Decision for Pioneer Transport Ltd OF2056573
Confirmation of the Traffic Commissioner's decision in the Eastern Traffic Area.
IN THE EASTERN TRAFFIC AREA
PIONEER TRANSPORT LTD - OF2056573
CONFIRMATION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER’S DECISION
Decision
The operators repute hangs by a thread and that is reflected in the decision to curtail the licence again, by half to 4 vehicles; those are: AV65 YTD, DG17 KKL, DG17 KKH, and AX15 WMM, with immediate effect. That meant that the substantive application to increase parking of vehicles and trailers at the Operating Centre at Titan Truck Park was no longer necessary.
Background
Pioneer Transport Ltd holds a Standard National Goods Vehicle Operator’s Licence authorising 8 vehicles and 6 trailers. The Director is Mirza Hussain. Thomas Adrian Luca Caraccio has been named as the Transport Manager since 24 March 2026.
There are two Operating Centres: Titan Truck Park, Stoness Road, West Thurrock, Grays RM20 3AG, and Swain Container Solutions Ltd, West Bank Terminal, Wherstead Road, Ipswich IP2 8NB. Preventative Maintenance Inspections were said to be carried out by Tom Commercials Ltd at 6-weekly intervals. By the date of the Public Inquiry, the operator had added JT Fleet Services Ltd and OPNZ as contractors (but see below). The workshop for Tom Commercials Ltd was described as being in close proximity to the Operating Centre.
This licence was granted from 22 July 2022, with authority for 10 vehicles and 10 trailers. George Munday was the nominated Transport Manager. Mr Hussain was appointed sole director on 2 November 2022 and became the PSC on the same date. The vehicle authority was increased to 14 vehicles and 14 trailers on 10 July 2023.
On 7 April 2025, VX16 VBK (specified on that day) was issued with an S-marked roadworthiness Prohibition notice for defects including an insecure suspension component on nearside front axle 1, inner rear axle 3 tyre damaged to the tread area and cord or cords exposed. In addition, the vehicle was found to have no vehicle excise licence.
Vehicle Examiner Steven Marshall subsequently conducted a maintenance investigation visit on 17 June 2025. His report highlighted shortcomings, including:
- No first use inspection for VX16VBK in addition to other vehicles;
- Incomplete Preventative Maintenance Inspection records;
- Untaxed vehicles;
- Ineffective driver defect reporting system;
- Poor annual test pass rate featuring safety critical defects;
- Ineffective vehicle emission control systems;
- Ineffective tyre management system;
- No evidence of driver load security training;
- Prohibitions
He questioned the ability of the Transport Manager.
On 1 July 2025, Traffic Examiner Mike Brown commenced a traffic investigation. His report highlighted the following concerns:
- No evidence of any formal induction or toolbox training;
- All drivers were said to be self-employed, with no evidence of driver licence checks;
- No evidence of vehicle download data being reviewed;
- No evidence of a disciplinary system;
- Operator unable to demonstrate control over the operation
The operator and the then Transport Manager, Mr Munday, were called to Public Inquiry on 18 December 2025 before Deputy Traffic Commissioner Dr Stookes. Mr Caraccio was in attendance. Following the provision and analysis of further maintenance records by the operator, Mr Marshall noted that there had been no improvement since his visit. The Deputy Traffic Commissioner recorded adverse findings under section 26(1)(b), (c)(iii), (e), (f) and (h) of the Act. He was persuaded to accept an undertaking for an independent compliance audit to be lodged with the operator’s response by 15 June 2026 (but see below).
The operator’s licence was curtailed with effect from 23:45 hours on 1 February 2026 limiting the authorisation under the licence from 20 vehicles and 20 trailers to 8 vehicles and 8 trailers. Mr Munday was disqualified under paragraph 16(2), Schedule 3 of the Act from acting as a Transport Manager on any operator’s licence for an indefinite period.
