Decision for MDB Logistics Limited (OC2027537), Transport Manager Mark Dawson Bevis and J&M Plant Hire Ltd (OC2081246)
Written decision of the Traffic Commissioner for the North West of England for MDB Logistics Limited, Transport Manager Mark Dawson Bevis and J&M Plant Hire Ltd
IN THE NORTH WEST TRAFFIC AREA
MDB LOGISTICS LIMITED – OC2027537
TRANSPORT MANAGER MR MARK DAWSON BEVIS
J&M PLANT HIRE LTD – OC2081246
WRITTEN DECISION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER
CONJOINED PUBLIC INQUIRY HELD IN GOLBORNE ON 18 DECEMBER 2025
The Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (“the 1995 Act”)
DECISION:
MDB Logistics Limited (Licence OC2027537)
Pursuant to adverse findings under Sections 26(1)(a), 26(1)(b), 26(1)(f), and Section 27(1)(a) of the 1995 Act, this licence is revoked with effect from 23:45 on 12 March 2026.
Transport Manager Mr. Mark Dawson Bevis
The good repute of Mr. Bevis as Transport Manager is marked as severely tarnished, but not yet lost.
J&M Plant Hire Ltd (Application OC2081246)
This application for a Goods Vehicle Operator’s Licence is refused under provision of Section 13(5) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (“the Act”), as the applicant has failed to satisfy the requirements of Section 13B, 13C, and 13D of the 1995 Act.
MDB Logistics Limited (“MDB”) holds a Standard National Goods Vehicle Operator’s Licence authorising four vehicles and no trailers (OC2027537). Mr. Bevis is the sole Director as well as the specified Transport Manager. The licence has been in place since 27 December 2019 with no previous adverse history recorded.
J&M Plant Hire Ltd (“J&M”) was incorporated on 19 June 2018 and has lodged dormant accounts with Companies House since then. The directors are Mr. John Alexander Webb, and Mr Michael Ian Webb. The company has submitted an application for a Restricted Goods Vehicle Operator’s Licence (OC2081246).
The Directors of J&M previously held Operator’s licence OC2014172 in the name J&M Demolition and Recycling Aggregates Limited. That licence ceased on 01 July 2023 but it is alleged by DVSA that it continued to operate vehicles by utilising the licence held by MDB.
The companies are known to each other as Mr. Bevis is the Godfather of Mr. John Webb and the vehicles in question are JM16WEB & JM64WEB (also registered as HX15 FWF – for the ease of simplicity I’ll refer to the ‘WEB’ registrations hereafter).
This decision considers matters regarding the current licence of MDB, the role of Mr. Bevis as Transport Manager, and the application by J&M.
Background – J&M Plant Hire Ltd
As above, both Directors on this application previously held Operator’s licence OC2014172, in the name J & M Demolition and Recycling Aggregates Limited (“Demolition & Recycling”).
That licence expired on 01 July 2023 as continuation was not sought at the five-year renewal. Despite this, information from DVSA gave reasonable cause to believe that the company continued to operate without an Operator’s licence beyond that time. Evidence obtained indicates that an arrangement was made with a linked company - MDB Logistics Limited - to use their Operator’s licence for the purposes of continuing to operate. DVSA advised that Demolition & Recycling found work and paid a percentage of that work to MDB Logistics Limited. The remainder of the revenue from that work was kept by Demolition & Recycling, who owned the vehicles used on the job, and employed drivers for the job. This information was obtained from interviews with the Directors of each company. No evidence was provided to evidence any valid agreement or arrangement for leasing of vehicles between Demolition & Recycling and MDB Logistics Limited.
Additionally, it appears that Demolition & Recycling failed to assist the DVSA with its investigations, failed to respond to a number of requests for records issued under provision of Section 99ZA of the Transport Act 1968, and refused to attend a PACE interview.
