Decision for Mick Foden Commercials Ltd (OH2052666)
Written decision of the Deputy Traffic Commissioner for the West of England for Mick Foden Commercials Ltd and former Transport Manager Jaspreet Kang and driver Lena Foden
IN THE WESTERN TRAFFIC AREA
MICK FODEN COMMERCIALS LTD – OH2052666
JASPREET KANG - FORMER TRANSPORT MANAGER
LENA FODEN - DRIVER
WRITTEN DECISION OF THE DEPUTY TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER
Decisions
Pursuant to adverse findings under section 26(1)(b), (e), (f) and (h) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 licence OH2052666 held by Mick Foden Commercials Ltd is revoked under section 26(1) with effect from 23:45 hours on 22 February 2026.
Further, Mick Foden Commercials Ltd and its director, Philip Michael Foden, are disqualified from holding or obtaining an operator’s licence or being involved in the management, administration and control of any entity that holds or obtains an operator licence indefinitely.
If Mick Foden Commercials Ltd and/or its director, Philip Michael Foden apply to be involved in operator licensing again in any guise, this must be referred to a traffic commissioner and not dealt with under any purported delegated authority.
Pursuant to paragraph 16(1) of Schedule 3 of the GVLOA 1995, Mrs Jaspreet Kang, the operator’s transport manager has lost her repute and is disqualified from acting as a transport manager under paragraph 16(2) of Schedule 3 of the GVLOA 1995 with effect from 23:45 hours on 22 February 2026 for two years.
Mrs Lena Foden’s large goods vehicle entitlement is suspended under section 115 of the Road Transport Act 1988 for a period of four months with effect from 23:45 hours on 22 February 2026 until 23:45 hours on 22 June 2026.
Reference to pages in the public inquiry brief are in square brackets e.g. [101].
Background
This conjoined case called under sections 26, 27 and 28 and Schedule 3 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (GVLOA 1995) relates to alleged breaches of operator licence OH2052666 held by Mick Foden Commercials Ltd and whether it’s former transport manager, Mrs Jaspreet Kang, was exercising effective and continuous management. There is also a driver conduct matter called under sections 110-122 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 relating to driver, Mrs Lena Foden.
The public inquiry at 10.30am on 11 February 2026 was attended by Mr Philip Michael Foden, the operator’s sole director, along with Mrs Lena Foden, the operator’s former director and driver. Mr and Mrs Foden are married. Mr Foden is also a heavy goods vehicle (HGV) mechanic and has his own business in repairing and maintaining HGVs. Mrs Foden was represented by Paul Mason solicitor from Lewis Nedas Solicitors. Mrs Kang, the former transport manager, did not attend.
The history of this matter is in the inquiry brief with background in the case summary [3-6] and the call-in letter of 8 December 2025 [8-22]. I need not repeat this. In outline, the operator was granted a Standard International Goods Vehicle Licence on 18 March 2022. It is currently authorised for 1 vehicle and 1 trailer with 1 vehicle in possession working from its operating centre at 78 Roding Way, Didcot OX11 7RQ. Its area of business is general haulage.
On 23 October 2024 vehicle TR02KER was stopped on the M65 near Preston. The driver, Lena Foden, had been using her husband’s driver card and driving beyond her 10-hour daily driving limit. Further investigation by the DVSA found 19 alleged tachograph infringements.
Mrs Kang, the original transport manager, was listed on the licence as working four hours a week. She was removed from the licence on 17 December 2024. A second transport manager, Mark William Roberts was added for a short period until the operator sought to surrender its licence in March 2025.
On 10 September 2025, Mrs Foden pleaded guilty to 19 offences of knowingly making a false entry in relation to tachograph records between 1 August 2024 and 22 October 2024 contrary to section 97 of the Transport Act 1968. She was fined £451 with a victim surcharge of £184 and prosecution costs of £1200 [308-310].
A DVSA traffic examiner’s report of 25 October 2025 [70-109] concludes:
“The process of summarising and concluding this case has been particularly challenging due to the abrupt withdrawal of cooperation which has prevented me from gaining a better understanding of the circumstances leading to these offences.
