Decision for PS Haulage Limited OK2006306 and A1 Road Haulage Limited OF2087688
Written decision of the Deputy Traffic Commissioner in the South Eastern and Metropolitan Traffic Area.
SOUTH EASTERN AND METROPOLITAN TRAFFIC AREA
DECISIONS OF THE DEPUTY TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER
PUBLIC INQUIRY HEARD AT IVY HOUSE, IVY TERRACE, EASTBOURNE ON 30 JULY 2026
OK2006306 – PS HAULAGE LIMITED
and
OF2087688 – A1 ROAD HAULAGE LIMITED
PS HAULAGE LIMITED
Grounds for regulatory under Section 26(1) (b) (e) (f) and (g) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act, 1995 found in that the operator has breached a condition of the licence, made a false statement when obtaining the licence, breached the undertakings attached to the licence and there is a material change in that financial standing has not been demonstrated.
The operator has lost repute and fails to satisfy the statutory requirement for financial standing. The licence is therefore revoked with immediate effect pursuant to Section 27(1) of the Act and the application for surrender of the licence refused.
The operator PS Haulage Limited is disqualified for three years from holding or obtaining an operator’s licence with immediate effect.
Peram Singh is disqualified for three years from holding or obtaining an operator’s licence as a director of a company, partner in a partnership or sole trader with immediate effect.
Peram Singh has lost her repute as a transport manager and is disqualified from acting in that capacity indefinitely with immediate effect. If she applies for the disqualification to be lifted, she will need to have requalified as a transport manager and be able to demonstrate a much-improved attitude towards compliance and co-operation with the regulatory authorities.
A1 HAULAGE LIMITED
Upon the applicant failing to satisfy me that the requirements of Section 13A (2)(b) – good repute, Section 13C (2) – satisfactory arrangement for managing drivers’ hours and Section 13C (4) – satisfactory arrangements for maintaining vehicles in a good and serviceable condition are met this application is refused in accordance with Section 13 (5) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act, 1995
Background
The operator PS Haulage Limited is the holder of a standard national licence issued on the 2 October 2017 authorising three vehicles and two trailers. The sole director of the company and designated transport manager is Peram Singh.
An application for a standard national licence authorising four vehicles was made by A1 Road Haulage Limited on the 30 December 2025. The sole director of the company is Avtar Singh, and the proposed transport manager is Jeevan Singh.
When the application made by A1 Road Haulage Limited was being processed various links were identified between the individuals associated with the company and PS Haulage Limited as well as other companies and individuals who have held operator’s licences. The individuals involved are Sukhvir Singh who is the husband of Avtar Singh, Peram Singh who is their daughter and Jeevan Singh who is their son.
The operator licensing history for these individuals is as follows:
Mr Sukhvir Singh held sole trader licences OK1092472 and OF1101990 SUKHVIR SINGH and was due to attend a Public Inquiry following the loss of operating centre, however, surrender of the licences was accepted by the Traffic Commissioner and the Public Inquiry was vacated on 17 September 2018.
He was also the director of OF2045874 SSC TRANSPORT LTD, whose licence was revoked on 13 February 2023 following the loss of the transport manager, the company was subsequently dissolved in April 2023.
Mrs Avtar Singh was the director of OK1133771 NEJ Logistics Limited which was called to a public inquiry in 2018. Prior to the public inquiry the Traffic Commissioner agreed to an application to surrender the licence, and the company was subsequently dissolved on the 18 December 2018.
Jeevan Singh was a director and transport manager of OH2047518 JSJ COURIERS LIMITED which was surrendered on 09 January 2025. He attended a Public Inquiry on 07 January 2025 when his repute as a transport manager was tarnished but intact.
On the 28 October 2024 a warning was issued by Traffic Examiner Lorden to PS Haulage Limited in relation to the use of a vehicle FJ66 UYC which had been driven by Sukhvir Singh (her father) for 46.2 kilometres on the 29 August 2024 without using a tachograph card. In the response from Peram Singh, she described Jeevan Singh as her general manager.
On the 4 November 2025 a vehicle LX65BVE being operated by PS Haulage Limited was stopped by a DVSA officer and a variety of compliance failings were found including the vehicle not being authorised on the licence, tachograph downloading not taking place and no road fund licence in force. The driver of the vehicle was found to be in breach of his immigration status. Because of this encounter Traffic Examiner Childs attempted to investigate the operator and tried to contact Peram Singh, the director and transport manager to enable this to take place. Ms Singh did not speak to Mr Childs but responded by email on the 18 December 2025 saying that the licence was being surrendered. Despite being told that an inspection visit was still required Ms Singh did not make further contact.
