Decision for Northwards Ltd OM1002880 and Robert Leslie (Transport Manager)
Confirmation of the Traffic Commissioner's decision in the Scottish Traffic Area.
IN THE SCOTTISH TRAFFIC AREA
NORTHWARDS LTD - OM1002880
AND
ROBERT LAURENCE LESLIE – TRANSPORT MANAGER
CONFIRMATION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER’S DECISION
Decision
The licence is curtailed by 5 vehicles for a period of 1 week, commencing at 23:45 on 23 May 2026. The operator’s repute has been tarnished by these events, and I do not expect a repeat.
The Transport Manager Robert Leslie’s repute is undoubtedly tarnished, and he is aware that the future nominations will be scrutinised by the Traffic Commissioner for Scotland
Background
Northwards Ltd holds a Standard National Goods Vehicle Operator’s Licence authorising 50 vehicles and 138 trailers. The Directors are Neil Henry Leslie, Ole Saevild, Tor Gjostein and Grant Anderson. Robert Laurence Leslie has been named as Transport Manager since grant. The Transport Manager referred to the 50 vehicles and 130 Trailers, 80–90 drivers with night shifts and double-manning. Operations were said to be spread across depots in Aberdeen, Inverness, Scrabster, Cumbernauld, Orkney, and Shetland, as a provider of general haulage services to and from the Northern Isles. The work was described as varied, ranging from general freight to essential commodities. 30 per cent of turnover derives from the largest commercial customers including Tesco, as well as hundreds of smaller clients. Operations have grown over time as the business has developed with additional operating centres throughout the region have been added. Ms Gordon experienced growth in the past ten years from a turnover of around £12m in 2015 to around £30m. The addition of six new vehicles contributed to an increase in annual turnover of approximately £3.5 million, with continued expansion across the distribution, agriculture, fisheries, and renewable sectors.
There are now 8 Operating Centres: Units 1-6, 33 Harbour Road, Inverness IV1 1UA; 38 Carsegate Road, Inverness IV3 8EX; 2 Limekilns Road, Cumbernauld, Glasgow G67 2RN; Northwards Ltd, Blackness Road, Altens Industrial Estate, Aberdeen AB12 3LH; Innovation Centre Orkney, Hatston Pier Road, Crowness Business Park, Kirkwall KW15 1ZL; Unit 41, Carsegate Road, Inverness IV3 8EX, Shed 35, Scrabster Harbour, Thurso KW14 7UJ; Anderson Base, Gremista Industrial Estate, Gremista, Lerwick, Shetland ZE1 0PX. Preventative Maintenance Inspections are said to be carried out in-house at Anderson and Garson bases, Norscot Truck and Van, Grant Trailers at 6 and 8-weekly intervals.
The licence commenced on 7 June 2002. An unsatisfactory maintenance investigation resulted in a formal warning dated 2 May 2013. The operator apparently received a further warning on 22 November 2018 following another unsatisfactory maintenance investigation. Vehicle Examiner Gordon Montgomery completed a desked based assessment on 12 March 2025, which was marked as ‘unsatisfactory’. Mr Montgomery had found gaps in the brake performance testing of vehicles and a lack of testing even after significant brake work, despite the operator having access to a roller brake tester. Intervals between Preventative Maintenance Inspections exceeded the declared period by up to 21 days, with no VOR evidence and inconsistent use of the forward planner. In-house records were found to be incomplete, missing endorsements and roadworthiness declarations. Annual test data identified ongoing issues with brake performance and headlamp aim. A significant defect was recorded against SV71 MFY on 10 December 2024 for ‘road spring main leaf fractured’ at annual test. The operator has provided a root cause investigation report into this incident. There was no formal recording system in place for wheel security checks. The Examiner understandably questioned the standard of management.
The Examiner accepted the operator’s assurances that documented brake testing would now occur at each Preventative Maintenance Inspection and after brake repairs, improved supervision and training in respect of the competition of Preventative Maintenance Inspections with an updated scheduling system, integrated with digital tools. New checks and staff training had been introduced to prevent future issues at annual test. Torque tags and register had been implemented, with monitoring by supervisors. The Transport Manager was enrolled for refresher training courses with OLAT planned for all depot managers. Based on this, a Deputy Traffic Commissioner accepted an undertaking for a compliance audit to be lodged by 23 November 2025 and issued a further warning.