By circumventing regulations, Mrs Foden was able to extend her driving hours beyond legal limits, potentially increasing productivity at the expense of compliance and fair competition. More importantly, this reckless behaviour significantly compromised road safety, endangering not only herself but also other road users who could have been affected by driver fatigue or impaired judgment.
The responsibility for maintaining industry compliance extends beyond individual drivers to transport managers. Better control measures should have been implemented with effective monitoring systems and stricter enforcement of regulations could have prevented such breaches from occurring. A key question that arises is whether the nominated transport managers demonstrated the required levels of control over the transportation operations of the business. Their responsibilities include overseeing driver conduct, ensuring adherence to legal working hours, and preventing any misuse of driver cards or other regulatory breaches.
As a consequence, it is considered that the operator is not complying with the Statement of Intent with regard to the undertakings submitted at the time of application for the operator’s licence.” [106-107].
The operator’s call-in letter referred to potential breaches of section 26(1)(b), (e), (f) and (h) of the GVLOA 1995. Due to the alleged breaches, concern was also raised that the Operator may not have appropriate financial standing to hold an operator’s licence for the vehicles authorised and may not meet the requirements to be of good repute under section 13A and paragraph 14A of Schedule 3 of the GVLOA 1995.
The call-in letter to Mrs Kang of 8 December 2025 [23-34] explained that the inquiry would consider whether she continued to meet the requirements to be of good repute and can accordingly exercise effective and continuous management of a transport operation in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 3 of the GVLOA 1995.
The call-in letter to Mrs Foden of 8 December 2025 explained that the hearing would consider whether she should retain her LGV driving entitlement [266-269].
The evidence and findings
The operator wrote to the Office of the Traffic Commissioner (OTC) on 4 February 2026 stating that:
“… With regards to the evidence, I won’t submit any. I just want rid of the O licence and I hope that the TC does stop me from having an O licence in the future. It is something I will never ever do again as long as I live.
We had such a bad experience with it:
The money was terrible
We had the load stolen
We had fuel stolen
I will never have an O licence ever again.
I will absolutely still attend the PE but please let the TC know that it is my wish to revoke and never apply again.
Regards
Mick Foden” [251]
Mrs Kang, the former transport manager, wrote to the OTC on 7 February 2026 as follows:
“Dear Sir/Madam,
Due to significant anxiety in formal hearing environments, I felt it was more appropriate to provide a clear and considered written statement.
I write in relation to the hearing concerning my professional competence as a Transport Manager. As previously advised, I am unable to attend in person and therefore respectfully submit this written statement for consideration.
I wish to address the matter directly and honestly.
I was appointed as Transport Manager for the operator run by Mr Mick Foden on what was intended to be a short-term basis while he worked towards obtaining his own Transport Manager qualification. I accept that, irrespective of the intended duration of this arrangement, I remained fully responsible for ensuring compliance with operator licence undertakings during that period.
I acknowledge that I did not properly discharge my duties for that operator. I failed to exercise effective and continuous control over drivers’ hours, tachograph records, and general compliance. This was a clear failing on my part, and I accept full responsibility for it.
In February last year, Mrs Lena Foden committed serious drivers’ hours offences, including the misuse of another driver’s tachograph card. I was not aware of these offences at the time. However, I fully recognise that had I been carrying out my role to the required standard, these breaches should have been identified and addressed at an early stage. I regret that my lack of oversight allowed this to occur.
I wish to make it clear that I would never knowingly permit or ignore non-compliance. I take road safety and regulatory compliance seriously. My failing was not one of intent or dishonesty, but a serious error of judgment in agreeing to act as Transport Manager without providing the level of oversight and control required by the role.
This matter has caused me to reflect carefully on the responsibilities and expectations placed on a Transport Manager. I now fully understand that acting in name only, even temporarily, is unacceptable. This experience has reinforced the importance of exercising full and effective control at all times.
