was undertaken then it was clearly hopelessly inadequate.
The “S” marking on the resulting prohibition (see page 78) was clearly correctly imposed as a “significant defect” was recorded.
The vehicle being in this condition clearly put road, and any passengers carried, safety at risk.
The following general undertakings on the operator’s licence were breached:
- Vehicles, including hired vehicles, are kept in a fit and serviceable condition; and
- 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 recorded in writing; and
- Records are kept (for at least 15 months) of all driver reports that record defects, and all safety inspection, routine maintenance and vehicle repair reports, and that these are made available on request.
The operator’s response to the MIVR (pages 55 to 63 of the bundle) explained what action was going to be taken, however, no tangible evidence of any such changes has been provided. None appears in the electronic bundle and there is no supplemental statement from VE Winn.
At page 11 of the bundle are the relevant case management directions that request specified maintenance documents that had to be sent to VE Winn not less than 21 days prior to the public inquiry so that a supplemental statement could be prepared. It is more likely than not that those documents were not sent as there is no supplemental statement before me. Had they been sent there would be. Had Mr Franklin addressed the action points his consultant highlighted in the response to the MIVR then any supplemental statement from VE Winn would have detailed all the changes that had been made.
The best, tangible evidence of Mr Franklin’s actual maintenance systems and procedures is therefore the MIVR that is before me.
The failure to submit maintenance documents, when requested by myself through the calling in letter, is a further breach of the general undertaking “Records are kept (for at least 15 months) of all driver reports that record defects, and all safety inspection, routine maintenance and vehicle repair reports, and that these are made available on request.” [emphasis added]. There could not be a more serious request than one from the Traffic Commissioner when calling an operator to public inquiry.
No financial documents have been submitted as required in the calling in letter and in the case management directions that attach to it. The operator has therefore failed to satisfy me that it remains of appropriate financial standing.
BALANCING EXERCISE
There is very little tangible evidence before me of any positives in this case. The best I can do is to take the actions promised in the response to the MIVR as unproven promises (due to the lack of tangible evidence before me that they have either been done and/or are producing compliance) to which I give limited, but meaningful, credit. I have also given credit for Mr. Franklin’s admissions to the failings on his watch as an operator and transport manager.
For all of the negative findings in this case I have given significant evidential weight because they amount to a failure to keep this operator’s vehicle in a roadworthy condition and the evidence is, in fact, that the vehicle was in a dangerous condition when presented for MOT on 16 September 2025. That is a far cry from Mr. Franklin’s assertion in the response to the MIVR that he kept the vehicle properly maintained. Balanced against that is moderate/meaningful credit (evidential weight) I have attached to the limited positives in this case. Looking at Mr. Franklin, as at today, the balance tips firmly in favour of the negatives in this case.
CONSIDERATION OF STATUTORY DOCUMENT NUMBER 10, ANNEX 4
I have then considered Annex 4 of statutory document 4 issued by the Senior Traffic Commissioner for Great Britain.
I have repeated all of my findings, including those that relate to the credit I have given to Mr Franklin. Having done so I have placed this operator into the “Severe to Serious” category for consideration of regulatory action which is defined as “Persistent operator licence failures with inadequate response or previous public inquiry.” I could quite easily have placed Mr Franklin into the “severe” category which is defined as “Deliberate or reckless act(s) that compromised road safety”. It is hard to see how Mr Franklin could not be regarded as “reckless” with (a) his MOT history and (b) the condition of the vehicle at MOT on 16 September 2025.
DECISIONS AND REASONS
I have then asked myself the Priority Freight question which, after repeating all of my findings, I have determined is proportionate to answer in the negative; from the evidence before me (and lack of any up to date maintenance evidence) I do not trust Mr Franklin to be compliant in the future. I have then asked myself the Bryan Haulage question which, from the facts of this case as I have found them to be, I have determined is proportionate to answer in the affirmative because Mr Franklin’s conduct is such that he ought to be put out of business. Mr Franklin has therefore lost his good repute as an operator. It is therefore a mandatory requirement that I revoke this operator’s licence under section 17(1)(a) of the Act.
The operator is not of appropriate financial standing. It is therefore a mandatory requirement that I revoke the operator’s licence under section 17(1)(a) of the Act.
Mr Franklin is a sole trader owner operator and also the specified transport manager. The Upper Tribunal, in several appeal cases, have made it clear that in those circumstances where the operator is one and the same as the transport manager when the operator loses their good repute they lose it as the transport manager too.
There can be no doubt in my mind that Mr Franklin was not “effective” as the transport manager and he has not attended today to explain further what happened and what he has done nor has he presented me with tangible evidence after the date of the response to the MIVR regarding the steps taken to restore compliance and how compliance has been fully restored as at the date of the public inquiry.
For the same reasons that Mr Franklin has lost his good repute as an operator I formally determine that he has lost his good repute as a transport manager. It is therefore a mandatory requirement that I disqualify him as a transport manager.
The minimum time that I can disqualify him as a transport manager for is 12 months. I therefore make my order to disqualify him, with immediate effect, for 12 months until 04 March 2027 under Schedule 3 paragraph 7B(2) of the Act.
Since Mr Franklin did not attend the hearing today I have no way of knowing what would be an appropriate rehabilitation measure that he must undertake should he want to apply to the Traffic Commissioner for his good repute to be restored at the end of his period of disqualification. All I can say is that the mere passage of time will not be enough.
Since the transport manager is no longer of good repute and since the transport manager is disqualified with immediate effect it is also a mandatory requirement that I revoke this operator’s licence under sections 17(1)(a) and 17(1)(b) of the Act.
Turning now to my discretionary powers. After repeating all of my findings again, including the credit that I have given to this operator, I have determined that it is still proportionate to revoke this operator’s licence under sections 17(3)(a), 17(3)(aa) and 17(3)(c) of the Act.
All orders of revocation take effect at 2345 hours on Friday 06 March 2026.
I make no order of disqualification in this case.
WARNING AS TO IMPOUNDING
After 2345 hours on Friday 06 March 2026 Mr Franklin has no lawful authority to operate any regulated vehicle for any commercial purpose. Mr Franklin is unequivocally warned that if he does so then the DVSA can impound any vehicle so operated and he can also be prosecuted in the criminal courts. This decision, and the letter from my office notifying Mr Franklin of my decision today, is regarded by the DVSA as a pre-impounding letter. This paragraph gives Mr Franklin actual knowledge of DVSA’s power to impound.
Traffic Commissioner Mr M Dorrington
04 March 2026.