On the 13 April 2026 vehicle PN66 PZE which was driven by Sukhvir Singh was stopped by the DVSA. Enquiries showed that the tachograph records had not been downloaded for 1076 days and that Mr Singh had been using the vehicle from the 2 March 2026 until the date of the encounter. On the 16 March 2026 a tachograph card swap had taken place with Mr Singh’s card being used until 19.29.06 after 10 hours and one minute of driving with Avtar Singh’s card inserted at 19.30.04 and the vehicle driven for an additional 58 minutes. When questioned concerning this Mr Singh said that he had met a relief driver at Watford Gap and then driven that driver’s car to his home. He also claimed that he was driving for a company MJK Resourcing Limited, but the director of that company provided evidence to show that the vehicle was being operated by PS Haulage Limited.
When the evidence of financial standing in respect of the application by A1 Haulage Limited was considered, it was noted that a transfer of £22,000 had been made from Sukhvir Singh on the 16 December 2025. The amount required for the licence is £21,500. On enquiry Avtar Singh said that the money was by way of a gift and that Mr Singh would hold no management, financial, or decision-making role within the company but may be engaged from time to time as a relief driver.
A decision was taken to call PS Haulage Limited and the application made by A1 Haulage Limited to a conjoined public inquiry and call up letters and bundles were served accordingly. Peram Singh was also called to inquiry in her capacity as transport manager for PS Haulage Limited. In both cases, case management directions were issued requiring documents to be lodged which would be relevant to the public inquiry process.
The Public Inquiry
Neither Peram Singh nor a legal representative attended on behalf of PS Haulage Limited. Traffic Examiner Childs attended via Microsoft Teams. Avtar Singh and Jeevan Singh attended in relation to the application by A1 Haulage Limited. As I was satisfied that the call up papers to the inquiry had been properly served, I decided to proceed with the case concerning PS Haulage Limited in the absence of the director and transport manager.
Evidence
Avtar Singh confirmed that Sukhvir Singh is her husband and that Jeevan and Peram are their children although she stated that she was estranged from her daughter. Jeevan Singh confirmed that he had worked for PS Haulage limited and said he thought this was from July to December 2025.
I noted that three different addresses at Goodman Park were referred to in the papers and Mrs Singh said that one house was where she lived with her husband, her daughter and son lived at different addresses within the same estate.
I asked Mrs Singh about the use of her tachograph card on the 16 March 2026, and she said that she had driven the vehicle in place of her husband on that date and he had been a passenger in the vehicle. She could not explain why he had said that a relief driver had attended and that he had driven a car home, she thought he may have been mistaken. The very quick change of cards was because she had been waiting for him to arrive at the place for the changeover. A relative had dropped her off to facilitate the changeover.
She confirmed that the money transferred by Sukhvir Singh was a gift and said that she and her husband owned several properties from which they received rents. She said that transfers between them were marked as gifts because this made it clear that no repayment was required. The properties were jointly owned so financial standing should not be an issue going forward. She had decided with her son that Mr Singh would not be driving for the company if a licence was granted.
Mrs Singh said that she had surrendered the licence for NEJ Logistics Limited and had not wanted to attend a public inquiry because she was frightened to do so. Jeevan Singh said he had surrendered the licence for JSJ Couriers Limited and his medical condition which had led to a motoring conviction meant that he was restricted in what he could take on. Mrs Singh said that she wanted to obtain this licence to assist her son hence his nomination as transport manager.
Findings and Decision – PS Haulage Limited
In considering whether to allow the surrender of the licence or to take regulatory action I need to identify negative features of the case as well as positives. The licence has been in force since 2017 and there has been no previous regulatory action beyond the warning issued by a DVSA officer in October 2024. However, the issues that were identified as a result of the encounter in November 2025 were serious and included the engagement of a driver who was not permitted to be in the country. The attempted investigation by Traffic Examiner Childs was thwarted by the refusal by Ms Singh to engage and respond only by email in December 2025 suggesting that a proposed surrender of the licence was a resolution. This position was made worse by the apparent continued operation of the licence in 2026 when tachograph records were not being downloaded, Sukhvir Singh was driving and the vehicle in use had not been authorised on the licence. All these failures were compounded by Ms Singh’s failure to attend the public inquiry to answer the concerns set out in the call up letter and bundle.
