Decision for Nored Transport Ltd OF1137478 and Transport Manager Edgar Prokofjevs
Confirmation of the Traffic Commissioner's Decision.
IN THE EASTERN TRAFFIC AREA
NORED TRANSPORT LTD (OF1137478)
and
EDGAR PROKOFJEVS – TRANSPORT MANAGER
CONFIRMATION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER’S DECISION
In the matter of the Goods Vehicle (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995
Public Inquiry held at Cambridge on 09 July 2026
Decision
Operator’s licence revoked with effect from 23:45 hours on 09 July 2026.
The Traffic Commissioner found that the repute of Transport Manager Edgar Prokofjevs to be severely tarnished and any future application will have to be scrutinised by a Traffic Commissioner.
Background
Nored Transport Ltd holds a Standard International Goods Vehicle Operator’s Licence authorising 6 vehicles and 3 trailers. The Director is Edgar Prokofjevs, who is also the named Transport Manager
There is one Operating Centre at Tate Business Park. Dozens Bank. West Pinchbeck, Spalding PE11 3LX. Preventative Maintenance Inspections are said to be carried out by Gee Commercials Ltd, Lucastruck Ltd, and Turner Commercials Ltd at 8-weekly intervals.
The operator’s licence was granted from 21 May 2015, with Mr Prokofjevs as Transport Manager. Undertakings were apparently accepted for Mr Prokofjevs to attend a DVSA New Operator Seminar upon receipt of a further invite and for vehicles to be subject to laden roller brake tests at least 4 times a year.
The operator and Mr Prokofjevs were called to Public Inquiry on 22 September 2020 before my colleague, Mr Dorrington, due to concerns identified during a DVSA maintenance investigation conducted in January 2020, including Prohibition Notices, Fixed Penalty Notices and undertakings which had not been honoured. The operator’s licence was curtailed from 6 vehicles to 3 for 2 weeks and the operator’s repute was found to be tarnished. Mr Prokofjevs, the Transport Manager, was given a first and final written warning, and his repute was also found to be tarnished.
Hearing
The Public Inquiry was listed for today, 9 July 2026, in Tribunal Room 1 of the Office of the Traffic Commissioner in Cambridge. The operator was present in the form of Director and Transport Manager, Edgar Prokofjevs.
Issues
The public inquiry was called following notice that I was considering grounds to intervene in respect of this licence and specifically by reference to the following sections of the Goods Vehicle (Licensing of Operators) Act:
- 26(1)(b) – breach of the conditions - failure to notify events which affect the ability to hold the operator’s licence including the ability of the Transport Manager to meet Schedule 3.
- 26(1)(ca) – Fixed Penalty Notices.
- 26(1)(e) – statement to abide by any conditions.
- 26(1)(f) – undertakings (vehicles and trailers to be kept fit and serviceable, driver defect reporting, maintenance records, drivers’ hours, and tachographs, to ensure the lawful operation and driving of vehicles).
- 26(1)(h) – material change:
- 27(1)(a) – good repute, financial standing and Transport Manager meeting Schedule
Mr Prokofjevs was also called to consider whether he had exercised effective and continuous management and therefore whether I should make a finding under section 27(1)(b) preventing him from relying on his Certificate of Professional Competence.
The operator was directed to lodge evidence in support including financial, and other compliance documentation. Compliance documentation was to be submitted to DVSA by no later than 18 June 2026 with finance and any representations to be sent to my office by 25 June 2026. The financial evidence was not sufficient to meet the current authority and there was no application to voluntarily reduce that authority. I was told that the operator had purchased a vehicle (KU15 GKO) on behalf of the Director’s friend and that this was represented by regular monthly payments in and out of the account.
Summary of Evidence
On 9 April 2025, operator’s vehicle registration: EX62 ETR, driven by Modris Stolcers, was stopped by DVSA. Driver Stolcers informed Traffic Examiner Raymond Hawkins that the vehicle belonged to the Nored Transport Ltd, but suggested that he was in control, as a self-employed driver, invoicing this operator for his services. Driver Stolcers was not carrying a valid driver CPC card. The Examiner observed a photograph of a Latvian licence referring to a code 95, but this could not be validated. Driver Stolcers was subsequently issued with a Fixed Penalty Notice referring to ‘Driver CPC - No evidence of training or exemption’ and was informed that further enquiries would be made regarding the operation of this vehicle. Neither Driver Stolcers nor his company appeared to have its own operator’s licence.
