Decision for Pentons Haulage and Coldstorage (OD0258421)
Written decision of the Deputy Traffic Commissioner in the West Midlands for Pentons Haulage and Coldstorage, transport manager Stephen Penton, former transport manager, Anthony Harris and drivers
IN THE WEST MIDLANDS TRAFFIC AREA
PENTONS HAULAGE & COLDSTORAGE – OD0258421
STEPHEN ROY PENTON – TRANSPORT MANAGER
ANTHONY HARRIS – FORMER TRANSPORT MANAGER
ANAND ASHOK- DRIVER
STEPHEN EMMOTT – DRIVER
HYWEL EVANS – DRIVER
ANTONY GILES – DRIVER
LIAM HAYNES – DRIVER
ANISH JACOB – DRIVER
DANIEL SIMMONS – DRIVER
JOHN WILLIAMS – DRIVER
THOMAS HERNANDEZ WILLIAMS – DRIVER
DECISION OF THE DEPUTY TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER
Decision
Pursuant to adverse findings under section 26(1)(a), (b), (c) (i),(ii) & (iii), (ca) (e), (f) and (h) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995, and further to the undertaking given below, licence OD0258421 is curtailed under section 26(1) of the Act with effect from 23:45 hours to 60 vehicles and 100 trailers from 23:45 hours on 2 October 2026.
Reference to pages in the public inquiry brief are in square brackets e.g. [101].
Introduction
These joined proceedings were called under section 26, 27 and 28 and Schedule 3 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (GVLOA 1995) relating to alleged breaches of operator licence OD0258421 by Pentons Haulage and Coldstorage (the operator) and whether it’s transport manager, Stephen Penton, and former transport manager, Anthony Harris, have been exercising effective and continuous management. There were also 9 driver conduct matters called under sections 110-122 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 for the following drivers: Anand Ashok, Stephen Emmott, Hywel Evans, Liam Haynes, Anish Jacob, Antony Giles, Daniel Simmons, John Williams and Thomas Hernandez Williams.
The public inquiry at 10.00 am on 23 September 2026 was attended by Stephen Penton, one of the directors and transport manager, Gary Penton the operations director, Barry Williams the financial director, Stephen Chandler, the 2nd current transport manager and David Pryce the operator’s transport consultant. The operator is represented by Laura Phillips of Counsel. Drivers Stephen Emmott, Hywel Evans, Antony Giles, Liam Haynes, Anish Jacob and John Williams attended and were represented by James Edes solicitor at Dyne Solicitors Ltd. Driver Daniel Simmons also attended. Mr Anthony Harris, the former transport manager and drivers Anand Ashok and Thomas Hernandez Williams did not attend.
Factual background
The history of this matter is in the inquiry brief with background in the case summary [3-5] the call-in letter of 11 August 2026 [9-23] and the operator’s background company information and preliminary representations of 8 September 2026 [597-607]. I need not repeat this. In outline, the operator was granted a standard national vehicle licence on 6 January 1994. It is currently authorised for 70 vehicles and 100 trailers with 64 vehicles in possession working from its two operating centres in Oswestry and Shrewsbury. Its main area of business is cold storage and national food distribution.
On 13 August 2025 vehicle SX14KFR driven by James Walters collided with a nearside metal Armco barrier on the M54 motorway causing the vehicle to jack knife and collide with a nearside grass embankment. The driver tested positive for cocaine. West Mercia Police notified the Office of the Traffic Commissioner (OTC) of the collision on 16 August 2025 [593]. I understand that Mr Walters was subsequently convicted of driving with a drug level above the legal limit under s.5A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and disqualified from driving until June 2028. Following the incident the traffic commissioner asked the DVSA to undertake a traffic examiner’s investigation of the operator. A maintenance investigation was also underway following an S-marked prohibition being issued to vehicle SY65KLF on 7 October 2025.
A DVSA maintenance investigation visit report (MIVR) of 18 December 2025 [327-340] assessed 2 areas as unsatisfactory, 1 as prohibition issued and 1 as ‘Report to OTC’. Concerns related to inspection and maintenance records; vehicle emissions; and that 8 roadside inspections had resulted in enforcement action in the preceding 11 months all with road safety concerns. A DVSA pre-inquiry vehicle report of 4 September 2026 [850a-b] concluded that:
“The documentation submitted by the operator including PMI records, wheel re-torque records, the driver defect reporting system, and forward planner were found to be in an approved format and overall satisfactory.”