Apparently the Deputy Traffic Commissioner heard evidence about a person with a similar name and the same date of birth as Mr Hussain having been involved in previous operator licences (namely OF1102525: Roadways Transport (London) Ltd – revoked on 15 October 2013 and OF1138401 Rahat Hussain Mirza – surrendered from 12 January 2023). Correspondence dated 23 January 2026 from JMW solicitors indicated that Pioneer Transport Ltd is the first and only occasion on which Mr Mirza has been a director or owner of a commercial vehicle operator. He was not a director or person associated with Roadways Transport (London) Ltd or MMR Transport, and that he did not sign documents referred to by the Deputy Traffic Commissioner.
Hearing
The Public Inquiry was originally listed for 18 June 2026 but had to be vacated due to pressures on the tribunal. It was relisted for today, 28 July 2026, in Tribunal Room 2 of the Office of the Traffic Commissioner in Cambridge. The operator was present in the form of Mr Mirza, the Director, accompanied by Mr Caraccio, Transport Manager, and a consultant, Mr Barber.
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, in this case relating to maintenance contractors and to meet the licence requirements;
- 26(1)(c)(iii) – Prohibitions;
- 26(1)(e) – statements relating to inspection intervals, by Tom Commercials, where vehicles would normally be kept, 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
On 10 March 2026, the operator submitted an application to vary the licence seeking an increase in authority for the parking of vehicles and trailers at the Operating Centre at Titan Truck Park, Grays, RM20 3AG from 6 vehicles and 6 trailers to 8 vehicles and 8 trailers. It was apparently granted interim authority on 20 March 2026 to 20 September 2026, but the case bundle refers to determining that application today.
The operator was directed to lodge evidence in support including financial, maintenance (DG17 KKH, VX16 VBK and AV65 YTD and three trailers) and other compliance documentation. Compliance documentation was to be submitted to DVSA initially by no later than 28 May 2026 with finance and any representations to be sent to my office by 4 June 2026.
Summary of Evidence
On 15 January 2026, AV65 YTD, driven by Cosmin-Mugurel Muntean, was subject to a DVSA roadside stop and issued with an S-marked roadworthiness prohibition for ‘service brake missing, and brake efficiency impaired, nearside axle 3’. Additional prohibitions were issued for ‘service brake not operating, on wheel originally designed to do so, nearside axle 3’ and ‘parking brake inefficient, does not meet prescribed C&U requirements’. Further, delayed prohibitions were issued for ‘parking brake inefficient, no brake effort on wheel’ and ‘service brake unbalanced on an axle, nearside axle 3’.
Driver Muntean was also said to have committed the following alleged offences:
- Driving whilst disqualified;
- Exceeding the 4.5hrs driving limit;
- Insufficient daily rest in a 24-hour period
On 17 February 2026, Vehicle Examiner James King commenced a further maintenance investigation. His report highlighted concerns including the following:
- Missing Preventative Maintenance Inspection records;
- Incomplete Preventative Maintenance Inspection records;
- Ineffective forward planning system with no evidence of safety defect and recall system;
- Ineffective driver defect reporting system, with driver detectable defects found at Preventative Maintenance Inspections;
- Ineffective management of defect assessment and repairs;
- Failure to notify a change in maintenance provider with no evidence of maintenance contracts;
- Ineffective vehicle emission control systems;
- Inadequate load security system, with no evidence of driver load security training;
- Prohibitions;
- Mr King recorded that, whilst the Operating Centre at Titan Truck Park, Grays, RM20 3AG was only authorised for 6 vehicles, all 7 authorised vehicles were being parked there (with one VOR)
Mr King compared those findings against the previous shortcomings, leading to the findings by the Deputy Traffic Commissioner, namely: Missing inspection records, inspection intervals obviously not managed and ineffective forward planner, ineffective driver defect reporting system and ineffectively managed, unable to establish maintenance provider contracts, poor annual test rate, ineffective vehicle emission system, little or no driver/staff training, Prohibitions identifying significant failings.
The operator’s response from Mr Caraccio offered assurances and details of remedial measures said to have been implemented that included: revised inspection schedule and forward planner; new safety defect and recall system; drivers to have refresher training on the defect reporting process; contract in place with JT Fleet Services (see above); new vehicle emissions monitoring system; new load security system. In respect of the aforementioned previous shortcomings, Mr Caraccio stated, “I acknowledge that some issues persisted from the previous investigation dated 17 June 2025. A comprehensive overhaul of our management systems and compliance improvement plan is still being implemented, overseen directly by our consultant and myself with monthly management meetings.”