Further, it has subsequently transpired that Demolition & Recycling entered liquidation on 08 April 2025. This was not declared by the Directors of J&M, as required, within the period since the application was made. The Statement of Affairs relating to that business show an estimated deficiency of £606,000, with £193,000 owned to HMRC. Records suggest that this business preferred to make payments to Trade Creditors over HMRC as Trade & Expense Creditors (of which there were only three) shows a deficiency of just £58,000.
As a result of the issues set out above, a Public Inquiry was considered necessary to determine whether applicant company, J&M, can satisfy the requirements of Sections 13B (to be ‘not unfit’ to hold an Operator’s licence), 13C (to have proper systems to ensure compliance), and 13D (to have access to the required financial resources).
Background – MDB Logistics Ltd & Transport Manager Bevis
Due to the allegations above DVSA commenced an investigation on 14 March 2025 which considered that MDB Logistics Limited may have been allowing its Operator’s licence to be used by a third party - Demolition and Recycling - against the specific instructions on the Operator’s licence that it is not transferable, and in contravention of Section 48 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995.
The evidence indicates that vehicles JM16 WEB and JM64 WEB were added to the licence of MDB after the cessation of the J&M licence, but those vehicles were being used by drivers not under the licence-holder’s employment. Further, the licence-holder was managing maintenance inspections, or downloading / monitoring drivers hours & tachograph records and the licence-holder failed to have any effective oversight of systems or records for those vehicles and drivers. In an interview with the DVSA Mr. Bevis confirmed that, whilst the company found its own work for the vehicles, Demolition and Recycling also found their own work, and paid a percentage of the income to MDB Logistics Limited. The remainder of the revenue from that work was kept by Demolition & Recycling, who owned the vehicles used for the job, and employed drivers for the job. This suggested the arrangement was one of licence lending.
It was further considered that, if the arrangement was in some way legitimate, the licence-holder failed to meet the conditions and undertakings of the licence to have proper systems to ensure vehicles used under authority of the licence were maintained in a fit and serviceable condition, and to ensure compliance with drivers’ hours and tachograph rules.
The DVSA investigation required the Operator to provide records for the vehicles for the period 01 January 2025 through to 11 April 2025. Only records from 13 May 2025 were provided indicating a failure to comply with a request made under Section 99ZA of the Transport Act 1968, or that the company failed to retain records for the required period of time.
Accordingly, the Operator was called to the Public Inquiry to consider whether there has been unlawful lending of an Operator’s licence, breaches of the undertakings and conditions of the licence and whether the Operator continues to meet the requirements to be of good repute and professionally competent.
As the approved Transport Manager on the Operator’s licence for MDB, Mr. Mark Bevis was separately called to the Public Inquiry to consider whether he has failed in his lawful requirement to ensure effective and continuous management of transport operations and whether he continues to meet the requirement to be of good repute.
The Call Up to Public Inquiry
Notices calling all parties to the Public Inquiry were issued on 11 November 2025, by both post and email, to the given addresses. Those letters set out the date, time and location of the Hearing and included case management directions to be complied with ahead of the Inquiry.
MDB complied with the case management directions, providing records to both my office, and to the DVSA, sufficiently far in advance of the Hearing to allow my detailed consideration.
J&M did not comply with the case management directions and did not notify the Hearing Centre to confirm whether or not it would be in attendance.
The Public Inquiry
The Public Inquiry took place on Thursday, 18 December 2025 at the Golborne Hearing Centre. MDB was in attendance through its sole Director Mr. Bevis. Mr. Bevis was also in attendance in his capacity as Transport Manager. MBD and Mr. Bevis were represented by Mr. Darren Finnegan, Barrister with Lincoln House Chambers. J&M was in attendance by Director Mr. John Webb. Additionally, the DVSA were in attendance through Ms. Sarah Harper (Traffic Examiner) and Mr Aiden McCabe (Traffic Enforcement Manager).