The traffic examiner’s report of 25 June 2026 [104-323] referred to 9 drivers with infringements following a compliance check between 4 August and 2 November 2025. These had not been reviewed or assessed by the operator. These are considered below in the driver conduct discussions. The report noted in its conclusion that:
“… Analysis identified 10,535 kilometres of vehicle movements undertaken without a driver card being inserted. Whilst these incidents were isolated to individual drivers rather than indicative of systemic driver intent, they were not identified or addressed by Mr Harris at the time. Driver explanations suggest a lack of adequate instruction, particularly in relation to the completion of manual entries, and infringements were not brought to their attention until Mr Chandler assumed responsibility. This indicates a clear need for improved and structured driver training.
The investigation has highlighted a failure by the operator to exercise effective and continuous management control of its transport activities. Notwithstanding the use of compliance systems, the operator failed to detect and act upon significant instances of non-compliance, including vehicles being driven without driver cards.” [124]
The DVSA pre-inquiry traffic examiner report of 10 September 2026 [850q-r] concluded that:
“Vehicle data and missing mileage reports provide assurance that driving without a driver card is not a concern, infringement reporting appears to be managed appropriately where records are available, and disciplinary procedures are being actively utilised to address driver misconduct. In addition, both nominated Transport Managers have undertaken refresher training to maintain their professional competence.
However, the most significant issue is the widespread failure of drivers to complete manual entries, with 22 out of 32 drivers not maintaining complete driver card records. This suggests an ongoing weakness in driver understanding of drivers’ hours requirements.
Overall, whilst there is evidence of active transport management and several positive compliance measures, improvements are required in ensuring complete drivers’ hours records, retaining auditable licence-check documentation, and maintaining full infringement reporting records. These matters should be addressed to provide greater assurance of effective and continuous compliance management.” [850r]
The call-in letter referred to potential breaches of section 26(1)(b), (c) (i),(ii) & (iii), (ca) (e), (f) and (h) of the GVLOA 1995. Due to the alleged breaches, concern was also raised that the operator may not have appropriate financial standing to hold an operator’s licence for the number of vehicles authorised and whether the company meets the requirement to be of good repute under section 13A and paragraph 14A of Schedule 3 of the GVLOA 1995.
The call-in letters to the transport managers of 11 August 2026 [24-35, 36-48] explained that the inquiry would consider whether he continued to meet the requirements of good repute and professional competence in accordance with Schedule 3 of the GVLOA 1995. The call-in letters to the drivers explained that the hearing would consider whether they should retain their LGV driving entitlement in the light of the alleged offences.
Evidence and findings
Relevant evidence included the DVSA reports along with evidence received from the operator in relation to operations, management, driver & management training and finances in accordance with the case management directions. The operator accepted the shortcomings in the DVSA reports. I noted at the outset of the hearing that I was satisfied as to the question of financial standing.
I heard oral evidence from traffic examiner Miss June Bowen, the 7 drivers that attended the hearing, Mr Penton, Mr Chandler and Mr Price. As this is an existing licence, the burden is on me to be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence as against the civil standard of proof, (i.e. on the balance of probabilities or, more likely than not) before making an adverse finding. Applying those standards to the evidence before me I make the findings below. First, I consider the nature and structure of the operator licencing management and control. I then review the specific driver infringements and traffic investigation and draw my general findings together. Finally, I consider vehicle maintenance, management, oversight and control.
Management and structure under the licence
The case summary refers to a failure to notify the OTC that the operator is no longer a limited company and its status changed in 1994 [4]. I accept the submission and evidence that the operator notified the OTC of a change from a limited liability private company to an unlimited liability private company in 2013 although the OTC did not respond to the notification. I understand that operator continues to be identified as a limited company on the vehicle operator licensing (VOL) system but that there is no category of unlimited company. It seems preferable to record this operator as ‘other’ and to note that it is an unlimited company. In this way, any review of the VOL system in the future (e.g. by the DVSA or the OTC) will see the most accurate description of the operator and so will not have cause for concern about any incorrect reference or description. In summary, while there may, strictly, have been a failure to notify of a change in structure in 1994, this was rectified in 2013, and it is not a concern for me.
