Decision for Mr. Stephen Lee (OC2030317)
Written decision of the Traffic Commissioner for the North West of England for Mr. Stephen Lee
IN THE NORTH WEST TRAFFIC AREA
Mr. STEPHEN LEE t/a SL RECOVERY – OC2030317
WRITTEN CONFIRMATION OF THE VERBAL DECISION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER
PUBLIC INQUIRY HELD IN GOLBORNE ON 23 SEPTEMBER 2026
DECISION:
Under the provision of sections 26(1)(b), 26(1)(e), 26(1)(f) and 26(1)(h) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (“the Act”), this operator’s licence is revoked with effect from 23:45 on 07 October 2026.
Under the provision of section 28 of the Act, Mr. Stephen Lee is disqualified from holding or obtaining an operator’s licence for a period of eighteen months, commencing 07 October 2026 and ending 23:45 on 07 April 2028.
Mr. Stephen Lee is a sole trader operating under the trading name “SL Recovery”. He holds a Restricted Goods Vehicle Operator’s licence authorising one vehicle from an operating centre given as 7 Erewash Road, Pinxton, NG16 6NS. The licence was granted on 14 April 2020.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Lee has come to the attention of this office following an announced visit by a DVSA vehicle examiner. The examiner conducted an assessment of the licence holder’s systems for compliance (“the MIVR”) and concluded his assessment as “Report to OTC (the Office of the Traffic Commissioner)” – the worst scoring available.
Despite the advance notice the examiner found an absence of records or policies and, of thirteen compliance areas assessed, only six were considered “Satisfactory”. Four areas scored “Unsatisfactory” with three scored as “Report to OTC”.
Concerns were raised by the examiner in regard to the operator’s systems for compliance in relation to: (i) Inspection / Maintenance Records; (ii) Driver Defect Reporting; (iii) Inspection Facilities & Maintenance Arrangements; (iv) Vehicle Emissions; (v) Wheel & Tyre Management; (vi) Load Security; and (vii) Transport Manager / Responsible Person. Many of the shortcomings relate directly to areas critical for road safety.
Whilst the licence holder responded to the MIVR that response fell significantly short of providing any assurance for future improvement.
It is also noted that, at annual test, the operator has an initial failure and final failure rate of 100% following three tests. This compares against the national averages of 11.43% and 7.84% respectively.
At roadside encounter there has been a single roadworthiness encounter which resulted in an immediate prohibition, giving a mechanical prohibition rate of 100%.
Due to the road safety concerns a letter was issued on 22 June 2026 proposing to revoke the licence and, on 08 July 2026 the operator requested a public inquiry as is its right.
Accordingly the public inquiry was convened to determine whether the licence holder has failed to comply with the undertakings and conditions of the operator’s licence, and whether there has been a material change in the circumstances of the licence holder that were relevant to the grant of the licence – namely that the licence-holder may no longer be considered ‘not-unfit’ to hold an operator’s licence and whether the licence-holder continues to have access to sufficient financial resources to ensure the provision of the facilities and arrangements for maintaining the vehicles in a fit and serviceable condition.
PUBLIC INQUIRY
The public inquiry took place on Wednesday 23 September 2026 at the Golborne Hearing Centre. Whilst the hearing was listed for a 10am start, Mr. Lee did not arrive until 10:30 and did not have immediate access to the papers. Assistance was provided by the clerk and the hearing eventually commenced at 11:05. Mr. Lee asserted that he mis-read the start time as 10:30.
The DVSA were also in attendance through Vehicle Examiner Peter Flanaghan and Traffic Examiner Peter Cotgreve.
As well as setting out the location and time of the inquiry the calling in letter further communicated case management directions to be complied with. These included the requirements to provide this office: (1) a list of attendees; and (2) evidence of available finances; and to provide the DVSA vehicle examiner maintenance records and evidence of maintenance systems.
These case management directions were not complied with. Mr. Lee explained that he had not yet managed to obtain financial records from the bank nor maintenance records from the maintenance provider. He had, however, brought with him some invoices for maintenance work that was undertaken.
ISSUES
There are three areas for consideration:
-
Compliance with undertakings and conditions – I need to be satisfied that this operator has, and is capable of, fulfilling the undertakings and complying with the conditions of its licence.
-
Fitness – I am concerned with this operator’s significant shortcomings, the failure to comply with the case management directions, and the failure to adequately prepare for this public inquiry. This leads to the question as to whether Mr. Lee can be trusted to hold an operator’s licence.