Traffic Examiner Raymond Hawkins also commenced inquiries on 17 February 2026. His concerns included:
- DCPC of Driver Lillard had expired the previous day;
- Infringements not signed off or explained to drivers;
- Systems for managing Working Time and disciplinary procedures were weak;
- Mr Hawkins’ noted the operator’s claim that all drivers were employed under PAYE as of 2 February 2026;
- Mr Hawkins expressed concern at the lack of progress since the last Public Inquiry and the appointment of a new Transport Manager
The transport consultant, Garry Barber of Verrdi, assisted the operator to prepare for this Public Inquiry and is also the author of a report dated 11 June 2026, which concludes: “Standards Part Met”. I was not particularly assisted by the format of this report which appeared ill-suited for the purposes of a Public Inquiry where documents must be uploaded to the digital bundle. In evidence it emerged that Mr Barber had been assisting with compliance since before the last Public Inquiry. I did not consider Mr Barber to be sufficiently independent so that the operator’s undertaking was discharged. That inevitably influenced the weight which I attached to his findings. His report referred to external compliance support to assist in the development and implementation of systems and procedures, and to provide additional oversight during a period of operational improvement.
Mr Barber described the operator as being in the process of formalising a structured approach to capturing, recording, and communicating legislative updates, including maintaining records of communication and staff acknowledgement, where appropriate. The report made much of the nominated external maintenance provider carrying out safety inspections in accordance with the notified intervals. I was told that the operator had a process in place for overseeing the performance of maintenance providers, but formal quality assurance reviews and audits were scheduled to take place throughout 2026. The operator was said to be in the process of transitioning to an electronic SharePoint system for records. In June the transport manager was said to be formalising the system for ensuring the roadworthiness of vehicles and trailers before being returned to service. Again, the operator was said to be in the process of implementing a formal VOR policy and tracking system. I was also told that Brake testing was carried out at appropriate intervals was, aligning with safety inspections and to meet best practise for a multiple of meaningful laden break tests per year. The transport manager was responsible for ensuring the monitoring of brake testing. A further formalised system was being developed. The report indicated that the operator had established a process of formal monthly reporting from the transport manager.
The Executive Summary and operator’s response to the report suggested that a number of controls were already in place, but that in several areas the position required additional supporting records, or improved documentary evidence and that the overall position was not one of absence of control, but rather one of a developing compliance system that has been significantly strengthened through the introduction of formal policies, registers, logs, planner controls, record-keeping arrangements and management review processes. It suggested that the following areas had already been improved, including forward planning, inspection frequency controls, first use processes, VOR controls, vehicle file structure, brake performance controls, annual test monitoring, calibration monitoring, wheel and tyre procedures, defect reporting, and prohibition / safety defect management and that remaining areas were primarily evidential and control-based rather than an absence of maintenance oversight. It was also suggested infringement monitoring, debriefing, management of repeat offenders and identification of most serious infringements are in place and, in several cases, already assessed as fully met. Again, the areas were said to relate to supporting procedures and retention of records around tachograph card control, download frequencies, return of records, working time controls, quality assurance and speed compliance documentation.
I was therefore surprised to receive the following evidence from DVSA. Mr Hawkins reported on 11 June 2026 that none of the required documentation had been supplied. That was updated in his report of 29 June 2026, but even then, the operator had failed to supply evidence of CPD for the operator or Transport Manager, and driver licence checks. Only two were supplied at the Public Inquiry (see below).
Mr Hawkins analysed the data from 1 March 2026 to 31 May 2026 and found:
- Driver Robin Aaron Greenwood - total of 20 infringements, comprising 1 Very Serious Infringement (VSI), 4 Serious Infringements (SI), and 15 Minor Infringements (MI), with no signed driver infringement reports have been provided by the operator in respect of these offences. The infringements are linked to vehicle AV65 YTD and the Vehicle Excise Duty expired on 1 April 2026. Driver Greenwood was said to have been dismissed on 29 April 2026.
