Decision for ORBITALROOFING&SCAFFOLDING LIMITED (OF2051853)
Written decision of the Traffic Commissioner for the East of England for ORBITALROOFING&SCAFFOLDING LIMITED and driver Steven Lee Gardner
IN THE EASTERN TRAFFIC AREA
ORBITALROOFING&SCAFFOLDING LTD OF2051853
GOODS VEHICLES (LICENSING OF OPERATORS) ACT 1995
GOODS VEHICLES (LICENSING OF OPERATORS) REGULATIONS 1995
PUBLIC INQUIRY: 07 JANUARY 2026
TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER’S WRITTEN DECISION
Decision
Pursuant to adverse findings under Section 26(1)(a), (c)(ii), (c)(iii), (e), (f) and (h) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995, Licence OF2051853 ORBITALROOFING&SCAFFOLDING LIMITED is revoked with effect from 23:45 on 24 January 2026.
OrbitalRoofing&Scaffolding Ltd and its sole director Mr Paul Reynolds (d.o.b. Feb 1989) are disqualified from holding or obtaining an Operator Licence in Great Britain or from being engaged in the management, administration or control of any entity that holds or obtains such a Licence for a period of 3 years with effect from 23:45 on 24 January 2026, as provided for by Section 28(1), (4) and (5) of the 1995 Act.
Reasons
The Public Inquiry was originally due to be heard on 11 December 2025. Mr Paul Frederick Reynolds Junior (sole director, d.o.b. Feb 1989) failed to attend, and I issued an interlocutory decision which included suspending the licence until such time as the public inquiry concluded. The public inquiry was concluded before me at OTC Eastbourne on 07 January 2026. DVSA Traffic Examiner Jeremy Childs gave oral evidence via Microsoft Teams. Mr Reynolds attended in person, unrepresented. I confirmed that a written decision would follow quickly, but the suspension continued in the meantime as safety concerns remained.
Approach
There is clear and consistent case law from the Upper Tribunal that a Traffic Commissioner is entitled to treat the conduct of a sole director effectively as the conduct of the Limited Company and good repute or fitness is determined accordingly. Such an approach has received approval from the appellate tribunal on several occasions, such as “2013/008 Vision Travel International Limited” and “T2013/61 Alan Michael Knight.” As well as the operator licensing obligations, a company director must exercise his or her statutory duties of demonstrating independent judgement, reasonable skill, care and diligence, as per sections 173 and 174 Companies Act 2006. It is the Operator’s responsibility to keep VOL accurate.
Before preparing this decision, I have re-read the full electronic bundle, which includes documents referred to as handed in at the hearing. I have not set out all the evidence as it is a matter of record in the papers and by way of transcript. I have referred to material evidence relevant to my findings.
Operators and Transport Managers have deemed knowledge of the advice and guidance in the public domain, as per the Upper Tribunal in “2012/030 MGM Haulage & Recycling Limited.”
Consideration and Findings
Mr Reynolds accepts the DVSA Traffic Examiner’s evidence in the hearing bundle and that the operator failed to comply with my case management directions. Accordingly, I make the following formal findings under Section 26 of the 1995 Act: -
(a). Unauthorised use of an operating centre
(b)&(h). It failed to produce any financial evidence, failed to notify it left its previous operating centre or request any relevant period of grace
(c) (i) and (ii). On 3 October 2025 the Operator and its Driver Steven Lee Gardener were convicted for excessing the permitted maximum weight on 12 March 2025.
(c)(iii). Prohibitions issued (immediate and delayed) on 12 March 2025 – faulty seat belt, missing wheel stud and indicator inoperative.
(f). Breach of undertakings to:
- Ensure the rules relating to drivers hours and tachographs would be observed and proper records kept
- Vehicles would not be overload
- Motor vehicles and trailers would be kept in sufficient serviceable condition
- The operator will have an effective driver defect reporting system
- All maintenance records would be kept for 15 months and produced on request
(f) &(h). The laws relating to the driving and operation of vehicles used under this licence are observed - Mr Reynolds admitted two ‘In scope’ vehicles were operated in breach of the licence suspension direction, including one with no current MOT.