“Preliminary Matters”
In transpired on the morning of the Inquiry that a DVSA report, providing an assessment of recent records provided by MDB, had not been received. MDB had complied with case management directions to submit maintenance materials for assessment, but the Operator did not have sight of the outcome ahead of the Hearing. Neither, as it transpired, had I. TE Harper advised that she did complete a report and sent it to the Hearing Centre. It has not been determined what went wrong or why it was not received by the Hearing Centre and shared in advance. In any event, MDB had also provided me with its maintenance records in advance of the Inquiry, which I had taken time to review in preparation for the Hearing. An independent audit report by Robinsons Transport Consultants had also been provided.
I invited Mr. Finnegan to have the missing DVSA report introduced as evidence (with time allowed for its review and consideration) or, in the alternative, the Hearing could proceed without its introduction. As I haven’t been sighted on the report I would therefore not be in any position to have regard to it whether it was a positive or negative reflection. Mr. Finnegan was content to conclude that the Hearing should proceed without that additional evidence and I was satisfied with that course.
I took time to understand why J&M had failed to comply with the case management directions. I was advised that a previous legal representative had proven too expensive, and a more recently appointed legal representative had withdrawn only a few days ago. I was given no evidence to support these assertions and this failed to explain why the case management directions, which ought to have been met two weeks prior to the Inquiry, were not complied with.
Evidence and Findings – J&M Plant Hire Ltd
In the case of an application, the burden lies with the applicant to satisfy the Traffic Commissioner that all mandatory requirements are satisfied. In this instance the applicant was put on notice of my concerns and asked to provide evidence to address those concerns.
Section 13B - Fitness
The failure of the Directors to renew the previous licence, which continued to be required, their failure to notify this office of links to a liquidated company, and the allegation that the previous company sought to continue operating despite the termination of its licence are all negative features towards the applicant’s fitness. A further significant issue is the failure to have proper systems to receive and respond to important communication from this office, such as the calling-in letter, and the failure to comply with the case management directions ahead of this Public Inquiry. Mr. Webb did not notify this office in advance that he would be in attendance and provided none of the evidence, as directed, in support of his application.
Mr. Webb told me that the link to the previous licence had been declared as had the liquidation. The application, available within the bundle, does indeed declare the link to the previous licence, but it answers “No” to all questions on financial history including the question on ‘Liquidation’. The applicant did not notify this office, during the course of the application, of this important change. The requirement to do is included within the declaration signed by Mr. Webb on application:
“I understand that any changes which occur during the consideration of an application, information which materially changes from that originally declared when the application was first submitted, must be notified to the traffic commissioner.”
Following the evidence provided by MDB at the Inquiry Mr. Webb confirmed that he had no reason to dispute the position put forward that his previous company had continued to use vehicles beyond the termination of the Operator licence. He told me this was done to ensure that work could continue and allow staff to be retained, and it was not known at the time to have been the wrong thing to do.
I am particularly concerned, however, that this continued for such a prolonged period of time. ANPR evidence shows that these vehicles continued to be used right up into October and November 2025 despite the arrangement with MDB ceasing over 12 months prior, and despite the DVSA investigation commencing in January 2025 which put Mr. Webb on notice. I conclude that the applicant’s Directors knew the practice to be wrong, but continued regardless.
On 20 March 2025 Mr. Webb signed his application declaration which includes the following statement
“I understand that it is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that they have the required experience and training prior to making an application for an operator’s licence. I confirm that by signing this application that I understand the responsibilities and requirements of holding a goods vehicle operator’s licence and will ensure that I will keep updated on those requirements.”
Mr. Webb is taken to know the conditions of a licence which includes that they are not transferable. An applicant’s trust is a fundamental requirement of the licensing regime, and this applicant’s failures have created a significant absence of trust.
Section 13C – Compliance with Undertakings and Conditions
The calling-in letter set out my case management directions which included the requirement to provide evidence that this applicant has proper arrangements to comply with the requirements of Section 13C. These are often referred to as the requirement to comply with the conditions and undertakings of the Operator’s licence. It includes, among other things, arrangements to comply with the laws regarding drivers’ hours and the facilities and arrangements to maintain vehicles in a fit and serviceable condition.
