Decision for R A Wood Pallet’s Recycling Ltd
Written decision of the Deputy Traffic Commissioner in the North East for R A Wood Pallet’s Recycling Ltd
NORTH EAST TRAFFIC AREA
R A WOOD PALLET’S RECYCLING LTD (Applicant)
BEFORE: MR M HINCHLIFFE (DTC)
SITTING AT LEEDS ON 8 JANUARY 2026
DECISION
The application is refused.
REASONS
At 13:41 hours on 12 May 2025 R A Wood Pallet’s Recycling Ltd (“the applicant”) formally submitted an electronic application for a restricted goods vehicle operator’s licence authorising 4 vehicles and 4 trailers. The written guidance with the electronic application form explains that the names of all the people responsible for the organisation, such as company directors, must be disclosed and: “If you’re a limited company, the organisation name and details you provide must match the details on Companies House or your application may be rejected.” The only director disclosed in the application was Mr Robert Roof (born Sep 1995).
The application form then asks, at Q10, whether any directors have ever been involved with a company or business that has gone (or is going into) liquidation owing money and, at Q11, it also asks whether anyone disclosed in the application (including directors) has previously held or applied for a goods operator’s licence in any traffic area, and also whether any such person has ever had an operator’s licence revoked. To all these questions Mr Roof, on behalf of the applicant, answered “No”.
In fact, Mr Roof’s aunt, Mrs Claire (Anne) Hall (born May 1974), was (a) also a director of the applicant - having been appointed as such on 25 July 2024. She was also a director of KMK Pallets Ltd (“KMK”), having been appointed on 7 May 2021. That company (b) held a restricted goods vehicle operator’s licence authorising 4 vehicles granted on 15/4/2010. A petition (c) for the compulsory liquidation of the company was presented on 14/10/2024 and the winding up commenced on 27/11/2024. Companies House record two outstanding charges, held by Barclays Security Trustee Ltd and Lloyds TSB bank PLC. As a consequence of the liquidation, (d) the operator’s licence held by KMK was revoked by the Traffic Commissioner 06/12/2024 on the grounds of material change.
It follows that four of the responses on the application form (a - d above) gave incorrect or untrue answers.
Earlier on 12 May 2025, shortly before the electronic application by the applicant was submitted, a goods vehicle NJ08WSU was stopped on the A1 northbound, laden with wooden pallets. The driver was a Mr Andrew Cassidy (Mr Roof’s brother-in-law).
This vehicle had previously been an authorised vehicle on the KMK licence, having been specified on 2/3/2023. Its authorisation to carry goods on the roads ceased on 6/12/2024 when the KMK licence was revoked. It was not subsequently specified on any licence and so its use involving the carriage of goods on 12/5/2025 appeared to be illegal. On top of that, the vehicle did not have a valid MOT, its tachograph was faulty so that data could not be downloaded, and it was out of date for calibration since November 2023. Examination of the vehicle resulted in the issue of a prohibition notice listing seven mechanical defects, with four immediate and three delayed defects recorded.
Mr Cassidy told the DVSA officer that he was employed by a company called E&K Pallets Woodchip Recycling Services Ltd (“E&K”) and it was “Claire in the office” who usually gave him his instructions. This, it is agreed, is Mrs Hall. On this particular day, however, Mr Cassidy said that it was Mr Roof who had asked him to drive the vehicle, and it was loaded when he had collected it. On 3/7/2025 E&K made an application for an operator’s licence, but this application (which would have been called to public inquiry at a conjoined hearing with this one) was withdrawn on 5/12/2025. There was no interim licence. The sole director of E&K is Ms Katie Jayne Hall (born October 1995) – she is the daughter of Mrs Hall.
In due course, Mr Roof arrived at the location on the A1 of the impounded vehicle, claiming to be the owner (through the applicant) of the vehicle. He said he had bought it two weeks earlier and it was being taken to assess its mechanical state. There was, however, no advance appointment made at any garage, and there was no MOT pre-booked. Mr Roof said that he had recently made an application for an operator’s licence through R A Wood Pallet’s Recycling Ltd, but no licence had yet been granted. Although he said that the applicant was now the actual owner of the vehicle, he had not insured it – he was relying on the insurance policy of KMK, even though KMK was in liquidation, no longer owned the vehicle (according to Mr Roof), and no longer had an operator’s licence to operate the vehicle. Mr Roof said that £1,200 had been paid for the vehicle.