Taking all factors into account I find that there are grounds for regulatory action under Section 26(1) (b) (e) (f) and (g) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act, 1995 in that the operator has breached a condition of the licence, made a false statement when obtaining the licence, breached the undertakings attached to the licence and there is a material change in that financial standing has not been demonstrated. Because of these findings and Ms Singh’s failure to attend the inquiry or engage with the regulatory process. I believe that future compliance is unlikely if the licence continues and the operator ought to be put out of business, I find that the operator has lost repute and failed to satisfy the statutory criterion of financial standing. The licence is therefore revoked with immediate effect pursuant to Section 27(1) of the Act and the application for surrender of the licence refused.
I order a disqualification against the operator from holding or obtaining an operator’s licence for a period of three years and against the director Peram Singh for the same period in the capacity of sole trader, director of company or partner in a partnership. I believe that the seriousness of the non-compliance and the failure to engage mean that the operator and Ms Singh should be kept away from the industry for a period and that the order for disqualification is necessary and proportionate.
I also find that Peram Singh has lost her repute as a transport manager. There is very little evidence to show that her duties in that post were being carried out effectively and her non-engagement with the regulatory process makes her position worse. Having lost her repute a disqualification as a transport manager is obligatory, and I order an indefinite disqualification in this case. If she applies for the disqualification to be lifted in the future, she will need to have passed the relevant qualification examination and be able to demonstrate that her attitude towards compliance and co-operation with the relevant authorities is markedly different.
Findings and Decision – A1 Road Haulage Limited
As this is an application the burden is on the applicant company to satisfy me on the balance of probabilities that the statutory requirements for the grant of a licence are made out. In determining this question, I refer to the relevant history and circumstances of the individuals involved in the application as well as any other facts that I consider pertinent.
In terms of history Avtar Singh and her son Jeevan Singh have been directors of companies which held licences and have been called to public inquiry. In Mrs Singh’s case surrender of the licence was accepted as opposed to a revocation being ordered and Mrs Singh told me that she had been “too frightened“ to attend the hearing. Jeevan Singh attended inquiry when his repute as a transport manager was tarnished. The licence was surrendered two days after his attendance at inquiry. In summary both individuals have a questionable background in operator licensing.
When the call-up letter was sent to the applicant it included a schedule of case management directions detailing documentation required to demonstrate planned maintenance arrangements and drivers’ hours management. Confirmation of Avtar Singh’s attendance on an Operator Licensing Training Course on the 12 March 2026 and Jeevan Singh’s contract of engagement as a transport manager were submitted but none of the other documentation directed.
The case summary included as part of the call-up information referred to the concern that the application may a “front” for Sukhvir Singh and an explanation of the term Fronting was set out. Mrs Singh accepts that her husband Sukhvir transferred sufficient money into the company account to evidence financial standing for the application. Mrs Singh said that the money was a gift and this was the method used for money to move between accounts held by her and her husband. In deciding whether I accept this explanation I have reflected on the fact that Sukhvir Singh appears to have been very involved in the licence held by PS Haulage Limited in that he has been shown to be driving for them in 2024 and earlier this year and gave false information as to who was operating a vehicle. The director and transport manager for that company was his daughter, and his son was the general manager. That licence has been revoked as detailed above.
I have also considered the events of 16 March 2026 when Mrs Singh claims to have acted as a relief driver for her husband. Her version of events differs completely from the explanation given by Mr Singh. Whilst I do not need to make a finding as to which version I believe it does show that the parties have been involved in Mr Singh driving for PS Haulage Limited whichever version is believed.
My conclusion is that it is more likely than not Sukhvir Singh is going to be involved in the new licence if this application is granted. He has provided the finance for the company, and I do not accept that he will nevertheless have no part to play in the business. The timing of the application, the funding as detailed, the events of 16 March 2026 and the family links between the individuals, all point to this being an application put forward as a front for Sukhvir Singh who, based on past history, is not a person who would be likely to be granted a licence.
Based on my conclusions detailed above I am not satisfied that the following requirements have been made out:
-
Good Repute in accordance with Section 13A (2)(b) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act, 1995
-
Satisfactory arrangements to comply with the law regarding drivers’ hours as required by Section 13C(2) of the 1995 Act
-
Satisfactory facilities and arrangements for maintaining the vehicles in a fit and serviceable condition as required by Section 13C(4) of the 1995 Act.
As the requirements set out in the paragraph above have not been made out, I refuse the application in accordance with Section 13(5) of the 1995 Act.
John Baker
Deputy Traffic Commissioner
5 August 2026