These matters go to the very heart of road safety and fair competition. This is relevant to this application on account of the concerns raised about this applicant company’s Directors. The absence of evidence provided for the Inquiry, as required in the call-up letter, invites me to conclude that the evidence has not been made available because the proper arrangements are not in place.
This is further supported by an assessment of materials, provided by MDB, for the vehicles belonging to J&M (JM16 WEB & JM64 WEB) which I am advised were ‘maintained’ by J&M. I noted stretched maintenance inspection intervals and a complete absence of brake assessment or brake test records. I was advised that J&M have a brake tester, but no evidence was provided to support that assertion and the absence of brake test records, or the inclusion of the test results on the inspection sheets, presents a different position.
Additionally, I was advised that, on 06 May 2025, the VU records for JM64 WEB could not be produced as the vehicle tachograph was locked into another company (which was neither J&M or MDB). This is relevant as this vehicle was being used since the start of the year by J&M. Additionally, it transpired that the tachograph data showed vehicle JM64 WEB has not been downloaded since 24 February 2021 and vehicle JM16WEB has not been downloaded since 12 November 2021.
The applicant failed to provide me with evidence of its proposed systems for ensuring vehicles are maintained in a fit and serviceable condition and ensuring compliance with drivers’ hours rules and tachograph rules are complied with. In reality this applicant had an opportunity to provide not just proposed systems, but actual systems as it was claiming to maintain vehicles specified on MDB’s licence and managing the individuals driving those.
The evidence that has been made available, through MDB, shows significant gaps. On the one hand I’m being told that the “arrangement” was that J&M would maintain vehicles, and manage compliance with drivers’ hours and tachograph rules. The evidence indicates that this company failed in that regard. I did not see any evidence of infringement reports or missing mileage reports from the applicant. Maintenance records, as stated above, were also short of expectation.
Accordingly, the applicant has failed to satisfy me that it has proper systems in place as required by Section 13C of the 1995 Act.
Section 13D – Financial Resources
The calling-in letter also requested up-to-date evidence of access to appropriate financial resources. The Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document 2 states, at Paragraph 33:
“The Senior Traffic Commissioner has taken account of the financial requirements determined by the Secretary of State and directs the traffic commissioners to adopt the financial levels indicated for restricted licences in the table attached. The Senior Traffic Commissioner also directs that checks should be applied equally to restricted licence holders.
(The table referenced sets out a requirement to evidence a level of £3,100 for the first vehicle and £1,700 for each additional vehicle)”
Paragraph 37 continues:
“Applicants for a restricted goods licence may be asked to show that arrangements for maintenance are not prejudiced by a lack of finance. As this can be key to ensuring safe operation the Senior Traffic Commissioner has indicated that this is not a disproportionate requirement and has directed that there should be checks on the availability of finance unless the applicant can show an alternative arrangement.”
Despite the direction to provide evidence of financial resources for the Inquiry the applicant has failed to do so. As before, the failure to provide evidence invites me to conclude that the evidence has not been made available because the necessary financial resources are not in place. I note that between the company’s incorporation in June 2018 only dormant accounts have been lodged with Companies House.
Section 13D is discretionary, but due to the failings of the previous licence holding entity in the management of JM16 WEB & JM64 WEB, and the lack of evidence of appropriate systems, along with the fact that maintenance is proposed to be completed in-house, I consider financial resources to be an appropriate consideration.
The absence of records is such that I am entitled to infer that financial resources are not in place, and this is likely – on the balance of probability – to be a reason for the failure to provide evidence of proper systems.
Evidence and Findings – MDB Logistic Limited
In evidence I found Mr. Bevis to be open and honest. I heard that this was a long-established family business which has had, until these allegations, no history of enforcement or regulatory action. The business went through a change in legal entity in 2019 following the passing of the family patriarch, and since then has – with the exception of the issue at hand – operated in general compliance with no road safety concerns.