In relation to professional competence and the continuous and effective management of the licence, the operator has had two transport managers nominated on the licence for some time, which is appropriate for a licence authorising 70 vehicles and 100 trailers. The current transport managers are Stephen Penton and Stephen Chandler. Mr Chandler had been a nominated transport manager until 2022 when he resigned for personal and health reasons. Mr Harris was then the 2nd transport manager alongside Mr Penton from September 2022 until he resigned on 19 December 2025. It was explained to me that there was a very general division of labour between the two transport managers whereby Mr Penton would be largely responsible for vehicle maintenance and management and either Mr Harris or Mr Chandler would be responsible for driver management. However, this division of tasks was very flexible and interchangeable. Moreover, both transport managers were supported by colleagues such as Rob Killick, the operator’s transport controller who I was told had transport manager CPC qualifications; Richard Jones, the garage manager; and Amy Penton, who assists with much of the vehicle paperwork such as driver defect reports. Finally, Mr Penton would have general responsibility under the licence as one of the company directors.
Stephen Emmott
The traffic investigation identified 2 occasions when Mr Emmott removed his driver card and vehicle WU64BUA continued without a card inserted: 36 km over 37 minutes on 30 September 2025 and 5 km over 10 minutes on 30 October 2025. Mr Emmott explained that the reason he did not complete a manual entry for the first instance of driving without a driver card on 30 September 2025 was that he “wasn’t sure how to do it, every time I did try it flashed numbers and I messed it up.” He accepted personal responsibility for the incidents. Mr Edes submitted that the errors arose from misunderstanding and poor practice rather than deliberate concealment: Mr Emmott raised his difficulties with management and sought further instruction, demonstrating insight rather than avoidance. I accept the submission that this matter falls within the category of failure to keep records and not deliberate falsification.
John Williams
The DVSA investigation of Mr Williams disclosed 2 periods of driving without a driver card inserted in vehicle DX57BYL: on 4 August 2025, a distance of 459 km was driven over 6 hours, 48 minutes; and on 6 October 2025, 295 km was driven over 5 hours 40 minutes. Mr Williams explained that for both occasions he recorded everything in his diary because he could not find his tachograph card. I accept the submissions on Mr Williams’ behalf that these were two isolated incidents of a failure to correctly use the tachograph equipment rather than any deliberate falsification.
Hywel Evans
The traffic investigation covered 2 periods of driving without a driver card inserted in the vehicle unit of KM15ZFD on 26 October 2025: for 2 hours 6 minutes and 151 km from 12:26 hours and then for 18 minutes and 21 km from 18:25 hours. Mr Evans explained that he had forgotten his card on that particular day and that the incident arose from a single lapse coupled with a misunderstanding of the requirements for manual entries. I accept the submissions on his behalf that while mistaken, his decision to complete a printout is inconsistent with any intention to conceal driving activity and supports his evidence that he believed he was taking steps to record it.
Liam Haynes
For Mr Haynes there were 2 periods of driving without a driver card inserted in the vehicle unit identified by the traffic investigation. On 12 September 2025 when vehicle NX60EUV was driven for around 1.2 km 2 minutes after the driver card had been removed and on 23 October 2025 when vehicle SY11BFP was driven for approximately 3 km and 15 minutes after the card had been removed. I accept the submissions on Mr Haynes behalf that the incidents may be regarded as a failure to keep records without intent to deceive.
Antony Giles
The DVSA investigation identified 1 instance of vehicle DX08BSZ being driven by Mr Giles on 26 October 2025 without a driver card for 4 hours 14 minutes and 274 km, while the vehicle unit was in “Out of Scope” mode. Mr Giles explained in interview that: “This is something I know nothing about till Stephen brought it to my attention a few weeks ago. I have never used Out of scope mode I’m not sure what it is.” I accept the submissions on behalf of Mr Giles and that this matter is a failure to keep records rather than a deliberate attempt to deceive.
Anish Jacob
The call-in letter referred to 2 periods of driving without a driver card for vehicle SY11BFP on 26 October 2025: for a distance of 2.2 km and 14 minutes from 15:05 hours and for 1.4 km and 4 minutes from 22:23 hours. I was informed that Mr Jacob had also been convicted for a further five tachograph offences over a 4-week period between 20 December 2025 and mid-January 2026. These all related to similar instances whereby he was driving on what he understood was private land and ‘exempt’ from tachograph control. He was fined a total of £800. I accept the submissions on his behalf that Mr Jacob was simply unaware that what he was doing was unlawful and that there was no intent to deceive.
Daniel Simmons
The DVSA investigation noted 1 incident of driving without a driver card in the tachograph unit for a period of 2.2km and for 3 minutes on 3 October 2025. During an interview with the DVSA Mr Simmons stated that he believed the tachograph unit ejected the card while he was driving on the motorway. After a short distance he came to a stop and reinserted the card. On the evidence before me it did not appear that there was any personal or commercial gain arising from the incident and I do not find on the evidence before me that it was more likely than not that there was any intent to deceive.