I continue to act as a Transport Manager where I do exercise effective control and maintain robust compliance systems. I am committed to upholding the standards of good repute and professional competence expected of a qualified Transport Manager, and I can assure the Commissioner that this situation will not be repeated.
I respectfully ask that the Commissioner take this written statement into account when assessing my professional competence.
Thank you for your consideration.
Yours faithfully,
Mrs Jaspreet Kang
Qualified Transport Manager” [263-264]
I heard oral evidence from Mr Foden and Mrs Foden and representations on behalf of Mrs Foden from Mr Mason.
As this is an existing licence, the burden is on me to be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence as against the civil standard of proof, (i.e. on the balance of probabilities or, more likely than not) before making an adverse finding. Applying those standards to the evidence before me I make the findings below under discrete sub-heading.
The operator’s licence
Mr Foden accepted the shortcomings in the DVSA report and confirmed again that he wanted a finding that his company’s operator’s licence is revoked. He understood that on revocation, I may go on to disqualify the company and himself, as the company director, from holding or being involved in an operator’s licence in the future. Mr Foden also fully understood that without any financial information I am unable to find that the operator has financial standing. He was aware that in failing to comply with the hearing directions the operator was also likely to be in breach of licence conditions and directions by not providing information to the OTC when requested.
In relation to the 19 offences of knowingly making a false record or entry, Mrs Foden stated in her written and oral evidence that, by 2024, her husband had begun placing considerable pressure on her to extend the driving hours, as he was convinced that they were not making sufficient money from the transport side of the company to be financially viable. She added that:
“My husband eventually convinced me that, from the anecdotal evidence he had received, if I extend my driver hours by using his driver card, then it would be a £200 fine.”
Mr Foden did not disagree with these comments. He explained that from the discussions he had had with associates within the industry drivers would often accept the risk and possible consequences of breaching the drivers’ hours rules. As the sole director of the operator company, he accepted responsibility for his wife’s driving infringements and that he had wrongfully persuaded his wife to use his driver’s card.
Mr Foden explained that he did not receive any transport manager oversight of his operations from Mrs Kang. He stated that she had never visited the operating centre or liaised with Mr Foden since the grant of the licence in 2022 until she was removed from the licence. Nor did she carry out any vehicle or driver management responsibilities. Mr Foden stated that he paid £350 a month for her transport manager services but did not receive any ‘services’ for this: not even the occasional telephone call or email. Mr Foden did not appear to have a concern at the time about the lack of engagement, involvement or oversight by Mrs Kang. He did not, for instance, press Mrs Kang to carry out relevant transport manager tasks. He appeared simply to pay the monthly invoices. It appears to me that Mrs Kang is correct in her written statement that she was a transport manager in name only. That may have suited the operator and Mrs Kang, who appeared to being paid for doing very little, if nothing. However, I find that such an arrangement, had a material adverse consequence on Mrs Foden, who, as the operator’s driver, had no independent oversight or scrutiny from a transport manager who was being paid to do precisely that. Had Mrs Kang been carrying out her functions adequately she would have noted the use of two cards by Mrs Foden and should have raised this as an issue of non-compliance at some stage during the offending period of August – October 2024.
Overall, I find that there has been no effective oversight and management of key aspects of the operator’s licence. Moreover, I find that the operator and its sole director encouraged the illegal use of the tachograph and driver card system believing that the consequence of this was a minor matter.
Having regard to the above, I find that there have been the following breaches of the GVLOA 1995:
- section 26(1)(b) and a breach of licence conditions including the failure to notify the traffic commissioner of events affecting the licence, the matter coming to the attention of the OTC via the DVSA;
- section 26(1)(e) and a failure to fulfil statements made in the licence including those relating to convictions, maintenance arrangements and financial status including the failure to comply with the directions in relation to the public inquiry;
- section 26(1)(f) relating to undertakings given when applying for the licence including that rules on drivers’ hours and tachographs would be observed; and,
- section 26(1)(h) and a failure to notify the Traffic Commissioner of a material change in the operations including the possible falsification of drivers’ hours regulations and also that, without any evidence to the contrary, that the operator no longer has sufficient financial standing.