The findings of the DVSA were accepted in full and it was conceded that this was a clear case of licence lending. In mitigation I was advised that Mr. Bevis had made a genuine attempt to assist his Godson whilst also seeking to expand his own business. The type of vehicles used by J&M were different to his own vehicles and their use would allow the business to diversify with much construction work potentially available in the area. A lease agreement was signed.
Quickly, it became clear that there was no gap in that market and little work was to be obtained. The agreement effectively ended in early to mid-2024. MDB stood down staff engaged to find that additional work and no longer had any need for the vehicles. Thereafter the vehicles were no longer used by MDB and, when not in use, primarily parked at the residential address for Mr. Webb.
It was further confirmed that the vehicles, whilst listed on the MDB Operator’s licence until 02 December 2025, were not maintained by it, the drivers were not employed by it, and the work undertaken was not work of MDB. I refer to the ANPR evidence within the bundle which sets out the extensive use of those vehicles in the intervening period.
As the lending of an Operator’s licence was accepted by MBD, and having obtained its explanation, the Hearing went on to consider the materials provided in evidence. I first make the point that the licence had four vehicles specified until 02 December 2025. This had been reaffirmed by Mr. Bevis when he signed the continuation document on 11 November 2024. It listed all four vehicles, including those now identified as belonging to J&M. That continuation also reaffirmed the declaration that (i) the licence holder would ensure that the rules on drivers’ hours and tachograph rules would be complied with, (ii) the licence holder would ensure that proper arrangements for maintenance would be in place and (iii) that an unauthorised operating centre would not be used.
The maintenance records provided did include inspection sheets for the J&M vehicles, but the planner and maintenance schedule did not. It was confirmed that the maintenance records for vehicles JM16 WEB & JM64 WEB (HX15 FWF) were provided by J&M, but the planner and schedule satisfied me, by their absence, that MDB had no plan or intention of monitoring any compliance with maintenance or drivers’ hours requirements.
I noted a number of shortcomings with the records provided including: (i) incomplete maintenance records, (ii) stretched PMIs, (iii) the absence of vehicles within the planner & schedule and (iv) no consistent reporting of infringement or missing mileage. This was further supported by the report by Robinsons Transport Consultants which made similar findings and also identified that driver licence checks were annual, rather than quarterly as recommended within the DVSA Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness. Mr. Bevis confirmed he never completed any licence checks of those driving the J&M vehicles.
There are, I find, two fundamental issues. Firstly, MDB has loaned its licence to a third party. This continued until the vehicles were removed from the licence on 02 December 2025. Therefore this arrangement continued long after the parties were put on notice of the DVSA’s concerns.
Secondly, this Operator failed to comply with the conditions and undertakings of its licence in choosing not to have regard to the proper requirements for vehicles JM16 WEB & JM64 WEB or their drivers. The evidence available shows inadequate maintenance provision, and a complete absence – for a considerable period – of any management of drivers’ hours in respect of those vehicles.
Decision – J&M Plant Hire Ltd
This application for a Restricted Goods Vehicle Operator’s licence is refused under provision of Section 13(5) as the applicant has failed to satisfy the following requirements:
-
Section 13B – The Traffic Commissioner must be satisfied that the applicant is not unfit to hold an operator’s licence;
-
Section 13C – The Traffic Commissioner must be satisfied that the applicant has the appropriate arrangements to meet the requirements to hold an operator’s licence;
-
Section 13D – The Traffic Commissioner must be satisfied that the provision of the facilities and arrangements for maintaining the vehicles in a fit and serviceable condition is not prejudiced by reason for the applicant having insufficient financial resources for that purpose.