In response to DVSA inquiries dated 11 June 2025, the operator suggested that it had not lent its licence, but that:
“3. Terms of engagement for all drivers active during the period – please note that our drivers are engaged strictly on a self-employed or limited company contractor basis. This model was established and validated following professional consultation in 2022 with Lincs Accountancy Ltd (Chartered Accountants), who confirmed that such arrangements remain legally compliant where key independence criteria are met. These include the right of substitution, lack of mutual obligation, financial independence, and operational discretion — all of which are fully reflected in our contracts and day-to-day practice.
4.Confirmation of tax and national insurance arrangements – all self-employed drivers are responsible for their own income tax and NI contributions. This is clearly stated in the contractual terms. No drivers are paid via PAYE. As per IR35 guidance and best practice, our drivers retain operational control over how their work is carried out, supply their own equipment (e.g., phone, PPE, sat nav), and are free to decline assignments or work for other companies. We do not impose employee-style supervision, performance reviews, or benefits.”
On 18 August 2025, Traffic Examiner Lismore commenced her investigation. Her subsequent report suggested that drivers are employed on a contract basis as limited companies. She identified a lack of management control, specifically from inadequate loading/load security training, inadequate disciplinary procedures. In addition, the Transport Manager had not undertaken any refresher training since 2020. The operator’s response suggested that drivers had completed a load security training module and signed an updated disciplinary procedure. In addition, an addendum had been added to driver contracts regarding a disciplinary and compliance procedure that set out the relevant disciplinary action should there be a failure to comply with the operator licensing requirements. Further, Mr Prokofjevs had booked refresher training on 28 August 2025, but that was cancelled. He is now booked to attend on 26 and 27 March 2026.
The Deputy Traffic Commissioner asked that the operator be advised of the issues relating to driver control and the available guidance via HM Revenue and Customs, specifically the CEST tool (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/check-employment-status-for-tax.) The operator was requested to provide details of any plans to address the DTC’s concerns. An email of 10 December 2025 indicated that “Our driver engagement arrangements have been based on ongoing professional advice from our accountants, who guided us on the use of self-employed and limited-company agreements within the framework of IR35. Following that advice, we completed IR35 checks, used the CEST tool where appropriate, and ensured our agreements reflected recognised contractor features, including substitution rights, invoicing requirements, and each driver’s responsibility for their own tax and NI. These arrangements were implemented in good faith and based on the guidance available at the time.” It also outlined plans to comply with Government guidance and referred to a long-standing driver, Algis Kaminskis, having moved onto the payroll as a PAYE employee.
The operator suggested that: “We are now reviewing each remaining driver individually and discussing the most suitable compliant arrangement for them. This will involve a mix of PAYE employment, umbrella company engagement, or the use of reputable agency drivers where appropriate. We are progressing carefully to ensure that we maintain operational stability while transitioning to models fully consistent with the expectations of the Traffic Commissioner.” I noted that drivers were responsible for their own DCPC training.
I presided at the Preliminary Hearing on 4 March 2026 and received an update from Traffic Examiner Lismore indicating that there had been no significant missing mileage during the 3-month period under analysis, albeit driver’s hours offences had been identified and against Drivers Birzaks, Kaminskis and Stolcers. From the data analysed and infringements produced, in the period 31 October 2025 to 31 January 2026,
Driver Lauris Birzaks
committed the following offences:
- 2 December 2025 - exceeded 4.5 hours limit by 15 minutes.
- 3 December 2025 - exceeded 4.5 hours limit by 56 minutes.
- 10 December 2025 - exceeded 4.5 hours limit by 30 minutes.
The operator wrote to the driver on the 22 December 2025. The driver is no longer engaged with the operator. Driving Licence Checks were carried out on the 20 May 2025 and 12 August 2025, with no evidence of check for November 2025.
Driver Algis Kominskis
- 12 November 2025 - exceeded daily limit by 10 hours by 27 minutes.
- 12 November 2025 - exceeded 4.5 hours limit by 1 hour 6 minutes.
- 12 November 2025 - exceeded 4.5 hours limit by 17 minutes.