The former transport manager: Mrs Kang
The written evidence of Mrs Kang is consistent with the oral evidence presented by Mr and Mrs Foden. She accepts that she was fully responsible for ensuring compliance during the period that she was transport manager. She also accepts that the breaches should have been identified and addressed at an early stage. Mrs Kang adds that it was a serious error of judgement in acting as a transport manager without providing the necessary oversight and control. I agree. There is joint and several liability between a transport manager and an operator (and its director(s)) to ensure compliance with an operator’s licence. The failure to provide any control and oversight of this operator has not helped the operator. However, the consequence has been far worse for Mrs Foden who has not been afforded any scrutiny or oversight and not provided with any support in how the driver’s aspects of an operator’s licence should be regulated and managed. It is not exercising effective and continuous management of the transport operation.
I note Mrs Kang’s comments that the situation has caused her to reflect carefully on her responsibilities as a transport manager and that she does exercise control as a transport manager elsewhere. This may be so, but that’s all too late for Mrs Foden and the position she has found herself in.
Driver conduct
Mrs Foden provided a statement at the outset of the hearing that drew together some of the comments made in correspondence. As noted above she pleaded guilty at the earliest occasion to 19 offences of making a false entry in relation to tachograph records between 1 August and 22 October 2024. The fine she received appeared to be modest for the number and extent of the offences. In submissions, Mr Mason noted that the DVSA prosecutor had accepted that Mrs Foden had otherwise been driving properly using her own card but then inserted her husband’s card at the end of the driving and that none of the false entries exceeded 1 to 2 hours with little extra mileage added. Mr Mason explained that the DVSA had accepted that, in the circumstances, there was no impact on road safety nor any commercial gain.
Mrs Foden explained to me that the reason for the extended driving was, more often than not, to get to a safe place to park or to park at a local gym so that she could use the gym facilities that had hygienic wash facilities. This was in contrast to the authorised truck stops which were often overcrowded and unhygienic. Mrs Foden emphasised that the quality and standard of truck services is generally quite poor and that there are few pleasant or particularly safe places for female truck drivers. She therefore sought to be able to park safely and with some level of hygienic washing facilities. Mrs Foden says that there was no commercial gain and little extra mileage secured in the use of her husband’s driver card. Instead it was for her personal convenience and safety. I noted that this explanation was inconsistent with the early comment in her statement that the pressure on her from Mr Foden was that the transport activity was not making sufficient money and that the company needed to be financially viable. Mrs Foden stated that she secured no financial benefit as a director of the company.
I understand that Mrs Foden is currently employed full time as a driver for Jack Richards & Co, a general haulage firm. Mrs Foden explained that she now manages her time and work such that she tries to secure parking early enough in the day and at the safer and more reliable service stations. She is continually monitored as a driver and provided with frequent updates on her time and hours. She provided recent evidence of this explained that the very minor drivers’ hours breaches have arisen through inadvertent use of the tachograph and none have prompted any concern by her current firm’s transport manager.
Overall, I accept that there was no material financial gain on Mrs Foden’s part. I also find that while Mrs Foden has a degree of responsibility for the misuse of the driver’s card she was not solely responsible. Her husband, as operator, and the transport manager were equally responsible for their acts and omission. It was, of course, Mrs Foden alone that was prosecuted and punished in the magistrates’ court.
Determination
Having made the above findings, I remind myself of relevant provisions from the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document 10: “The principles of decision making & the concept of proportionality” (SD10) including paragraph 4 and that the legislation exists to promote road safety and fair competition and that commissioners: “… will have regard to the principle of proportionality in deciding what intervention is commensurate with the circumstances of each individual case”. Paragraph 50 adds that:
“A traffic commissioner should consider all the relevant negatives and positives when balancing the relevant factors and so should also carry out an assessment of the weight to be given to all the various competing elements. This also applies to consideration of a transport manager’s repute. …”
On the positive side, the operator has been open and candid about its licence and Mr Foden is encouraging me to revoke this. The negative factors are that there have been a number of breaches of legislation alongside adverse findings by the DVSA along with the conviction of Mrs Foden for multiple tachograph offences.