Section 13B - Fitness
I give the direction in respect of Section 13B in consideration of 2013/007 Redsky Wholesalers Ltd which sets out that Fitness is not a significantly lower hurdle than good repute and links fitness to trust. That decision invites a Traffic Commissioner to consider the ‘Priority Freight Question’ in cases relating to Restricted licences. The question, posed in 2009/225 Priority Freight is, “how likely is it that this Operator will, in future, operate in compliance with the operator’s licensing regime?”. In this case I answer in the negative. As set out above, this is an applicant with a background that raises concerns, the unlawful continuation of operations, for which an Operator’s licence was required, is a significant feature which, in itself, is fatal to this application. I also have regard to the failure to comply with the case management directions for this Inquiry as a feature that goes towards trust. I have no positive features against which to balance. Accordingly, I do not trust this applicant to comply with the licensing regime and I therefore do not consider it fit to hold an Operator’s licence.
Section 13C – Compliance with Undertakings and Conditions, & Section 13D – Financial Resources
In respect of Sections 13C and 13D I make adverse findings as the applicant has failed to provide me with evidence that the requirements are met. The burden lies with it to satisfy me that it meets the relevant statutory requirements, and it has failed to do so. I note particularly the failure to provide any evidence of systems and procedures and the failure to provide evidence of current access to the required financial resources.
Further, in relation to Section 13C, the evidence that is available to me shows an inadequacy of compliance systems of the Directors’ previous licence holding entity.
Section 13(5) of the 1995 Act directs that, if the Traffic Commissioner determines that any of the requirements that the Commissioner has taken into consideration are not satisfied the commissioner must refuse the application (emphasis is my own). Accordingly, this application is refused.
Decision – MDB Logistics Limited
Having considered the evidence within the case bundle, and provided on behalf of the licence holding company I make adverse findings under provision of the following legislation:
-
26(1)(a) – that a place in the North West Traffic Area has, at a time when it was not specified in the licence as an operating centre of the licence-holder, been used as an operating centre for heavy goods vehicles authorised to be used under the licence;
-
26(1)(b) – that the licence holder has contravened condition attached to the licence, namely that it facilitated the transfer of its Operator’s licence to J&M, and that it failed to notify changes in the maintenance safety inspection arrangements for vehicles specified under the licence;
-
26(1)(f) – that the licence holder has failed to comply with the undertakings of the licence, namely to have proper arrangements so that motor vehicles and trailers, including hired vehicles and trailers, are kept fit and serviceable;
-
26(1)(f) – that the licence holder has failed to comply with the undertakings of the licence, namely to have proper arrangements so that the rules on drivers’ hours and tachographs are observed and proper records kept;
-
27(1)(a) – that the licence holder no longer satisfies the requirement of Section 13A(2)(b) [the requirement to be of good repute].
On review of the guidance provided by the Senior Traffic Commissioner on starting points for regulatory action, as set out at Annex 4 of Statutory Document 10, I place this case within the category of “Severe to Serious”. There are persistent Operator licence failures with an inadequate response.
I consider the question posed by the Upper Tribunal in 2009/225 Priority Freight namely, how likely is it that this Operator will, in future, operate in compliance with the Operator’s licensing regime? I answer in the negative. The evidence before me, and my conclusions as set out, leads me to conclude that this is not an Operator who I can currently trust to comply. I balance the Operator’s history and the honest approach to this Inquiry with the long terms lending of an Operator’s licence and the complete disregard for compliance systems thereafter.
I go on to consider the question posed by the Upper Tribunal in 2002/217 Bryan Haulage namely, is the conduct such that the Operator ought to be put out of business? I answer this in the positive. The negative features of this case are well laid out above and whilst there are some positive features these are insufficient to counterbalance the very serious negatives.
In closing submissions I was asked to consider that the disposal of this case must be different to that within 2024/UKUT/22/AAC Central Haulage Limited & Ors which presented a much worse example of fraudulent activity, deception, and fronting. That case resulted in the revocation of the Operator’s licence and orders of disqualification against (i) the Operator company, (ii) its named Director, (iii) a de-facto Director and (iv) the Transport Manager. I was asked to find this MDB case, whilst one of clear licence lending, was one demonstrating a lack of knowledge and absence of oversight rather than an outright intention to deceive and revocation was, therefore, not required. I find that argument is undone, however, by the passage of time between the intervention of the DVSA in early 2025 and the eventual removal of the vehicles for the Operator’s licence on 02 December 2025. I have regard to the fact that, as part of its investigation, the DVSA informed sole Director Mr. Bevis, at interview dated 08 July 2025, how the presentation of his discs on the J&M vehicles would give the false impression of lawful operations. Despite this he took no appropriate action for just short of five further months. For this I find that loss of the licence holder’s good repute is justified and revocation of the licence (alongside the adverse findings under S.26) to be proportionate.