The Enforcement record shows that the operator has been the subject of 7 roadside encounters over the last 5 years resulting in 2 mechanical prohibitions. The operator has presented vehicles for 230 annual tests over the last 5 years which resulted in 31 initial fails, giving an initial failure rate of 13.48%.
Hearing
The Public Inquiry was listed for 6 May 2026, in Tribunal Room 1 of the Office of the Traffic Commissioner in Edinburgh. The operator was present in the form of Neil Leslie, accompanied by Katryn Gordon (Operations director), Robert (Robbie) Leslie and represented by Callum Anderson, of Levy MacRae Solicitors LLP.
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) – conditions on licence to notify changes relating to the licence requirements, including a Transport Manager meeting Schedule 3.
- 26 (1)(c)(iii) – Prohibitions.
- 26(1)(e) – statements relating to inspection intervals, and to abide by conditions on the licence.
- 26(1)(f) – undertakings (vehicles to be kept fit and serviceable, effective driver defect reporting, complete maintenance records, drivers’ hours, and tachographs).
- 26(1)(h) – material change:
- 27(1)(a) – repute, financial standing, Transport manager meeting Schedule 3.
- 28 – Disqualification.
Mr Robert Leslie 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, maintenance and other compliance documentation. Compliance documentation was to be submitted to DVSA by no later than 4 March 2026 with finance and any representations to be sent to this office by 11 March 2026.
Summary of Evidence
On 23 November 2025, the operator uploaded the audit report and its plan to implement the audit recommendations. The Case Summary usefully referred to the areas of concern:
- Maintenance Scheduling - Trailer over 12 years old not inspected on the required six-week schedule. Discrepancies in inspection intervals for vehicles and trailers. Maintenance planning did not schedule at least six months in advance. AdBlue Monitoring - No system to monitor AdBlue usage.
- Brake Performance - Brake performance assessments not completed at every inspection. Missing roller brake test printouts and incorrect DTp codes. Failed brake tests not evidenced as rectified. Laden brake tests not completed, at least four times per year.
- Safety Inspection Records - in-house inspection sheets missing key details (brake test information, tyre pressures, ISO week, signed roadworthiness declaration). Volvo Truck & Bus inspection sheets not evidenced.
- No procedure for auditing driver defect checks.
- Tyre Management - No tyre age records maintained. No evidence drivers were trained to check tyres.
- Driver Training and Records - Induction lacked confirmation of training on walk-around checks, drivers’ hours, tachograph use. No evidence of ongoing driving assessments. No eyesight checks or health declarations on file.
- Drivers not recording non-driving days, risking incomplete 28-day records. Annual declaration on other employment not requested.
- No refresher training for some depot managers.
- Policies Missing - No policy on mobile/in-cab device use. No Vulnerable Road User policy. No ADAS training or documented procedure. No vehicle security guidance.
- No written instructions issued to drivers or maintenance staff regarding operator licence responsibilities and legal obligations.
- Operator aware of some notifiable convictions but lacks formal process.
The operator’s bundle contained the following documents: Operator’s action plan as at 5 March 2026, e-mail from Liam Buckley of the road haulage association dated 6 March 2026, RHA app screenshots of weekly maintenance schedules, notifiable convictions policy, e-mail from Steven Spence to depot managers dated 27 February 2026, vehicle mobile phone and in cab technology policy, vulnerable road user policy, driver responsibility letters, driver information sheet on speeding and legal consequences, goods vehicle security policy, drivers’ hours - induction knowledge check, new employee inductions checklist, eyesight check policy, Martin McFarlane eyesight check dated 26 November 2025, RHA app - driver visual restrictions, driver medical fitness policy and procedures, John Lee Rosie - new employee individual health record dated 20 February 2026, John James Ddriver CPC training certificate, David Kelly – driver’s hours and tachograph CPC certificate, Chris Craigie - operator licence awareness training certificate dated 15 December 2025, Sarah Paulson - operator licence awareness training certificate dated 15 December 2025, Alan Leslie - operator licence awareness training certificate dated 7 January 2026, Martin Brownlee - operator licence awareness training certificate dated 7 January 2026, Marta Drynda - operator licence awareness training certificate dated 7 January 2026, vehicle safety recall compliance policy, Cumbernauld depot vehicle calendar, Inverness depot vehicle calendar, RHA app trailer maintenance calendar, inspections sheet trading record, Volvo Truck and Bus preventative maintenance inspection sheet, Roadworthiness procedure - vehicles and trailers returning from inspection or repair, brake performance assessment policy, SV71 MKC brake performance assessment, SV71 MFY Type age, depth and pressure assessments, secondary employment disclosure policy.