The operator and transport manager have ignored the full nature and extent of their responsibilities. Yet, operators and transport managers are deemed to know the advice and guidance that is publicly available. In “LA & Z Leonida t/a ETS” [2014] UKUT 0423 (AAC) the Upper Tribunal noted that:
. … it does not matter whether an operator’s licence is held by an owner operator, a partnership or a limited company because in each case the person or persons responsible for managing the business bear the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that the road transport aspect of the business operates in compliance with the regulatory regime. That means that they cannot plead ignorance or put the blame on the transport manager because they are required to have sufficient knowledge of the regulatory regime to ensure compliance in general and the proper performance of the transport manager’s duties in particular.
Moreover, operators and transport managers are expected to comply with their responsibilities. They commit to these in the form of the undertakings given to the traffic commissioner when applying for an operator’s licence see e.g. [43]. A transport manager provides a declaration in similar terms: see e.g. the application form completed by Mrs Kang of 19 May 2022 [50-51].
Taking into account the positive and negative factors and by reference to the suggested starting points of regulatory action found in Statutory Document 10, Annex 4, I find that this case may be regarded as severe to serious. I also have regard to the effect of the regulatory action proposed on the business and on the transport manager.
The operator’s licence
Strictly, I need not ask myself the question posed by the Upper Tribunal in “2009/225 Priority Freight & Paul Williams” as to whether I trust this operator to be compliant in the future: the operator does not trust itself. Mr Foden has repeatedly asked me to revoke the licence. Moreover, it has not shown me that it has financial standing and therefore I am bound to revoke the licence. And the question asked by the Upper Tribunal in “2002/217 Bryan Haulage Ltd No. 2”; should the conduct of this operator be such that they ought to be put out of business, can then be answered: yes. In such circumstances, I revoke licence OH2052666 under section 26(1) of the GVLOA 1995 to take effect at 23:45 hours on Sunday 22 February 2026.
I now turn to the question of disqualification under section 28 of the GVLOA 1995. I have considered the comment of the appellate Tribunal in !Michael Fenlon [2006] 2006/277” that:
… trust is one of the foundation stones of operator licensing. Traffic Commissioner’s 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. …
In all the circumstance and in the light of my findings above, I am of the view that not only has the operator failed to demonstrate financial standing it has lost its good repute. I also find that its director, Mr Foden has lost his repute as a director. The reasons for this include, among others, the casual approach it has taken to operator licensing, the pressure that appears to me to have been placed on Mrs Foden to use two driver cards and the failure to act responsibly and compliantly in ensuring that its transport manager has provided continuous and effectively management. Mr Foden said that he wanted to be prevented from having an operator’s licence in the future and that it was something he will never do again as long as he lives. I therefore disqualify the operator and Mr Foden indefinitely in accordance with section 28(1) of the GVLOA 1995. Should Mr Foden change his mind at some stage in the future decide that he would like an operator’s licence he could apply to have his disqualification disapplied. That would be a matter for him.
The transport manager Mrs Kang
Mrs Kang accepts that she failed to provide effective and continuous management of this licence and that there were fundamental and material failings. If the impacts and effects of her failings had been limited to, say, operational management, such as the absence of systems and procedures in place, she may have been in a position to demonstrate, going forward, that she did have the ability to provide continuous and effective management. But the consequences of her failings have materially affected Mrs Foden, who was not provided with the oversight and control that should have been given an operator and those associated to them. That failure has contributed to the convictions and regulatory action now facing Mrs Foden. Mrs Kang would or should have known the potential consequences of her failure to act.