Thomas Hernandez Williams
Mr Hernandez Williams did not attend the hearing. The DVSA investigation noted that on 17 October 2025 vehicle PX11BKD was driven without a driver’s card for a distance of 1.3km for a period of 3 minutes. During the DVSA interview the driver said that he took his card out when he was at the ‘gate’ but then had to move as he was not in a suitable parking place. He added that he wasn’t aware that moving a vehicle a short distance was improper. It has not been possible to discuss the factual circumstances of the incident or any other relevant matters. On the evidence before me there does not appear to be any personal or commercial gain arising from the incident and I do not find that it was more likely than not that there was any intent to deceive.
Anand Ashok
Mr Ashok did not attend the hearing, nor did he respond to the invitation by the DVSA to attend a formal interview. The DVSA investigation refers to 3 incidents of driving vehicles by Mr Anand Ashok without a driver card. On 29 September 2025 he drives 4km for a period of 17 minutes and completed a manual entry for rest over that period. On 8 October 2025 he drives without a card at 10:38 hours for 1km for 22 minutes and then at 18:23 hours the same day, his vehicle is driven without a card for 1.2km over 5 minutes. It has not been possible to discuss the factual circumstances of the incident or any other relevant matters with Mr Ashok. On the evidence before me there does not appear to be any personal or genuine commercial gain arising from the incident.
General findings on driver infringements
Annex A of the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document 6: Driver Conduct (SD6) provides a number of examples of suggested starting points of regulatory action in relation to the use or misuse of tachographs and drivers. This ranges from issuing a warning for instances of occasional lower risk offences; a 1-week suspension for failing to record a driving event without intent to deceive through to revocation and disqualification of the driver for 12 months for repeated deliberate or intentional falsification to keep records. Paragraph 87 of SD6 notes that
“The drivers’ hours, working time and tachograph rules assist in keeping the public safe when using public roads and it is always serious when a deliberate false record is made by a vocational driver”.
While paragraph 89 of SD6 adds that:
“Traffic commissioners are likely to regard the falsification as more serious than the offence that it may be designed to conceal. …”
Annex C of SD6 provides a non-exhaustive list of negative and positive features of driver conduct with a section on drivers’ hours.
Having heard from the drivers, from the operator and having reviewed the DVSA reports, I find that there is no evidence of any of the negative features of e.g. deliberate failure to keep records or disregard of employer instructions, I do find that there are a number of positive features such as no commercial advantage, and a positive response to effective management, training and guidance once the infringements had been brought to the attention of the drivers by the operator or the DVSA. and acted upon by the operator. My decisions for each driver conduct matters are subject to separate written decisions but I note now that they are generally in the lower end of SD6 suggested starting points of either a warning or 1-week suspension per offence.
I also find that the drivers were largely unaware that they were acting unlawfully when they were. This was by either removing their cards at particular times e.g. when they were moving vehicles within a yard, or by recording the time and travel accurately in a diary because they had forgotten their driver card but then not communicating this to the operator. Moreover, the drivers were not informed about their infringements by the operator at the time they occurred.
The investigation of infringements between August and November 2025 coincided with a time that I am told transport manager Anthony Harris was facing quite serious personal difficulties and may have contributed to the lack of management and review of the drivers. Ms Phillips was keen to emphasise that the operator does not wish to blame Mr Harris for the shortcomings that have been accepted by the operator and that it considers that he should not bear the burden the liability or responsibility for these. This view is consistent with the Upper Tribunal judgment in LA & Z Leonida t/a ETS [2014] UKUT 0423 (AAC) which provides that:
- … it does not matter whether an operator’s licence is held by an owner operator, a partnership or a limited company because in each case the person or persons responsible for managing the business bear the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that the road transport aspect of the business operates in compliance with the regulatory regime. That means that they cannot plead ignorance or put the blame on the transport manager because they are required to have sufficient knowledge of the regulatory regime to ensure compliance in general and the proper performance of the transport manager’s duties in particular.