I note, in passing, that the applicant and Mr Roof pursued their claim to ownership of the vehicle up to, and at, an impounding hearing before the Traffic Commissioner. However, the Traffic Commissioner was not satisfied as to ownership and (even if he had been) he was not satisfied that any ground for return had been made out. The Traffic Commissioner’s written decision dated 19/8/2025 is to be found in the brief for this public inquiry and I respectfully note his careful summary of the facts and reasoning.
Next, Mrs Hall was spoken to by the DVSA over the phone. This is because Mr Cassidy had said he usually worked for E&K, and Mrs Hall was (at that time) dealing with administrative matters for her daughter’s company. It is to be remembered that E&K did not have (and has never had) an operator’s licence. Mrs Hall said that the vehicle had been sold to Mr Roof by KMK, but she said that no payment had been made or received and there was no paperwork to evidence the sale. At the impounding hearing, however, the Traffic Commissioner was presented with a purported handwritten cash receipt dated three days earlier (9/5/2025) stating that a £200 deposit had been paid.
Four days later, on 16/5/2025 another vehicle was stopped being driven by the same Mr Cassidy, and this vehicle - which was laden with pallets - was (it was thought) being illegally operated by E&K, for whom Mr Cassidy worked. This vehicle was impounded and has not been returned. Further, I have evidence in the brief that over June and July 2025, vehicle NX55CEV, which was not specified on any operator’s licence, but which was most recently specified on the KMK licence, was sighted by ANPR equipment on 81 occasions, and photographed carrying pallets. It is the applicant’s contention that these journeys were also operated by E&K and have nothing whatever to do with the applicant, KMK or Mrs Hall.
At the hearing before me I heard evidence from Mr Roof, Mrs Hall, and Mr Brooks - a transport consultant brought in to help and give advice regarding future compliance, should an operator’s licence be granted. But before coming to consider arrangements for keeping vehicles in a fit and serviceable condition, and other aspects of future compliance, I need to consider whether or not the applicant is unfit to hold an operator’s licence.
Assessment of unfitness involves consideration of any relevant activities carried on, at any time before the making of the application, by any relevant person including directors - and “relevant activities” means any of the following:
- activities in carrying on any trade or business in the course of which vehicles of any description are operated;
- activities as a person employed for the purposes of any such trade or business; or
- activities as a director of a company carrying on any such trade or business.
Mr Roof accepted that he had filled out the application form inaccurately, which he said was naïve, and he had forgotten that Mrs Hall was a fellow director. On reflection, he said, it was likely that the impounded vehicle still belonged to KMK at the time it was stopped, but he had an intention to buy it, and he had paid a deposit. Although laden, the journey was not for the purpose of carrying goods but, said Mr Roof, to visit a garage prior to an MOT.
Mrs Hall agreed that she had worked on the administration side for E&K and had dealt with the DVSA phone calls to the company on the day of the impounding, but she no longer had any connections and had distanced herself from her daughter. She thought that she had not informed Mr Roof of the liquidation and/or revocation involving KMK, which is possibly why he did not think to disclose her involvement as a director of the applicant when he came to answer the pertinent questions on the application form.
I heard evidence from Mr Brooks in case I decided that the applicant was not unfit but, having reserved my decision in order to consider the matter, I have concluded that, by virtue of the relevant conduct of its directors, the applicant is unfit to hold a restricted operator’s licence at this time.
In Redsky Wholesalers Ltd T2013/07 the Upper Tribunal held that fitness to hold a licence is not a significantly lower hurdle than good repute. And the approach to fitness or repute when dealing with an application is not the same as the approach when deciding whether or not to take regulatory action against an existing licence holder - see the Upper Tribunal decision in Aspey Trucks Ltd 2010/49 (at paragraph 10):
“In a case such as this, the Deputy Traffic Commissioner was not looking at putting someone out of business. Rather, he was deciding whether or not to give his official seal of approval … In this respect, Traffic Commissioners are the gatekeepers to the industry – and the public, other operators, and customers and competitors alike, all expect that those permitted to join the industry will not blemish or undermine its good name or abuse the privileges that it bestows.”