- Driver Mirza Rahat Hussein (Director) – noted concerns with a single period of driving activity was recorded in March 2026, but all remaining time logged as rest. During April and May 2026, weekly driving activity was present, but rest periods appear to have been entered manually and recorded as rest with no ‘other work’ recorded during the entire review period. This raised concerns as to the accuracy of records, particularly in relation to Working Time. A Vehicle Unit printout for vehicle BV15 OSG shows Mr Hussein’s digital tachograph card activity. DVSA checks identified that this vehicle was not specified on their licence and previously linked to a revoked operator, with Vehicle Excise Duty expired on 15 November 2025.
- Driver Robert James Liddard - two infringements in weeks commencing 2 February 2026 and 9 February 2026, outside the review period, but no corresponding signed infringement reports were provided for the offences identified between March and May 2026.
- Driver Cristinel Adi Roso - three infringements during the period. Driver infringement reports were provided for week commencing 23 February 2026 only, outside the relevant timeframe. No signed reports were provided for the infringements identified between March and May 2026.
- Driver Dan Lucian Demeter - one infringement during the period. Tachograph data was provided for the period 16 to 31 May 2026, but driver infringement reports were generated via Novadata, signed and dated 4 and 6 June 2026, which did refer to an infringement in the week commencing 18 May 2026. That could not be substantiated.
- Driver infringement report for Driver Gianluca Spinali for the week commencing 16 February 2026 was unsigned. No tachograph data was provided. An investigation report was submitted referring to ‘driving without a card’, but this cannot be substantiated.
- Missing mileage reports identified repeated vehicle movements recorded without a digital tachograph card in use, typically of 1–2 km per event. The reason consistently recorded is ‘driven by shunter’, but no other evidence was provided.
In addition to the use of vehicles without valid Vehicle Excise Duty, Mr Hawkins concluded that there had been consistent failures to provide signed infringement reports for the relevant period, missing tachograph data prevented him from conducting a full compliance assessment, and expressed concern at the accuracy of record-keeping, particularly in relation to Working Time.
Mr King’s report of 12 June 2026 recorded that none of the required documentation had been provided. His update of 23 June 2026 recorded that whilst some maintenance records had been received with some brake test reports, driver defect reports, wheel removal/retorque records, and the forward planner, various roller brake test records, VOR records, inspections records for DG17 KKH inspection records after 27 April 2026, trailer inspection records, wheel retorque records and driver defect reports for VX16 VBK were not supplied. DG17 KKH had gone over the 6-week inspection interval by six weeks. AV65 YTD was recorded as VOR from 15 January to 23 March 2026, but loaded roller brake tests were recorded on 26 January and 13 February 2026. I was told that this was to clear the Prohibition Notice. The Examiner found inconsistent kilometre readings on inspection sheets, and VOR reports to be inadequate and lacking detail.
As Mr King recorded, inspection sheets were missing roller brake tests, or any form of brake activation test and Driver defects were being left to Preventative Maintenance Inspections. For example, VK16 VBK was inspected on 21 March 2026 with no defects recorded but inspected again on 3 April 2026 after 40km covered, then recording flat batteries, offside indicator inoperative, axle 2 discs defective, oil leak, centre bearing worn, spring bushes worn. The same vehicle was inspected on 2 May 2026 after covering 7646 and found to have a defective oil leak around the sump, front axle rear spring bushes worn (replaced), axle 2 brake discs cracked (and pads replaced). The Examiner described inconsistent inspections. He noted that wheels would have had to be removed to replace the brake discs and pads on axle 2, but there were no wheel removal/retorque records for those dates. Inspections appeared to be carried out at the Operating Centre which has no maintenance facilities. The driver defect reports suggested that repaired defects are not being signed off by the Transport Manager.