My decision dated 11 December 2025 sets out the position to that point, a copy is attached marked Annex A. As of 07 January 2026, I received no medical evidence, financial evidence or the maintenance records directed, save for the maintenance contract and forward planner (both which were not received until 02 January 2026). The operator failed to send any data or records to the Traffic Examiner. Some were sent to my office on 02 January 2026 but that was (1) late (2) not what was directed. Mr Reynolds turned up with a large bag on the day saying he had records with him but that is simply not good enough. I was not prepared to adjourn the case again where so little had been done since my directions on 11 December 2025, other than to operate unlawfully.
During his evidence, I asked Mr Reynolds about the use of vehicles in breach of the suspension order. In summary, he did not want people to be without money before Christmas, and he did not realise how serious it was. There is no good reason for this where at paragraph 9 of that decision I included “If any of the vehicles are found to be used during the suspension, then the operator risks the vehicles being impounded and in any event, it will be an aggravating feature when this case concludes”. The use of a vehicle without an MOT was said to be an oversight but I took Mr Reynolds to the forward planner which had the MOT marked on it. It also had a requirement for the safety inspection the week before. Mr Reynolds insisted that it had had its inspection. I invited him to produce it from his bag. Mr Reynolds failed to do so. He remains adamant that it was done but I do not believe him – he had every opportunity including at the hearing to produce it. I then asked to see the PMI from before that to try and ascertain the condition the vehicle might have been in when operated through the licence suspension.
The safety inspection dated 01 September 2025 is nothing short of a horror story both in terms of the vehicle condition on that day but also the evidenced failure by any drivers of that vehicle to do an effective walk around check. None of the defects were authorised to be repaired by the maintenance contractor. Mr Reynolds told me that his father does the ‘minor’ repairs back at the yard. However, this vehicle had 13 defects and the foreman Mr Wayne Beale declined to sign the vehicle as roadworthy. Despite that, the vehicle was returned some miles up the road to the yard. The defects include outline lamps inoperative, indicators inoperative, headlight hanging out, front bumper damaged and insecure, wing stays loose or broken, with one wing stay cracked nearly all of the way around and likely that it would fall on to the tyre. Further, there was a kerb mirror insecure and as that it the mirror to cover the blind spot and vulnerable road users, it is of note. There is also the offside track rod ball joint worn out and the nearside track rod ball joint worn. The purpose of the safety regime is that it is a preventative regime, and a vehicle should never get to that condition from one PMI to another.
I was on notice that defect repairs were an issue because the transport consultant said is his email to Mr Reynolds dated 16 December 2025 (page 93) that all the PMIs should have written on them what had been done to deal with the defects but that clearly has not happened. Without the November PMI and MOT, I have very real concerns in relation the condition of that vehicle at any point since 01 September 2025. Further, from the roadside encounter on 12 March 2025, the operator was clearly on notice that its drivers were not doing effective walk around checks and clearly nothing had changed by 01 September 2025. Further, the driver infringement reports which had been sent to my office albeit not the Traffic Examiner, were looked at during the hearing. Those reports identify that drivers were not demonstrating sufficient time for a walk around check on their tachographs before driving a vehicle – including Mr Reynolds.
In terms of those driver tacho infringement reports, they raised other concerns including Mr O’Donnell working 7 plus days in a row (w/c 6/10/25) including a breach of the WTD accumulated working limit on one of those (page104). Further Mr O’Donnell drove every day for 9 days between 15/10/25 and 23/10/25 including 3 breaches of the WTD accumulated working limit (page104 – 106). This may be a Restricted Licence, but Mr O’Donnell’s driving was extensive including 431kms on 16/10/25 and 410kms on 22/10/25. I also noted that Mr Reynolds drove 27-31 October 2025 inclusive every day and then again on 3/11/25 and 6/11/25 (pages 111 – 112), all of which was a period when he could and should have been collating the records due to my office and the Examiner – the call in letter and case management directions were sent by e mail on 24 October 2025.
Conclusion
The duty to co-operate with each TC and enforcement authorities is long standing. The Upper Tribunal was unequivocal on the principle in “T/2010/064 JWF (UK) Ltd” “This operator had ample opportunity to engage in a professional and co-operative way with VOSA and with the Traffic Commissioner. If operators fail to do so, they cannot complain when such repeated and obvious avoidance of engagement results in the loss of a licence. In this case, serious questions relating to maintenance and road safety remained unanswered, quite apart from the other matters that seriously undermined the ability of VOSA, and the Traffic Commissioner, to investigate and regulate the activities of this operator, effectively.” It is an aggravating feature where, as here, the failure to provide full disclosure continues after the original hearing date and interim suspension order.