I was referred to a statement from Katryn Gordon and heard from her in evidence. Mrs Gordon added to the information above. The operator employs around 150 people, many in rural island communities. She was described as the director of Operations and Administration. She is not a statutory Director. The operator was said to be looking closely at quality management, how depots are supported and held to account, and how compliance information is reported to the senior team and the Board.
It was her role to ensure that decisions are consistent, and that the operator is properly resourced, “and that the senior team is aligned in its approach to safe and compliant operations.” For the reasons explained, I was unclear how that contributed to compliance. Her statement suggested that she was accountable for ensuring the systems, policies and oversight arrangements are in place for the Transport Manager to ensure day-to-day transport compliance.
Reference was made to opening an Operating Centre in Cumbernauld in 2014. The Aberdeen base moved from a small cabin to a two-acre site in 2018, while Inverness now runs a full 24/7 operation from larger premises. It was suggested that the operator had already recognised the need to strengthen its administrative and compliance processes, but the operator was slow to adapt and adopt additional control measures. There was limited organisational change, with the aim “strengthening our approach to the entire employee lifecycle.” In August 2022, the senior management team was restructured with a qualified Head of HR, Ava Johnston. Her remit included training, driver induction, helping drivers and depts to understand expectations, identifying skills gaps in management, supporting depot managers to understand their responsibilities under the operator’s licence. In evidence it emerged that these were responsibilities which actually fall to a Transport Manager. The operator is now helping to support employees through Transport Manager CPC training.
The most important decision was apparently to appoint a dedicated Head of Fleet Compliance, but that had been under consideration prior to the audit because management already knew that the workload on operational managers was too broad. The delay in recruitment appeared to arise from the wish to concentrate management in Shetland (but see paragraph 17 below). The intention was to provide the Transport Manager with additional professional support on compliance. It will be Mr Leask’s job is to bring consistency across depots, monitor planning and performance, and ensure that compliance can be demonstrated, at all times. She was unable to explain how that differed from the Transport Manager’s role and was unable to explain the previous lack of support for the Transport Manager.
Mrs Gordon leads the management team covering HR, health and safety, operations, and administrative functions across our six depots, but I was not impressed by the approach to risk assessment. The key performance indicators adopted were removed from the risks identified by earlier interventions and limited by “taking a high-level strategic view of the transport function.” The Senior Management Teram has formal meetings 4 times per year (with 2 in-person). Mrs Gordon gave a timeline of growth dating back to 2014. Each stage should have prompted the operator to re-examine its compliance processes to see if they were effective. She was appointed in 2011 and raised to her current position in 2023, in response to that growth in operations. However, day-to-day operations including tachographs and drivers’ hours were left to the depot managers. I was assured that Robert Leslie looked at the Preventative Maintenance Inspection records and oversaw drivers’ hours. From what I heard, the key performance indicators engaged from 2023 were recognisably deficient and failed to cover major aspects of the operator’s licence down to basic adverse encounters which would influence the DVSA OCRS. Updated risk assessments have only followed the RHA audit.
There appeared to be some hesitation around my references to the Board and other Norwegian-based activities. Heavy emphasis was placed on the quarterly senior management team meetings. I heard much about the efforts to ensure that the business and senior management team were aligned, but when I came to press Mrs Gordon on the risk assessment process, it became obvious that the Board was far removed from compliance. Mrs Gordon offered the opinion that “many of the right things were being done,” but there were inconsistencies in documentation. Her statement referred to processes that were not formalised, and some were not recorded; neither could stand up to scrutiny. It was suggested that this was the cause and that this amounted to gaps in the evidence of compliance. In which case, they should have been recognised by senior management and the Board. I asked when the Board or senior management team had realised that there were these weaknesses. I was told that this is what had prompted the process to recruit Mr Leask, but the process apparently took a lot of time, having commenced before the desk-based assessment by Mr Montgomery. There appeared to be no real explanation as to why there had been no further action or how the inconsistencies in practice had emerged.
