Decision for Reliant Transport Limited (OF1107227) and Helen Mcnerney (Transport Manager)
Written decision of the Deputy Traffic Commissioner for Eastern England for Reliant Transport Limited (OF1107227) and Helen Mcnerney (Transport Manager)
IN THE EASTERN TRAFFIC AREA
DECISION OF THE DEPUTY TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER FOR EASTERN ENGLAND
PUBLIC INQUIRY HELD AT CAMBRIDGE ON 18 JUNE 2025
Reliant Transport Limited (OF1107227) and Helen Mcnerney (Transport Manager)
DECISION
Pursuant to adverse findings under Section 26(1)(c)(iii), (f) and (h) of the Goods Vehicle (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (GVLOA 1995) and the operator having lost its good repute Licence OF1107227 is revoked under sections 26(1) and 27 of the GVLOA 1995 with effect from 23:45 on Friday 4 July 2025.
Pursuant to section 28(1), (4) and (5) of the GVLOA 1995 Reliant Transport Limited and its director, Mr Breffni O’Reilly are disqualified from holding or obtaining an Operator’s Licence or being involved in the management, administration and control of any entity that holds or obtains an Operator Licence for a period of 3 years with effect from 23:45 on 4 July 2025.
Ms Helen McNerney has lost her good repute as a transport manager pursuant to Schedule 3 paragraph 1 of the GVLOA 1995. Under paragraph 16(2) of that Schedule, she is disqualified from acting as a transport manager on any operator’s licence for a period of 3 years with effect from 23:45 on 4 July 2025.
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
This case is called under sections 26, 27 and 28 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (GVLOA 1995) relating to alleged breaches of Licence OF1107227 by the operator, Reliant Transport Limited and consideration of the repute of its transport manager, Ms Helen McNerney. The public inquiry was listed for 10.00 am on 18 June 2025. By 10.25 am, neither the operator nor the transport manager had appeared. The operator’s sole director, Mr Breffni O’Reilly, was aware of the hearing, having recently been in correspondence with the Office of the Traffic Commissioner (OTC) and stating that he would not be able to attend.
The history of this matter is within the inquiry brief with a concise background in the case summary [3-4] and the call-in letter of 8 May 2025 [6-15]. In outline, the Operator was granted a Standard International Goods Vehicle Licence on 1 March 2012. It is currently authorised for 2 vehicles and 2 trailers with 1 vehicle in possession. Its operating centre was stated to be Junction 26 Truck Stop, Skillet Hill Farm, Honey Lane, Waltham Abbey EN9 3QU. Its main area of business is understood to be road haulage. The recent history summarised below is important.
On 27 February 2024, the Operator was issued with a formal warning following a public inquiry in which Deputy Traffic Commissioner Nick Denton noted that the Operator was given a formal warning for the S-marked prohibition issued in February 2023 and the subsequent report from DVSA marked “unsatisfactory” [110].
On 14 October 2024, vehicle SY70YSZ was stopped by the DVSA with a disc issued to the Operator. The driver, Miklos-Attila Mandics, stated that he was working for the Operator. The statement of traffic examiner (TE) Nicola Carpenter of 18 October 2024 notes that vehicle SY70YSZ was not specified on the operator’s licence and that the 2-vehicle authorisation on the licence was already in use on the 14 October 2024. Further, the vehicle unit download was 36 days late and Mr Mandics’ driver card had not been downloaded in 713 days [85-86]. Delayed roadworthiness prohibitions were issued to SY70YSZ (emission control equipment modified) and to trailer: C593390 (anti-lock brake warning light sequence indicates a fault, ABS inoperative); which vehicle SY70YSZ was towing [105-106].
The DVSA served a s. 99 letter on the operator on 22 January 2025 requesting information by 12 February 2025 including, among other things, whether vehicle SY70YSZ was being hired to a third party. No response was received.
On 24 January 2025 a DVSA vehicle examiner confirmed that a maintenance investigation was to be conducted on 3 February 2025 and requested maintenance reports and other information. On 29 January 2025 a DVSA traffic examiner informed the operator that a systems and procedures investigation was to be carried out. Mr O’Reilly did contact the examiner, although the information requested was not provided.