Having had an opportunity to watch and listen to Mr Roof and Mrs Hall, I believe that the non-disclosure of Mrs Hall as a director was deliberate. She had been involved with an operator that had gone into liquidation owing money and had had its operator’s licence revoked. Since the necessary steps and formalities had been taken to make Mrs Hall a director of the applicant, which they clearly had been, then it is not credible that this would slip Mr Roof’s mind. It is also not credible that Mr Roof was kept in the dark about the liquidation or revocation involving KMK. And if Mr Roof was intent on concealing the KMK liquidation and revocation, there is a reason and motive to conceal Mrs Hall’s directorship.
As we have seen, Mr Roof involved himself, uninvited, in the incident of 12/5/2025, stated (as if it provided some sort of authority to operate) that he had applied for an operator’s licence. In fact, according to the Traffic Commissioner who looked into this at the impounding hearing, the application was actually submitted a short time after the vehicle was stopped and faced being impounded – and after Mrs Hall had been contacted about it.
The picture that then emerges after Mr Roof involved himself in the detention and subsequent impounding of NJ08WSU is confusing. The vehicle was last specified on the KMK licence. Its driver said he usually worked for E&K. And Mr Roof said that a third company - the applicant company - owned it. The applicant, however, did not have an operator’s licence (indeed, at this time, none of these family companies held an operator’s licence). The evidence - as to when the vehicle was bought (if it was), whether any money was paid (and, if so, how much), whether there was any paperwork generated to evidence the sale, and what the true purpose of the journey was – is, to be frank, all over the place.
I also note that Mr Roof has now backtracked on his ownership claim, which is not surprising given that the vehicle had no MOT, was mechanically defective with a non-operational tachograph, and was probably not insured. But this ambiguity and inconsistency around the evidence merely confirms the strong impression of a wider pattern of apparently unlawful operation of vehicles across the family companies, interchangeably. Moreover, if the vehicle was owned by KMK then it is hard to understand why Mr Roof turned up at the scene claiming ownership, either individually or through the applicant. This is a claim he pursued up to, and at, an impounding hearing before the Traffic Commissioner. And yet, if Mr Roof was the owner, he had not insured it, and he is responsible for the lack of an MOT, and all the mechanical and tachograph defects. Given that no evidence of a pre-booked garage appointment has been presented, and the vehicle was laden, I think it more likely than not that the vehicle was being illegally operated for the carriage of goods.
Mrs Hall, for her part, had clear and admitted administrative links with E&K which, as it appears, was engaged in widespread, disinhibited and egregious unlawful operation of goods vehicles. Similarly, KMK had had its operator’s licence revoked and yet there are two vehicles identified where KMK was the last and most recent keeper and operator, and where these vehicles were seen on the roads, laden with pallets, without any authorisation to operate. The ANPR evidence is in the brief, and there is no evidence to show that KMK divested itself of these vehicles before they were seen back out on the road, carrying loads.
In the end, in my view, it makes little difference who, or which company, was operating the first impounded vehicle, and other vehicles, without an operator’s licence. There is no clear blue water between the companies, or the various family members involved, and the attempt, now, to distance Mr Roof, Mrs Hall and the applicant from the broader picture of across-the-board illegality falls flat in my judgement - and is very far from persuasive.
Mr Brooks, wisely anticipating this decision, asked me to consider giving an indication as to how, or when, the applicant might put itself in a stronger position. It is not for me to tie the hands of any future decision-maker, and it is right that unfitness does not have to last forever. However, it surely goes without saying that, in this case, significant time must elapse – possibly around 18 months, without any further involvement by company directors in illegally operated or impounded vehicles, or any links (however tenuous) with the entities apparently operating them. Second, any future application must be totally honest and transparent, with no concealments or inaccurate answers. Third, if Mrs Hall is a director, then the applicant must be prepared to explain the background to the KMK liquidation and produce the appropriate reports as to the circumstances and monies owing. Fourth, Mr Brooks or some similar transport professional needs to be contractually available to ensure that future arrangements for compliance are robust and reliable. And fifth, all directors of the applicant company should demonstrate commitment to compliance by attendance at an Operator Licence Awareness Training (OLAT) course before launching a fresh application. Having said that, it remains open to a future decision-maker to decide that the time is not right, or that other factors have emerged that have an impact on the case.
For now, therefore, the application is refused.
Mark Hinchliffe
Deputy Traffic Commissioner
9/1/2026