From Mrs Gordon’s evidence, I was obviously meant to be assuaged by the appointment of Mr Leask. He did not appear to give evidence but was left to manage things whilst the hearing was underway. I therefore had no opportunity to hear from him myself or to cross-examine him. It was confirmed that, whilst there were at least four other CPC holders already employed at various depots (Aberdeen, Orkney, Inverness), there was a plan to put him forward for the Transport Manager qualification. Whilst I noted his references to technical knowledge and regulatory awareness, the lack of direct experience might explain an overreliance on the same management terms adopted by Mrs Gordon and that he could not identify any immediate critical risks, despite the fact that the single named Transport Manager was clearly spread too thin.
The reference to proactive integration of compliance improvements was particularly unfortunate in the face of Mrs Gordon’s evidence that the Board had identified the need to strengthen compliance management over two years ago, and in the fact of previous regulatory warnings. Mr Leask only took up post in February 2026 but had worked alongside the Northwards management team in a previous commercial relationship. He was not present for me to ask about the perceived challenges and speed of management decision-making. I was told that he would report to Neil Leslie and not the Transport Manager, but that they are a small team (based in Shetland).
The statement and evidence of Robert Leslie, Transport Manager, sought to explain the relevance of this documentation. He described himself as the Head of Fleet & Operations as well as the named Transport Manager, having worked in the industry for more than four decades. I was concerned by his description of the role of sole Transport Manager to provide oversight of transport operations. He described his involvement with numerous compliance activities and acknowledged the previous warnings in 2013 and 2018.
Mr Leslie was the main point of contact for the latest audit (December 2025). He accepted that there were gaps in documentation, oversight, and suggested consistency across the depots. He referred to the progress and the seriousness attached to implementing the recommendations. Historically, instructions were issued verbally or recorded in general sections of the company handbook, leading to a lack of clarity. This has been recognised after the RHA was commissioned. I was told that the senior management team was aware. Since the audit, formal written instructions have been adopted for drivers and maintenance personnel. I was referred to the Notifiable Convictions Policy explaining how and when drivers must report fixed penalties, offences, and other relevant matters, with a requirement to notify a line manager within twenty-four hours. The policy is now included in the driver induction pack. Several other instructions had been drafted and have now been given HR approval.
Mr Leslie suggested that the audit had identified a lack of central oversight of maintenance scheduling. He referred to the one trailer over 12 years old which missed it’s inspection by one week. He very frankly admitted that he had missed this. The operator was relying on manual inputs to a spreadsheet individual to each depot. All similar trailers will be inspected every six weeks with centralised planning using the RHA compliance system. It is now 100% populated for vehicles and 95% for trailers, having progressed since Mr Leslie made his statement, and provides real-time access to inspection schedules, annual test dates etc. Depot managers across all sites now have direct access. I was told that “overall responsibility has been assigned to our newly appointed Head of Fleet Compliance, James Leask” despite not being the Transport Manager. It was suggested that significant steps had been taken to ensure that there is operational oversight of vehicle maintenance scheduling but by depot managers and James Leask.
The operator was said to have taken steps to rectify brake testing. Printouts now display the correct DTp codes and are securely attached to inspection records. Clear written instructions have been provided to depots requiring proper recording of failures and mandatory retesting with appropriate evidence before a vehicle is returned to service. The operator has decided to make the minimum commitment to at least four laden roller brake tests per year. This was described as best practice. Mr Leslie sought to reassure me that unladen tests would take place at other inspections and that, in practice, there would be more than 4 laden per year. In response to the identified inconsistencies in the completion of records, workshop staff received internal refresher training in November 2025 on the Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness (but see below) and the correct completion of documentation has been reinforced. It was suggested that new Volvo vehicles had not yet reached their first inspection point. Robert Leslie accepted in the evidence that the records of first-use inspection should have been provided. Again, this appeared to have been missed.