Accordingly, I do not lay the blame or burden of the shortcomings with Mr Harris. However, I do find that many of the shortcomings arose while he was employed as the 2nd transport manager whose focus was driver management including oversight of drivers’ hours, infringements, training and action to resolve these. I find that during the period August to November 2025 there was not continuous and effective management of some of the drivers employed by the operator. The personal circumstances of Mr Harris may well be such as to explain why he may not have been providing that continuous and effective management. However, I find that the responsibility also lays with the operator and its directors at during this time to have ensured, one way or another, that there was continuous and effective management. I accept that it was entirely appropriate for the operator to provide Mr Harris with time off and support to allow him to manage his personal matters. It is less clear to me that the in-house CPC-qualified person (Rob Killick) was able at short notice to manage the additional tasks and responsibilities such as to maintain compliance. The evidence from the traffic examiners reports suggest that it was not.
Further, I find that, while Mr Penton understands the key aspects of driver management, he defers much of the technical understanding to others. This much was evident during the discussion of the potential introduction of digital driver defect reporting.
Moreover, I do find that Mr Harris did attempt to manage things prior to him leaving his work including e.g. cooperating with the DVSA by e.g. providing all information as requested and attending meetings as part of the investigation up until his resignation. I also find that there has been material positive improvement in driver management and oversight since Mr Chandler returned as the 2nd transport manager in January 2026. He has ensured that he has sufficient knowledge and understanding such to be part of the team managing the licence. He has also helped to ensure that the operator’s drivers have appropriate knowledge and understanding whether by providing advice and guidance himself or by ensuring that appropriate training is provided to drivers and, in particular, the less experienced drivers.
Findings on vehicle management and maintenance
In terms of vehicle management and maintenance, Ms Phillips fairly noted that in the last two and a half years there had been three DVSA maintenance reports and that these had indicated a decline in compliance standards rather than the improvement that had been anticipated. I also acknowledge that the operator accepted the shortcomings found in the MIVR of June 2026 and, further, that the pre-inquiry report concluded that the documentation recently submitted to the DVSA was in an approved format and satisfactory.
My concern is to ensure that going forward the operator continues to embrace advances in knowledge, understanding and technology across all areas of vehicle management and maintenance and that it ensures that its drivers, clients, customers, suppliers and any other associates and stakeholders are aware of such understanding. Such an approach is likely to make sense from a business perspective as well as to ensure compliance. One example of my general concern was Mr Penton’s view of possibly transferring to digital driver defect reporting noted above (although I do note driver defect reporting was assessed as satisfactory in the MIVR of 7 January 2026). Mr Penton did suggest he was broadly positive although I was left with the impression that he was not entirely convinced and that it may be difficult to introduce with the current employed drivers and further that it may have a significant cost attached to its introduction. I contrast this with Mr Chandler’s more directly positive support of digital defect reporting.
I also raised concern about the unsatisfactory finding on vehicle emissions management. The operator’s response to the MIVR at [356] noted that a recording system was to be fitted to its Ad Blue dispenser by April 2026. Mr Penton said that it did now monitor ad-blue usage. However, Mr Penton showed far less awareness about the wider concerns of vehicle emissions. I asked whether the operator had an engine idling policy and he appeared unclear as to whether it did. I was encouraged by the operator’s fuel efficiency bonus scheme for drivers which was in place, perhaps understandably, as a means of best financial practice. However, concern as to the unlawfulness of engine idling, its contribution to poor air quality, greenhouse gas emissions and to noise in the locality was not apparent.
Mr Chandler did suggest that an engine idling policy could be introduced. This is encouraged. I consider that the operator’s business has a vital societal function. It will play an important role in the community. As such, it will have a significant degree of influence. Highlighting the value of vehicle emissions reduction at every opportunity including through promoting a robust and effective engine idling policy and prominent commitment to vehicle emissions reduction is something that will continue to make financial sense but will also be positive public comment for all its stakeholders by e.g. aligning to the Department for Transport’s drive towards sustainability.
Regulatory breaches
In the light of the above and having regard to the evidence before me, I find that there have been the following breaches of the GVLOA 1995:
- section 26(1)(c)(ii) and that relevant convictions have incurred in the past five years and, in particular, those relating to the licensing of drivers;
- section 26(1)(c)(iii) and that prohibition notices have been issued by the DVSA in the past five years including, among others, the S-marked prohibition issued to vehicle SY65KLF on 7 October 2025;
- section 26(1)(ca) and that fixed penalty notices have been issued in the past five years including those issued to drivers on 10 June 2025 in relation to vehicle SY17JOA and on 27 October 2025 to vehicle SK09EOP;
- section 26(1)(e) and a failure to fulfil statements made in the licence including those relating to PMI intervals; and,
- section 26(1)(f) relating to undertakings given when applying for the licence including that vehicles are to be fit and serviceable.