-
Financial Resources – Whilst the requirement under s13D of the 1995 Act is discretionary, the absence of maintenance records is such that I am concerned the provision of the facilities and arrangements for maintaining the vehicles in a fit and serviceable condition may be prejudiced through insufficient financial resources.
ASSESSMENT OF EVIDENCE
Undertakings and Conditions
The MIVR was conducted by VE Flanaghan, an experienced vehicle examiner with the DVSA. I revisited the details of the report and record the primary issues as follows:
-
Mr. Lee had no records whatsoever relating to maintenance.
-
No review of inspection or maintenance records was possible as there were no such records available. There has been no forward planning, and there are no systems for managing VOR or safety defect and recall systems.
-
No review of driver defect reporting was possible as the operator held no driver defect records. As such there was no system evident for drivers to record defects promptly and in writing. Further there was no evidence of any system for the proper assessment and repair of any such defects.
-
Inspection facilities and maintenance arrangements were considered unsatisfactory. The licence-holder provided no evidence of a maintenance contract and the poor test history for this operator (all previous tests resulted in a fail) was indicative of inadequate maintenance standards.
-
The operator provided no evidence of a system to ensure the correct operation of emissions control systems.
-
Systems for wheel security and tyre management were determined to be ineffective.
-
There was no evidence of driver training in load security and whilst there were arrangements in place for load security systems these were in need of improvement.
-
Finally, the examiner concluded that Mr. Lee, as the responsible person, appeared to lack any experience or knowledge.
The examiner’s findings had been shared with Mr. Lee at the time, inviting comment and an outline of improvements that might be made in light of the recommendations made. No response was received. The examiner then wrote to Mr. Lee again on 23 March 2026 allowing a further seven working days for a reply. The examiner records that Mr. Lee responded on 30 March 2026 to state “Hello Peter I’ve sorted the walk around forms and the garage maintained forms that need signing so far I think you just need a letter from the transport manager?”
No further response was received and the examiner concluded that the response received was unsatisfactory and I am minded to agree with that assessment.
Mr. Lee suggested that he had been unaware of the need to bring the materials with him to the DVSA assessment. This is disputed by the examiner, and I am minded to reflect on Mr. Lee’s failure to fully read, understand and follow the instructions of my calling in letter which included the time to attend and the records to provide. On balance I conclude that the requirements were more likely than not clearly set out, but not complied with. It is relevant that maintenance related records remained unavailable on the day of the inquiry.
As I went through the issues with Mr. Lee the picture managed to become worse. In evidence Mr. Lee advised me that he aimed for six-week inspections (as recorded on VOL), but these would range between 5-8 weeks depending on the maintenance provider’s availability. I was also advised that the maintenance provider had changed some 18-24 months prior and Mr. Lee was unaware of the need to notify this office of such changes within 28 days. He indicated that maintenance records were retained by the maintenance provider, and he was unsure whether any brake performance assessment was ever undertaken. He did state with some confidence that he knew that rolling road brake testing was conducted once per year, at annual test, and was oblivious that this was a less than satisfactory approach. He confirmed that he had only recently become aware of the DVSA Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness, but it was clear, however, that this was yet another document that he had not taken the time to read and digest.
Fitness
The failings identified by the DVSA would, alone, demonstrate a material change, being that the operator may no longer be considered ‘not unfit’ to hold an operator’s licence. I go further, however, and give consideration to the issue of repute – at paragraph 18 of NT 2013/82 Arnold Transport Ltd, the Upper Tribunal highlighted the word ‘fitness’…
“…because it is critical to understanding the breadth of the requirement to be of good repute. It means, for example, that an operator who cannot be trusted to comply with the operator’s licensing regime is unlikely to be fit to hold an operator’s licence”.
In this case the operator has not only failed to fulfil the maintenance undertakings, and compliance with conditions, but he has also failed to demonstrate any level of acceptable knowledge or understanding of the operator licensing regime. The public inquiry offered an opportunity to provide evidence of an updated and improved position. The absence of records, and the lack of knowledge displayed has had the opposite effect.
Financial Resources
- I am entirely satisfied that financial resources are a relevant consideration in this case. The DVSA report demonstrates significant weaknesses and absences within the maintenance systems. The calling in letter requested evidence of financial resources to satisfy that maintenance was not prejudiced through an absence of such resources. The failure to submit any financial records means that I cannot be satisfied that the deficiencies identified by the DVSA are unrelated to insufficient financial resources.