I remind myself of the helpful Upper Tribunal authority “of 2013/082 Arnold Transport Ltd” and paragraphs 12 and 13 are apposite in the case of Mr Reynolds. I refer to the following extracts:
“The Tribunal has stated on many occasions that operator’s licensing is based on trust. Since it is impossible to police every operator and every vehicle at all times the Department in Northern Ireland, (and Traffic Commissioners in GB), 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. In our view this reflects the general public interest in ensuring that Heavy Goods Vehicles are properly maintained and safely driven. Unfair competition is against the public interest because it encourages operators to cut corners in order to remain in business. Cutting corners all too easily leads to compromising safe operation…… The attitude of an operator when something goes wrong can be very instructive. Some recognise the problem at once and take immediate and effective steps to put matters right. Others only recognise the problem when it is set out in a call-up letter and begin to put matters right in the period before the Public Inquiry takes place. A third group leave it even later and come to the Public Inquiry with promises of action in the future. A fourth group bury their heads in the sand and wait to be told what to do during the Public Inquiry. It will be for the Head of the TRU to assess the position on the facts of each individual case. However, it seems clear that prompt and effective action is likely to be given greater weight than untested promises to put matters right in the future”.
Mr Reynolds admitted two ‘in scope’ vehicles were operated in breach of the licence suspension order, including one with no current MOT. This is a gross breach of trust and an aggravating feature in the balancing exercise. The list of failings since the original DVSA encounter is long and ongoing, as demonstrated by para 10 – 12 above. The full extent of any non-compliance cannot be tested by the failure to produce records. The only positive is that Mr Reynolds attended on 7 January 2026 and made endless promises if I would give him one more chance. I have no persuasive evidence before me that I should do so. Mr Reynold’s has demonstrated a significant disregard for the underpinning principles of road safety and fair competition. The legitimate hard-working industry and the integrity of the regime require protection from those who chose the commercial path ahead of compliance. Based on the available evidence – both in terms of actions and inaction - I do not trust Mr Reynolds to do anything other than act in his own self-interest. The only proportionate outcome is immediate revocation. Accordingly, I have reached the decision det out in paragraph 1 above.
Disqualification
Whilst disqualification does not require additional features, an operator is entitled to understand why if disqualification does follow. Mr Reynolds has driven a coach and horses through a parliament-led, long standing and highly regarded approach to keeping the commercial vehicle industry safe and working to a high standard. Mr Reynolds was given a chance from 11 December 2025 to demonstrate that any doubt there was as to his abilities, integrity and trustworthiness would be resolved. Unfortunately, what we have instead is strong evidence that Mr Reynold’s only focus is his own self-interest. In my judgment this case does require disqualification intervention to afford the industry and other road users the regime’s intended protections. Whilst 3 years is at the top end of the starting point for a first Public Inquiry, this is a serious case. Operators must understand that failing to co-operate and to delay and obfuscate will be met with a robust repost. Accordingly, I have reached the decision set out in paragraph 2 above.
Decision
Pursuant to adverse findings under Section 26(1)(a), (c)(ii), (c)(iii), (e), (f) and (h) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995, Licence OF2051853 ORBITALROOFING&SCAFFOLDING LIMITED is revoked with effect from 23:45 on 24 January 2026.
OrbitalRoofing&Scaffolding Ltd and its sole director Mr Paul Reynolds (d.o.b. Feb 1989) are disqualified from holding or obtaining an Operator Licence in Great Britain or from being engaged in the management, administration or control of any entity that holds or obtains such a Licence for a period of 3 years with effect from 23:45 on 24 January 2026, as provided for by Section 28(1), (4) and (5) of the 1995 Act.