The consultant’s report rather glossed over the documentation leading to the DVSA update reports. I was unaware of the issues with the additional maintenance contractors until I heard evidence from the Transport Manager. I was told that there had been difficulty in obtaining paper inspection records from PNZ. JT Fleet Services initially complied but the position deteriorated. Vehicles and trailers were returned to service without the operator or Transport Manager checking that the declaration of roadworthiness had been completed and that there was a record of rectification for relevant defects. This was aggravated when the Transport Manager was unable to access the operator’s office at the Titan Truck Park during April and May 2026, due to a construction trench being dug around the building. The operator omitted to notify of this change and that vehicles were being parked in a different part of the site and with a different access point. Mr Caraccio described receiving a stack of inspection records in the period afterwards. This prompted the operator to return to Tom Commercials. The Transport Manager will now assume responsibility for the booking of inspections and will receive inspection records via email. There was a suggestion that these might be forwarded 24 to 48 hours after the return of the vehicle. The parties realised that this would not be appropriate and that records should be checked before a return to operations.
As above, Mr Caraccio produced licence checks for two drivers: Mr Mirza and Mr Liddard dating from February and May 2026. Mr Mirza then disclosed that he had dismissed 7 drivers as they failed to meet the required standards. There appeared to have been some push-back following the move to PAYE. The need for adequate control was further illustrated when those drivers declined to attend on a Saturday to be interviewed by the Transport Manager in respect of the above infringements. Mr Mirza has recently interviewed three drivers but found none of them to meet the operator’s standards. In contrast, I was shown a letter of concern issued to Driver Liddard which will be discussed at a meeting this Friday. Mr Demeter is expected to return to employment with the operator and will be re-inducted following a 4-week absence. His EU licence will be swapped for a UK licence by the end of 2026, but the operator has already engaged Novadata and will complete a ‘ghost’ check.
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) – conditions on licence to notify changes, in this case relating to maintenance contractors and to meet the licence requirements, 26(1)(c)(iii) – Prohibition Notices, 26(1)(e) – statements relating to inspection intervals, by Tom Commercials, where vehicles would normally be kept, 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). I do not consider the report prepared by Mr Barber to be sufficiently independent to meet the undertaking given to my colleague.
Mr Caraccio was not called to the Public Inquiry in his own right but is now acutely aware of the shortcomings which must be avoided in future and of the potential impact on his repute were there to be a repeat. Function keys are easily pressed and stock policies produced. Those must meet the particular needs of the operator. Mr Barber estimated that a concentrated effort should ensure that new policies and procedures are fully implemented and working. Mr Caraccio was advised that there can be no excuse going forward.
On first reading, the operator may have thought itself fortunate not to have faced more serious intervention on the last occasion. The Deputy Traffic Commissioner clearly intended there to be a marked deterrent and to encourage future compliance. However, before that decision was formally handed down, another Prohibition had been issued. That just further illustrated the weaknesses identified at the last Public Inquiry. There then followed a series of changes which undermined the ability of the newly appointed Transport Manager to get a grip on the management of the transport operation. It is highly unfortunate that the operator failed to disclose relevant changes and challenges, risking a highly adverse impression of the operator and its ability to meet future compliance, and so soon after a Public Inquiry. The operator and the Transport Manager have been too accepting of the whims of the maintenance contractors rather than managing them and securing the level of compliance required under the operator’s licence. More scrutiny is required, for instance around the brake test reports. The operator must now amend the operator licence record (VOL) to remove the two contractors referred to.
Balanced against the above were the very recent improvements in systems. I also took account of the three recent clear encounters with DVSA. I gave considerable weight to Mr Mirza’s decision to dispose of the services of drivers who were not prepared to work with him and the Transport Manager to meet compliance standards. Those are not the actions of professional drivers. The issue of driver employment is frequently lost in the noise around efforts to minimise tax liabilities. The real challenge for operators is to ensure sufficient control so that they can ensure compliance and take effective disciplinary action, when required. I felt able to allow this operator one final chance. Its repute hangs by a thread and that is reflected in the decision to curtail the licence again, by half to 4 vehicles; those are: AV65 YTD, DG17 KKL, DG17 KKH, and AX15 WMM, with immediate effect. That meant that the substantive application to increase parking of vehicles and trailers at the Operating Centre at Titan Truck Park was no longer necessary. It goes without saying that, having narrowly it on this occasion, if the operator were to be found operating those vehicles out of test or without valid Vehicle Excise Duty having been paid, it should expect more drastic action at a Public Inquiry, where its ability to hold a licence would be at real risk.
R Turfitt
Traffic Commissioner
28 July 2026