I was told that tyre management had been strengthened. Tyre inspections are now recorded using the RHA tyre inspection template to capture pressures, tread depths, and age (over 10 years to be escalated). It was suggested that whilst checked, they were not previously downloaded, but there was no evidence of this, despite the undertaking on the licence. Drivers have now been provided with guidance from the British Tyre Manufacturers Association, to be incorporated into driver training. The audit highlighted the failure to record specific subjects, so the operator has improved the record and incorporated additional refresher material, e.g. walk-round checks retraining uses updated documents.
Secondary employment is declared on induction and checked annually, following an incident in Orkney in the summer of 2025. The depot manager raised concerns, and the employee chose to leave. Policies and procedures had to be strengthened. I was referred to strengthened eyesight and health procedures. Depot managers have been trained on those eyesight checks. Health questionnaires allow for clearer referral routes to occupational health or GPs where appropriate.
Mr Buckley of the RHA was said to have reviewed the proposed action plan. That has not yet been completed despite being lodged last November. Mr Leslie acknowledged that there were gaps in the systems. Some were attributed to longstanding cultural issues, while others arose from the practical realities of operating across geographically remote depots (see below). It was suggested that a dedicated Head of Fleet Compliance had strengthened internal governance. I was referred to the close working of the senior management, with a new shared commitment to compliance. It took a period of questioning to ascertain that Robert Leslie visits the Operating Centres once per month, but the different challenges at individual depots had not been factored in. Mr Leslie appeared more optimistic following the adoption of the digital systems advised by the RHA.
My concerns arose from Mr Leslie’s description of the Transport Manager role as offering “oversight”. In response to cross-examination, he admitted that he had failed to exercise effective and continuous management, as is required of a Transport Manager. He spoke of cultural issues embedded in different depots, which emerged a year ago. They had not been recognised before, which he attributed to an oversight, but was really an indication of weaknesses in management. He recognised that policies had not been followed but could only point to the differences in the depots and operations. He has undertaken familiarisation visits with Mr Leask but was only visiting depots approximately once per month. He meets with the depot managers and goes over any issue and checks the paperwork, which is now available online. He had emailed drivers regarding any infringements in the past. He had also monitored the amount of time taken on a walk round check, but there were weaknesses in the follow up. Deadlines are now set for depot managers to deal with vehicle and driver card downloads. He has daily calls with the Depot managers and now has access to centralised files. He has a weekly Teams call with the management team.
I noted that formal training of depot managers took place in December 2025 and January 2026, with OLAT certificates, as above. Controls of working time and drivers’ hours has been improved through twenty-four-hour digital tachograph records. Drivers card data is uploaded to the RHA system weekly and Vehicle Unit data is uploaded monthly. The calendar is now checked weekly, and any infringements are automatically tagged. The Depot managers follow up on any issues. Mr Leslie has access to the calendars and can conduct checks to ensure depot managers are adequately following up. He told me that he had followed up in the past, but nothing was recorded.
I then referred to Mr Montgomery’s update report of 4 March 2026 based on analysis of Driver defect reports and Preventative Maintenance Inspection records for vehicles SV71 MKC, YX72 NDE, SV75 GWY, PX11 CFU and YC19 LZX, photographic evidence of Wall Planners, and the wheel fitting & re-torque records. No Driver defect reports and Preventative Maintenance Inspection records were produced for PF13 HNR as the vehicle had been VOR since December 2025.
The Examiner identified the following issues:
- SV71MKC, Preventative Maintenance Inspection 6 January /2026, some defect assessment / rectification action not endorsed by technician.
- YX72NDE, driver defect reports from 8 December 2025 to 23 February 2026, signature, date, and NIL defect(s) not endorsed by driver.
- PX11 CFU, Preventative Maintenance Inspection 13 January 2026, measured brake performance test not conducted due to ATF lane being in use by DVSA for annual testing, Operator has put further systems put in place to address this in future.
- YC19 LZX, Preventative Maintenance Inspection 4 February 2026, some defect assessment / rectification action not endorsed by technician.
Additionally, the Forward Planners recorded vehicle safety inspection dates at least six months in advance. The Re-torque record was found to contains all the relevant information required.
Mr Montgomery concluded that the content of most of the Preventative Maintenance Inspections and the driver defect documentation supplied was to the required standard, except for the concerns detailed above. Since the completion of the maintenance investigation, the operator had one vehicle encountered at the roadside, resulting in a PG35EC inspection notice being issued.