MISS SARAH BELL
TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER FOR GREAT BRITAIN
Issued: 22 January 2026
Annex A
IN THE EASTERN TRAFFIC AREA
ORBITALROOFING&SCAFFOLDING LTD (OF2051853)
PUBLIC INQUIRY
STEVEN LEE GARDNER
DRIVER CONDUCT HEARING
11 DECEMBER 2025
GOODS VEHICLES (LICENSING OF OPERATORS) ACT 1995
GOODS VEHICLES (LICENSING OF OPERATORS) REGULATIONS 1995
ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1988
WRITTEN CONFIRMATION OF TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER’S ORAL ADJOURNMENT & INTERLOCUTORY DECISION
TC DECISION:
Pursuant to adverse findings under section 26(1)(h) of the 1995 Act, Licence OF2051853 ORBITALROOFING&SCAFFOLDING LTD is suspended from 23:45 on 12 December 2025 until 23:45 on 7 January 2026 or the conclusion of the Public Inquiry, whichever is the later.
During the period of suspension, the specified vehicles and any other in scope vehicles in possession must not be used or specified on any other Licence in Great Britain, as provided for by section 26(6) of the 1995 Act.
The Public Inquiry and Driver Conduct Hearing are adjourned to 10:00 on 7 January 2026 at The Public Inquiry Room, 4th Floor, Ivy House, Ivy Terrace, Eastbourne, BN21 4QT
The Operator must comply with the case management directions at pages 10 and 11 of the hearing bundle by 13:00 on 16 December 2025.
Reasons
The call in letter to the operator dated 24 October 2025 was sent by email and also to the correspondence address both of which are on VOL. The call in letter attaches case management directions which are at pages 10 and 11 of the electronic bundle. Those directions required the Operator to provide recent records and data to the Traffic Examiner by no later than 20 November 2025 (21 days before this hearing). The said directions also required the following to be submitted to OTC Eastbourne by no later than 27 November 2025:
- attendance sheet including contact details
- financial evidence
- six months maintenance records
- any written representations, witness statements or similar.
Royal Mail records show that the recorded delivery letter was signed for by someone at the operator’s address on 27 October 2025. On 1 December 2025 Traffic Examiner notified OTC that the operator had failed to supply any of the data and documentation to him. The subsequent attempts by OTC to communicate with the operator are now comprised in pages 83 to 91 of the updated electronic bundle. In summary, on 2 December 2025 OTC left a voicemail message and sent a chaser email to the director. On 8 December 2025 OTC received a response from Mr Reynolds saying that he had been in and out of hospital all year and gave an account of medical challenges he was facing. The email also requested attendance at this hearing via Teams rather than in person. On 10 December 2025 OTC sent an email to the director at my behest reminding him of the provisions Senior Traffic Commissioner Statutory Document No. 9, namely supporting medical evidence. Nothing further has been received, and full checks have been done this morning.
As of 10 AM on 11 December 2025 I have no attendance sheet, no evidence of financial resources, no maintenance records, and no medical evidence. The Traffic Examiner has also confirmed to the Inquiry this morning that he has heard nothing at all since 1 December 2025 and the notification to my office. VOL shows that the director last logged in on 13 October 2025, and its transport consultant Mark Roberts last logged in on 11 November 2025. The full login record demonstrates that there has been no attempt to upload any of the required documentation to VOL either.
Even with the challenges described by Mr Reynolds on 8 December 2025 a lot more could and should have been done to engage with OTC and DVSA regarding the hearing directions. From the Traffic Examiner evidence earlier in the year I am on notice that there may be an ongoing risk to road safety. By way of example, this operator has been using a 44-tonne combination allegedly believing it to be Tacho exempt. This is a basic and fundamental misunderstanding of rules essential to maintaining the integrity of the operator licensing regime. I now pose the question what if the operator’s maintenance is equally poorly managed and misunderstood. By failing to attend and submit records I am unable to assess and manage future risk whether by regulatory action or any offered undertakings.
The operator’s failure to cooperate and engage strikes at the heart of this regime which is fundamentally based on trust. For that reason, I find that an interim suspension of the licence until such time as the public inquiry can conclude is appropriate and proportionate. If any of the vehicles are found to be used during the suspension, then the operator risks the vehicles being impounded and in any event, it will be an aggravating feature when this case concludes.
MISS SARAH BELL
TRAFFIC COMMISIONER FOR GREAT BRITAIN
11 DECEMBER 2025