- 27 November 2025 - insufficient daily rest (11 hours) by 1 hour 54 minutes
- 8 January 2026 - insufficient daily rest(11 hours) by 1 hour 30 minutes
The operator wrote to the driver on 30 January 2025. This driver was suspended for 1 month from duty on 28 July 2025, due to repeated non-compliance and to allow the driver to attend a CPC module on drivers’ hours and for a review to be conducted. A first formal disciplinary notice was issued to the driver on the 5 November 2025, second on 10 December 2025, with a final written warning on 10 January 2026. This driver was suspended on the 26 January 2026 due to non-compliance pending an investigation and formal disciplinary action. No driving licence check received.
Driver Modris Stolcers
31 October 2025 – exceeded daily driving time (9 hours) by 57 minutes. The operator wrote to the driver on the 2 November 2025. Driving Licence checked on 9 February 2025, 11 August 2025, and 17 February 2026, but no evidence received of a check in November 2025.
The Examiner noted that one driver transitioned to PAYE employment in October 2025. Following further review and communication with the remaining drivers at the end of 2025, a second driver commenced PAYE employment in January 2026. Two other drivers chose to seek work elsewhere rather than transfer to employment terms. The operator has ensured that those drivers are now employed on a PAYE basis and under its control, although there was still room for improvement in areas such as the checking of driving licences. Drivers Kaminskis and Stolcers had been retained, choosing to follow HMRC guidance, but Drivers Birzaks and Kekys felt unable to support this operator retain his licence. I had noted that Driver Kekys had not been devoting sufficient time to his driver walk round (as was evident from the AssetG0 record).
I also noted that, whilst Gee Commercials were supplying inspection records via the R2C system, brake test reports were not provided in order to confirm the readings shown on the record. I noted inconsistencies in the DTp code applied at brake testing. I was also concerned to note that the operator had failed to obtain and retain trailer records. The operator was given considerable assistance by reference to available guidance including the DVSA Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness but I retained concerns as to the operator’s ability to ensure future compliance and warned the operator and Transport Manager that action might follow at this Public Inquiry, but that he was at liberty to make representations which address those concerns in the intervening period.
It was subsequently said that the operator had scaled back work, but there was no voluntary reduction. I therefore made an assessment on what I had been provided, which amounted to a Preventative Maintenance Inspection dated 12 March 2026, for vehicle: NJ60 YZW by ML Fleet Services Ltd of Spalding (not a notified contractor) and a roller brake test print out for NJ60 YZW, dated 17 March 2026, i.e. after the inspection date but confirming a DTp code and laden testing. No other supporting evidence was provided.
I referred to the Case Management Directions. The operator was to provide evidence of its systems for managing drivers for the last four months to Traffic Examiner Lismore by 18 June 2026, and maintenance records for all vehicles and trailers for the last four months to Vehicle Examiner Birkby, by the same date. Both Examiners confirmed that no evidence had been received so my office sent an email to the operator on 29 June 2026.
Taking the same approach as it did to the Directions before the Preliminary Hearing, at 7:55 pm on 7 July, I was sent: a certificate of on-line attendance by the Transport Manager at a refresher course, dates unknown by issued on 24 May 2026; driver licence checks for Andrius Tarutis dated 27 April 2026 Jaroslaw Ryszard Pajer dated 23 June 2026, Andrius Parapinaitis dated 28 April 2026, Marios Vaisvila dated 23 April 2026, Viljamas Tiscenka dated 28 April 2026, Tomasz Maciej Harabin dated 1 July 2026, Valentin Hubenov Dimov dated 16 March 2026; infringement reports for Karolis Venskaitis for insufficient daily rest on 25 April 2026 signed 6 June 2026, exceeding 4.5 hour driving limit and insufficient daily rest on 11 May 2026 signed on 6 June 2026, exceeding 4.5 hour driving limit on 19 May 2026 signed on 6 June 2026, exceeding 4.5 hour driving limit on 29 May 2026 signed on 6 June 2026, exceeding daily drive limit on 30 May 2026 signed on 6 June 2026, photograph of a Lithuanian issued driver card and UK national insurance card for Karolis Venskaitis; infringement report for exceeding daily drive limit by Giedrius Pocevicius on 17 February 2026 signed on 10 March 2026, Missing mileage report dated 21 June 2026 referring to Driver Modris Stolcers.