DETERMINATION
The review of the evidence within the bundle and provided at inquiry satisfies me that I should record adverse findings under the following sections:
-
Section 26(1)(b) – that the licence-holder has contravened any condition attached to the licence, namely the requirement to notify changes in the maintenance and safety inspection arrangements within 28 days;
-
Section 26(1)(e) – that the licence-holder made for the purposes of the application for the licence a statement of expectation that has not been fulfilled, namely that vehicles would be inspected at 6 weekly intervals;
-
Section 26(1)(f) – That the operator has failed to comply with the undertakings of its licence, namely to make proper arrangements so that (i) Motor vehicles and trailers, including hired vehicles and trailers, are kept fit and serviceable; (ii) 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 promptly recorded in writing; and (iii) Records are kept (for 15 months) of all driver defect reports, all safety inspections, routine maintenance and repairs to vehicles and trailers and these are made available on request.
-
Section 26(1)(h) – That since the licence was granted there has been a material change in the circumstances of the licence holder which were relevant to the grant of this licence, namely that the licence-holder no longer satisfies the requirements: (1) to be ‘not unfit’ to hold an operator’s licence; and (2) to satisfy me that the provision of the facilities and arrangements for maintaining vehicles in a fit and serviceable condition is not prejudiced by insufficient financial resources.
I make the finding on fitness due to the contravention of conditions, failure to fulfil undertakings and the lack of knowledge or understanding of operator licensing requirements displayed at this inquiry. As regards finances, the operator was directed to provide evidence of financial resources and failed to do so. In the absence of that evidence, I cannot be satisfied that the facilities and arrangements for maintaining vehicles in a fit and serviceable condition are not prejudiced by insufficient financial resources.
The unsatisfactory MIVR and 100% fail rate at annual test coupled with the clear lack of knowledge or understanding creates a road safety risk that I cannot ignore. This is a preventative regime and the requirement is to have proper systems for compliance in place at all times. In this case I have many negative features and no positive aspects against which to balance, aside from giving Mr. Lee credit for attending today. The records provided today do not invite any positive determinations. They do not evidence any structured means of future compliance.
The balancing exercise satisfies me that this is an operator that I cannot trust to comply with the operator licensing regime. On consideration 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”. The complete absence of records and lack of knowledge are clear and serious failures which demonstrate prolonged non-compliance and compromise road safety. Mr. Lee’s performance at public inquiry has further eroded any trust that I could have in this licence-holder.
In its decision on 2006/277 Fenlon, the Upper Tribunal stated:
“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.”
Whilst I recognise that this is a Restricted licence holder, I note the comments from the Upper Tribunal in Redsky Wholesalers Ltd v UKUT [2013] UKUT 194 (AAC) indicating that asking the ‘Priority Freight’ and ‘Bryan Haulage’ questions can be helpful in determining the proportionality of approach. I therefore 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 in respect of this licence leads me to conclude that this is an operator that cannot be trusted and that I do not currently trust.
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. In contrast I have no positive features other than Mr. Lee’s attendance. The negative features of this case far outweigh that single positive.
I remind myself that this is not merely a case involving absent records. The operator has a 100% fail rate at annual test and his single roadside encounter with a DVSA vehicle examiner resulted in an immediate prohibition, demonstrating that this is not just an administrative shortcoming, but a genuine risk to road safety.
I therefore make a direction under the provisions of sections 26(1)(b), (e), (f), and (h) of the 1995 Act that this licence be revoked. I note that revocation under s.26 is a discretionary matter, but I conclude that this is the appropriate action. I have no assurances that a period of suspension would serve the purpose of enabling the operator to make right the failings. I have already stated that I do not trust this operator and I have set out my reasons for that. I do not consider anything other than revocation to be in the interests of the public or other, compliant, operators. A short period of time is allowed to ensure an orderly conclusion to transport operations, and the revocation is to take effect at 23:45 on 07 October 2026
DISQUALIFICATION
Having revoked the licence for the reasons set out, I take account of the guidance provided by the Senior Traffic Commissioner at Paragraph 108 of Statutory Document No. 10. I am mindful that disqualification is not something that should be applied routinely, but there must be proportionate action in a case where basic undertakings and conditions are not being complied with, and an identifiable road safety risk is present.
Mr. Lee was given the opportunity to attend this public inquiry and explain his reasons for non-compliance and any plan for future compliant operations. Whilst he has attended, he has failed to provide any reasonable explanation for the shortcomings. Lack of knowledge and apologies are insufficient to balance the risk to road safety. In the absence of any positive features, and on consideration of the risk both to road safety and the integrity of the licensing regime, I consider that a disqualification period of eighteen months is justified and proportionate. This falls towards the lower end of the scale, taking account of this being Mr. Lee’s first public inquiry, and reflects the completely inadequate approach to operator licensing.
David Mullan
Traffic Commissioner for the North West of England
23 September 2026