Decisions
The driver conduct matters are subject to separate decisions. In terms of the operator and transport managers and having made the above findings, I consider paragraph 4 of the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document 10: The principles of decision making & the concept of proportionality (SD10), that the legislation exists to promote road safety and fair competition and that commissioners will have regard to the principle of proportionality in deciding what intervention is appropriate in the circumstances of each case. Paragraph 50 of SD10 notes that a traffic commissioner should consider all the relevant negative and positive factors when reaching a decision.
The positive factors include that this is the first occasion that the operator has been called to a public inquiry since its licence was granted in 1993. There is also the fact that the shortcomings, particularly in relation to driver management and oversight, were addressed at an early stage with material improvements noted since December 2025. Further, the systems and structures do now appear to be in place, or are about to be, to secure continuing compliance. However, because some of the action and procedures are recent it is not possible to draw upon extensive evidence of full compliance.
The negative factors are that there have been a number of breaches of legislation and, at the point of intervention by the DVSA last year, the operator was in breach of its licence conditions and undertakings.
One of the difficulties is that until recently, the operator and its directors do not appear to have fully understood the nature and extent of their responsibilities under the operator licensing regime. Or, if they had, they had been ignoring them. Yet operators are deemed to have such understanding. They make a declaration to that effect when they apply for their operator’s licence and on any subsequent application to continue or vary the licence. They are also expected to have sufficient knowledge and understanding of the advice and guidance that is publicly available see e.g. Leonida [2014] referred to above.
Taking into account the positive and negative factors noted above and by reference to the suggested starting points of regulatory action found in SD10, Annex 4, I find that this case may be regarded as serious to moderate. Since the hearing closed, the operator has offered an undertaking to carry out an independent audit in six months’ time. I also have regard to the effect of any regulatory action proposed on the business and its stakeholders and as mentioned above, my view on the role of the business in the wider society.
I ask myself the question posed by the Upper Tribunal in 2009/225 Priority Freight & Paul Williams: do I trust this operator to be compliant in the future? Having regard to my findings, I answer that question: yes, I believe so. In the light of the above and accepting the undertaking that has been offered to me, I curtail the licence indefinitely from 70 vehicles and 100 trailers to 60 vehicles and 100 trailers from 23:45 hours on 2 October 2026. I do so to help ensure that the operator may focus on securing continuing compliance for those 60 vehicles. It may want to increase its fleet at some point and so apply to increase its authorisation, which it is entitled to do. In that regard the benefit of a favourable independent audit that records either satisfactory or mostly satisfactory findings could be considered as part of that application.
In terms of the repute of Mr Penton and Mr Harris as transport managers, I consider the repute of each is severely tarnished but not lost. I understand that Mr Harris is not nominated on any other operator’s licence. However, should Mr Harris apply to be nominated on an operator’s licence for the future. This must be referred to a traffic commissioner to be considered and determined and not dealt with under any purported delegated authority.
My closing comments relate to Mr Penton’s role as the continuing 2nd transport manager. I expressed some reservation during the hearing that Mr Penton may have too many tasks and responsibilities as both the managing director and as one of two transport managers. I also consider that the operator does need to consider further investment in technology but I have some residual concern about placing too much work and pressure solely upon Mr Chandler as a transport manager as the technology is embraced, adopted and brought into use. In such circumstances, the operator may wish to consider appointing a 3rd transport manager or replacing Mr Penton as a transport manager such that the division of transport manager roles and responsibilities under the licence remains shared and balanced as the technology is drawn upon. I cannot advise on this final point and ultimately strategic and business structural decisions such as this are for the operator, its directors, having regard to its advisers, key personnel and any other stakeholders.
Undertaking
The operator undertakes to identify an independent body to carry out an audit of transport safety and compliance systems. The audit will assess the systems for complying with maintenance and/or drivers hours requirements, and the effectiveness with which those systems are implemented. The audit should cover at least the applicable elements detailed in the guidance on Operator Compliance Audits available at: www.gov.uk/government/publications/operator-compliance-audits. A copy of the report together with the operator’s detailed proposals for implementing the report’s recommendations is to be uploaded to the licence record via the Vehicle Operator Licensing self-service account, or, if the operator does not have a self-service account, emailed to notifications@vehicle-operator-licensing.service.gov.uk by 31 March 2027.
28 September 2026
Dr Paul Stookes
Deputy Traffic Commissioner