I was also provided with: • EX62 ETR – internal VOR memorandum dated 21 May 2026, 15+ weeks since the previous inspection. • EX62 ETR – Preventative Maintenance Inspection record dated 2 February 2026 by Gee Commercials Ltd suggesting a roller brake test: 53%, 16%, 23% but no printout attached. It also recorded defective nearside rear spray suppression, cracked middle axle air bags, cracked windscreen in zone A & B with no driver defect report of indication of whether the shock absorbers showed on the dashboard. • EX62 ETR – Preventative Maintenance Inspection record dated 6 December 2025 by Gee Commercials Ltd suggesting a roller brake test: 42%, 21%, 18% but no printout attached. • EX62 ETR – Preventative Maintenance Inspection record dated 20 October 2025 by Lucastruck Ltd with no brake performance test. • EX62 ETR – Preventative Maintenance Inspection record dated 25 August 2025 by Lucastruck Ltd with no brake performance test. • EX62 ETR – Preventative Maintenance Inspection record dated 12 May 2025 by ML Fleet Service Ltd with no brake performance test. Vehicles NJ60 YZM, KR16 VBC and KR65 SXW are also specified on this licence.
I noted the dates of apparent action by the Transport Manager against the date of the call up letter, 22 May 2026. There was no evidence of any disciplinary action, and the maintenance records were restricted to the single vehicle. The refresher course apparently took place over a few days with interactive videos. It had not apparently led to improved compliance.
Mr Prokofjevs told me that contrary to what I was told at the Preliminary Hearing, Drivers Kaminskis and Stolcers had not agreed to be retrained and left shortly afterwards. Karolis Venskaitis had been retained and undertook international work for the operator, but the operator found it difficult to control that work and he was let go at the end of May 2026. Mr Prokofjevs was frank in his admissions. Whilst he was personally very busy the operator’s margins were such that there was not enough profit in the negotiated contracts to allow for proper retention of the drivers. They had left and he found it increasingly difficult to source work. At one point there had been some shunting work between sites for the site owner, who had apparently paid the driver agency direct. It had now reached the stage that only 2 vehicles were not SORNd. The operator had failed to notify my office of that change or to return the discs. There had been no operations since June, but the operator failed to produce evidence to that effect for the other 3 vehicles specified.
Determination
Based on the evidence summarised above, I was satisfied that I should record adverse findings under the following sections of the Act: 26(1)(b) – breach of the conditions - failure to notify events which affect the ability to hold the operator’s licence including a cessation of operations, and a reduction in financial standing; 26(1)(ca) – Fixed Penalty Notices dated 8 January 2024 and 9 April 2025, 26(1)(e) – statement on inspection intervals and to abide by any conditions, including the return of unused discs; 26(1)(f) – undertakings (vehicles and trailers to be kept fit and serviceable, driver defect reporting, maintenance records, drivers’ hours and tachographs, to ensure the lawful operation and driving of vehicles).
I have referred to the financial evidence above and proceeded to record adverse findings under section 26(1)(h) and 27(1)(a) –financial standing. I accepted that the operator had struggled as a result of being let down by the named drivers. The Director failed to notify me of those changes even after the Preliminary Hearing. In that context, his excuse of being too busy to collate the records as directed, did not really hold water. The repeated failure to comply with Directions left a clear impression of a Director and Transport Manager burying his head in the sands in the hope that something might come along. Sadly, for this operator, that did not prove to be the case. This is a case where the behaviour of the drivers described by the operator risked the impression that they thought they could be in control. Other responsible operators will no doubt read their names out of concern. Where a Transport Manager finds himself overridden, then he can expect his repute to be put at issue. However, the record keeping was also far below the required standard. This was very far from effective and continuous management. As I felt obliged to put an end to this licence, I was able to step back from disqualifying him from relying on his Certificate of Professional Competence although repute is severely tarnished and any future application will have to be scrutinised by a Traffic Commissioner.
I struggled to find any positives here or even to suggest future compliance beyond hope and aspiration. Mr Prokofjevs appeared resigned to the fate of the licence and to a degree that might be to his credit. But, when I turned to the question posed by the appellate tribunal in 2009/225 Priority Freight namely: how likely is it that the operator will comply in future, there was little to indicate a way forward. That inevitably led me to conclude that it should be removed from the industry. What credit I could ascribe is reflected in the decision not to disqualify on this occasion, although that was close. As operations had ceased, the operator agreed that there was no reason not to make that direction from 23:45 tonight. The operator was advised of the need to return all documentation.
R Turfitt
Traffic Commissioner
9 July 2026