I was also assisted by the report of the Traffic Examiner, Kirsty McEwan dated 16 March 2026, based on evidence of managing 6 drivers over the last 6 months including raw tachograph data for DE73VKB, DE73VKC, DX25OVT, SW21GXN, YX72NDE and YX73NYP. and any relevant drivers of those vehicles for the same period; driver licence checks carried out over the period, driver infringement reports for the last three months; vehicle unit download reports (missing mileage); continuous professional development of relevant managers/planners/supervisors; evidence of disciplinary action received by drivers and managers. Analysis of the data showed operation of DE73 VKC commenced from 31 December 2025, no data was received to cover 1 September 2025 until 30 December 2025. For 2 vehicles: DX25 OVT and YX73 NDE there was data missing for periods: 18 October 2025 to 23 October 2025, and 25 January 2026 to 19 February 2026. Digital data on driver cards showed that these vehicles were operated during this time, therefore digital data should have been received for these vehicles. 3 of the vehicles were not downloaded within 90 days although these were not significant.
Analysis of the information showed minor issues with the frequency of downloading and also ensuring that infringement reports were fully completed and signed by both the depot manager and the driver. The Examiner referred to Driver Paul David Donaldson, and a period of driving off card. Vehicle YX72 NDE was driven on 29 November 2025 for a total of 2 hours and 59 minutes covering a distance of approximately 130 kms with over 17 movements. There were 10 instances where the driver cards had not been downloaded within 28 days: Piotr Bartosiewicz - 1 day, Alan Birnie - 28 days, Robert Graham - 4 days, Jack Hoilmes - 50 days, Grzegorz Klosinski - 17 days, Richard Miller 2 instances - 7 and 12 days, Marcin Pitek - 13 days, John Robinson - 3 days, Charles Swan - 42 days. There was 1 significant infringement where Driver Piotr Bartosiewicz took 2 reduced weekly rests in a row despite being in the UK. Analysis confirmed the need to address the frequency of downloading and to ensure that all infringement reports (driving with no card) include the reasoning for the infringement along with being signed by both the manager and the driver.
Determination
Based on the evidence summarised above, I was satisfied that I should record the following adverse findings: sections 26(1)(b) – conditions on licence to notify changes relating to the licence requirements, including a Transport Manager meeting Schedule 3, 26 (1)(c)(iii) – Prohibitions, 26(1)(e) – statements relating to historic inspection intervals and to abide by conditions on the licence, 26(1)(f) – undertakings (vehicles to be kept fit and serviceable, effective driver defect reporting, complete maintenance records, drivers’ hours and tachographs), and 26(1)(h) – material change due to the failure to provide admissible financial evidence and the position of the Transport Manager.
An unfortunate practice has apparently developed where advance notice of the financial averaging exercise has been taken to negate the need to produce original or verified financial statements. That is not the case, as the Directions make clear. I allowed 14 days to produce the same and held that decision under section 27(1)(a) in abeyance for that period.
It was suggested that all was well by the date of the Public Inquiry but that was not the picture provided by the Examiners or Robert Leslie. It is fair to record that there was notable progress, but the operator had been slow to react, and its senior managers had yet to acknowledge the underlying causes, such that I could reach a positive view as to future compliance. In 2023/082 Arnold Transport Ltd, the Upper Tribunal explained that operator licensing is based on trust. Since it is impossible to police every operator and every vehicle (at all times), the Traffic Commissioner must feel able to trust operators to comply with all relevant parts of the operator’s licensing regime. In addition, other operators must be able to trust their competitors to comply, otherwise they will no longer compete on a level playing field. So, grant of an operator’s licence does not mean that an operator can then proceed on the basis that the requirements that must be met in order to obtain a licence can thereafter be disregarded….Unfair competition is against the public interest because it encourages operators to cut corners in order to remain in business. Where actions doubt on whether they can be trusted to comply with the regulatory regime they are likely to be called to a Public Inquiry at which their fitness to hold an operator’s licence will be called into question.