In such circumstances and having regard to the acknowledgement of the shortcomings by Mrs Kang, I find that she has lost her repute as a transport manager. Having lost her repute, I must now go on to consider disqualification under paragraph 16(2) of Schedule 3 of the GVLOA 1995. I disqualify Mrs Kang from acting as a transport manager for a period of two years having regard to the suggested starting points in paragraph 108 of SD10 including the Upper Tribunal decision in “Nirwan Ltd and Mr Daljeet Singh Nirwan” [2023] UKUT 172 (AAC), that I understand this is Mrs Kang’s first public inquiry, that she has been open and honest about her shortcomings.
Mrs Kang has said that she is committed to ensuring continuous and effective management going forward. She now has the time to reflect on matters and also on how she will demonstrate that her repute will be restored. Paragraph 110 of SD10, provides that where a transport manager has been disqualified it will be necessary to notify all operators who rely on that transport manager of the disqualification. Mrs Kang’s loss of repute is immediate; her disqualification is to have effect from 23:45 hours on Sunday 22 February 2026.
The driver conduct of Mrs Foden
As a professional driver, Mrs Foden has primary responsibility for her own actions and, in that regard, she was the person using her husband’s driver’s card. She was aware it was unlawful but says that she was persuaded that the risk of being caught acting unlawfully was worth taking. Having been prosecuted and convicted and now facing restrictions on her professional driving entitlement she believes otherwise. In particular, it is not simply a risk of criminal sanctions including fines, there is also the prospect of her professional entitlement being lost. The suggested starting point for using another driver’s card in the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s guidance Statutory Document 6: “Driver Conduct” is revocation of a licence and disqualify for 12 months: see page 37 and case example 23. However, that is a starting point, and each case should be considered on its facts.
The present case has some unusual features. First, I accept that there was some pressure placed on Mrs Foden from her husband in using his card. The extent of that pressure did not appear extreme. I had the impression during the inquiry that although there had been some tension in their business associations this did not transcend to a family dispute. Even so, the pressure as a joint venture to keep viable was present at the time of the offences. I also accept that while there could have been some commercial advantage to their business at the time, much of the motivation for Mrs Foden to use her husband’s card was for her own health and wellbeing as a driver and to help ensure that she could find safe and hygienic services and the use of clean and convenient facilities to wash and so on.
Next, I consider that she was let down by Mrs Kang in her role as transport manager. The general responsibilities of a transport manager are varied. A non-exhaustive list is provided at paragraphs 60 and 61 of Statutory Document 3: “Transport Managers” which includes ensuring that drivers are recording their duty, driving time and rest breaks on the appropriate equipment or in drivers’ hours books and their records are being handed back for inspection as required and that they are taking adequate breaks and periods of daily and weekly rest (as per the relevant regulations which apply). The operator has the direct benefit of continuous and effective management but so will others: the public, other operators, other road users and the drivers and other employees associated with the operator and transport manager. In that context, it may be said that responsibilities of the transport manager are of wide scope and have broad purpose. Mrs Foden was let down by what should have been the checks and balances that should have been in place in infringing her drivers’ hours. She should have been informed of the criminal sanctions but also of the impact on her professional entitlement. I am also of the view that there are some further positive features found in Annex C of Statutory Document 6: “Driver conduct” that are present in this case these include that Mrs Foden has no previous convictions, that there was no injury to any third party, and that there has been full co-operation with the DVSA.
Further, my decision is not a form of punishment but should act as a deterrent to Mrs Foden and to other drivers that non-compliance with the rules on drivers’ hours can have significant adverse effects. It was clear to me during the inquiry that Mrs Foden has learnt from her errors of judgement. She was now driving lawfully and in compliance with the drivers’ hours rules. Moreover, she will be aware that, should there be further incidents, they will have a compound effect in any future assessment of her driving conduct. For others, they will know, if they do not already, that the starting point in using another’s card is revocation and disqualification and the unusual circumstances that have collided in this case will not be present. Taking into account the unusual human factors and arguably exceptional circumstances of this case, I suspend Mrs Foden’s licence for four months with effect from 23:45 hours on Sunday 22 February 2026.
16 February 2026
Dr Paul Stookes
Deputy Traffic Commissioner