I therefore make a direction that the licence be revoked. I direct that revocation takes effect from 23:45 on 12 March 2026. This allows a period of time for transport operations to be brought to an orderly conclusion, or for a new application to be submitted alongside – I would recommend – evidence of rehabilitation and improved systems for compliance.
I find that any decision other than revocation would give the wrong message to the wider industry. The importance of this is set out in the decision of 2006/277 Michael James Fenlon t/a County Skips, where the Upper Tribunal commented:
“It has been said on many occasions that trust is one of the foundation stones of operator licensing. Traffic Commissioners must be able to trust operators to comply with all the relevant laws, rules and regulations because it would be a physical and financial impossibility to police every aspect of the licensing system all day and every day. In addition, operators must be able to trust other operators to observe the relevant laws, rules and regulations. If trust between operators breaks down and some operators believe that others are obtaining an unfair commercial advantage by ignoring laws, rules or regulations then standards will inevitably slip and the public will suffer.”
On account of the open and honest engagement from Mr. Bevis I do not make any direction to disqualify and, in that regard, I am content to make a distinction with the Central Haulage case. I am mindful of the guidance from the Senior Traffic Commissioner and the Upper Tribunal that disqualification should not be routinely ordered. I have regard to the open and honest engagement from Mr. Bevis and that he has taken accountability for the issues identified.
I remind myself of the words of the Upper Tribunal in 2007/459 KDL European at paragraph 14:
“Adopting Counsel’s words, we are satisfied of the need “to make an example of the operator so as to send a warning to the industry as a whole”. This is consistent with the approach by the five-judge Court of Session in the Thomas Muir case (see paragraph 2(xiii) above), (Thomas Muir (Haulage) Limited v. The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions), where deterrence is expressly mentioned (“in particular for the purpose of deterring the operator or other persons from failing to carry out their responsibilities under the legislation”). This is not by way of punishment per se but, as Lord Cullen said is “in order to assist in the achievement of the purpose of the legislation”.
I am satisfied that the order of revocation is, in itself, a sufficient deterrent to this Operator, and others, of the unacceptable seriousness of licence lending and absence of oversight. I am also satisfied that accepting responsibility, assisting the DVSA investigation and being open and honest with the Traffic Commissioner are positive features which can go some way to satisfying that disqualification can be avoided – certainly in this case.
Decision – Transport Manager
I make a distinction between Mr. Bevis, Director, and Mr. Bevis, Transport Manager. The Hearing today was substantively related to the loaning of an operator’s licence / discs to a different entity and the failures of the Director in making that decision. The Hearing did highlight however that there were other shortcomings in relation to the management of transport operations, but I consider them to be just that – shortcomings.
Undoubtedly improvement is needed, but this was not a Transport Manager with no systems of compliance. Those vehicles which were used lawfully were largely well looked after, the Operator’s pass rate at MOT is in alignment with the national average and its Operator Compliance Risk Score is green.
The major criticism of Mr. Bevis in his role as Transport Manager was his failure to identify the inappropriate loaning of the licence, his failure to bring that to an end and his disregard of his responsibilities for the two loaned vehicles. For that I find the good repute of Transport Manager Bevis is severely tarnished but not lost on account of the positive features of transport management and positive engagement with the DVSA investigation and the Public Inquiry process. He is issued a warning as regard his future conduct and reminded that his statutory duty is to ensure continuous and effective management of transport services.
David Mullan
Traffic Commissioner for the North West of England
09 January 2025