This operator was slow to react. As identified above, the operator should have been on notice of the need to monitor compliance from the formal warning given in May 2013 following an unsatisfactory maintenance marking. The operator might have thought itself lucky to only attract a formal warning in November 2018 following another unsatisfactory maintenance investigation. This case followed the desk-based assessment by Mr Montgomery in March 2025, where he found gaps in the brake performance testing of vehicles and a lack of testing even after significant brake work, despite the operator having access to a roller brake tester. Intervals between Preventative Maintenance Inspections exceeded the declared period by up to 21 days, with no VOR evidence and inconsistent use of the forward planner. In-house records were found to be incomplete, missing endorsements and roadworthiness declarations. Annual test data identified ongoing issues with brake performance and headlamp aim. There was no formal recording system in place for wheel security checks. The Examiner understandably questioned the standard of management. There was an even earlier red flag, when a significant defect was recorded against SV71 MFY on 10 December 2024 at annual test.
It took the process of a Public Inquiry for Robert Leslie to identify for himself that he was overwhelmed by the task. He had attended refresher training in 2025 and should have been up to date. I was referred to a bundle of new policies and procedures, without an answer to the obvious question as to how the Transport Manager would deliver them. Instead, I was referred to the appointment of a Head of Fleet Compliance, again to be based in Shetland. I heard more than my fair share of management-speak, but the senior management team and therefore the Board appeared to be entirely unaware of the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s detailed guidance in paragraph 60 of Statutory Document No. 3 on the expected responsibilities of a Transport Manager. Whilst that document acknowledges that support can be given, the proposed management structure for this operator did not reflect the statutory position.
Directors have a legal duty to act with skill, care, and diligence. The statutory responsibilities under section 172 Companies Act 2006 include the duty to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members, and to ensure the future activities of the company are carried out lawfully. To quote the appellate tribunal in Transport Tribunal in 2003/350 Al Madina Transport Ltd: “Directors have collective responsibility for the company that they manage. It is their responsibility to set the standards that employees are expected to meet; it is their responsibility to ensure that those standards are actually met, and that undertakings and promises made in their name are complied with.” Persons who control an entity which operates goods vehicles must have sufficient knowledge to exercise proper oversight.
The fact that actions were only considered so late in the day risks the impression that there had either been a considerable degree of complacency. It should not be necessary for me to refer to the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 as the primary piece of legislation covering occupational health and safety in Great Britain. It sets out the general duties which:
- Employers have towards employees and members of the public.
- Employees have to themselves and to each other.
- Certain self-employed have towards themselves and others.
Those legal duties are based on effective risk assessment. It is not sufficient for a Board to say that it has an open door and wait for Transport Managers and other professionals to alert them.
The Key Performance Indicators adopted by here were obviously deficient. In a late assessment of the risks and control measures, it was recognised that the Transport Manager structure requires detailed consideration. Rather than bounce the operator, I allowed time for a detailed review to take place. Reference was made to the potential to appoint Neil Leslie as an additional Transport Manager. There are 3 other CPC holders available, and the review needs to consider how management will extend to the outlying depots and operations. I therefore allowed Mr Robert Leslie to step down, in order for a Period of Grace to be granted for 3 months to carry out that review and to then nominate identified CPC holders, with a description of how they will collectively meet the statutory duty. Robert Leslie’s repute is undoubtedly tarnished, and he is aware that the future nominations will be scrutinised by the Traffic Commissioner for Scotland, personally.
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. Clearly, that depends largely on the improved Transport Manager arrangements. The late move towards compliance placed this case in the ‘Serious’ category. I was able to take account of the rather last-minute actions of the operator and to draw back from revocation, but there was a need for deterrent intervention, in the interests of future compliance. It is a long-established principle from the Court of Session in Thomas Muir (Haulage) Limited v The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport, and the Regions [1999] SC 86, that regulatory action undoubtedly contributes to achieving of the purpose of the legislation. As the Upper Tribunal identified in 2019/025 John Stuart Strachan t/a Strachan Haulage: “one of the aims of the regime is deterrence, both for the appellant and for operators as a whole, who might be tempted to flout the system”. The relevance of deterrence was further confirmed in the leading case of 2022/227 Lineage UK Transport Ltd. I took account of the fact that there are already sub- contracting arrangements in place and curtailed the licence by 5 vehicles for a period of 1 week, commencing at 23:45 on 23 May 2026. The operator’s repute has been tarnished by these events, and I do not expect a repeat.
R Turfitt
Traffic Commissioner
10 May 2026