On 5 February 2025, an S-marked prohibition was issued to vehicle WR64KJN for a loose wheel nut and an engine oil leak. The driver, Danny Reardon, stated that he was driving for the Operator. On subsequent investigation by a traffic examiner, it was found that vehicle WR64KJN was not specified on the operator’s licence on 5 February 2025. [83, 107-109].
A letter of 12 February 2025 informed the Operator that a Traffic Commissioner was considering revocation of the licence due to concerns that the Operator may be operating more vehicles than authorised along with a failure to respond to previous correspondence. It also requested financial information. This was responded to in part in an email of 25 March 2025 from Mr O’Reilly. In reference to vehicle SY70YSZ he stated that:
“… A former staff member lent it to a friend of his to assist while his personal lorry was being repaired. When I first inquired about the situation, the staff member assured me that he had all the necessary details. Unfortunately, I’ve since learned that this was not the case. This individual left the company in December 2024, taking both hard copies of documents and the company laptop with him, so I’m unable to retrieve the needed information. Despite several attempts, I’ve been unable to get in touch with him to clarify the matter.” [131]
A DVSA traffic examiner’s visit report (TEVR) of 22 April 2025 [82-92] found that vehicle SY70YSZ was specified on the operator’s licence on 27 August 2024, removed on 3 September 2024 and put back on again on 13 January 2025. The report adds that on 20 February 2025 the traffic examiner attended the DVSA Blackwall Tunnel check site to conduct the TEVR with Mr O’Reilly but that he did not attend. Further, no information was provided to the examiner, and it was not possible to carry out a TEVR.
The maintenance investigation visits report of 29 April 2025 [65-81] records 6 out of 13 assessment areas as: ‘Report to OTC’; and a further 5 of 13 marked as unsatisfactory. These include:
3: failing to use the operating centre with the report noting: “The stated operating centre was visited on 22/01/25 and the Operators vehicles were not on site. I asked the owner of the site when the Operators vehicles were parked on site last and he checked his records which revealed that the vehicles had not been on site since 08/11/24. He also stated that the Operators parking payment had lapsed and was due on 07/11/24.”
4: failing to provide inspection and maintenance records;
5: failing to provide documentation on driver defect reporting;
6: unsatisfactory inspection and maintenance arrangements with a trend of removing vehicles before testing;
7: non-compliance with emissions control systems;
8: failing to provide documentation on wheel & tyre management;
9: failing to provide documentation on load security;
10: 3 x prohibitions issued to the operator:
- on 22 February 2023 relating to the condition of tyres;
- on 14 October 2024 on exhaust emissions and brake warning systems; and
- on 5 February 2025 relating to loose wheel nuts and an engine oil leak.
11: that the operator is not specified at the operating centre, with a failure to attend any appointments resulting in no ability to ask questions on security;
12: 2 x undertakings detected that a marked as unfulfilled; and,
13: no contact by the transport manager or operator therefore suggesting that neither have continuous and effective control.
The call-in letter sent to the Operator referred to potential breaches of the following provisions of the GVLOA 1995:
- section 6 and operating more vehicles than the maximum number permitted by the licence;
- section 26(1)(c)(iii) and that prohibition notices have been issued by the DVSA in the past five years;
- section 26(1)(f) relating to undertakings given in applying for the licence including that vehicles are to be fit and serviceable, that the rules on drivers’ hours and tachographs would be observed and that proper records would be kept, that there would be effective written driver defect reporting with full maintenance records being; and,
- section 26(1)(h) and a failure to notify the Traffic Commissioner of a material change in the operations relating operating more vehicles than authority and, further, that you may not have sufficient financial resources.
Due to the alleged breaches, concern was also raised that the operator may not meet the requirement to be of good repute under section 13A and paragraph 14A of Schedule 3 of the GVLOA 1995.
The call-in letter to Helen McNerney as transport manager of 8 May 2025 [16-22] explained that the inquiry would consider whether they continued to meet the requirement to be of good repute and can accordingly exercise effective and continuous management of a transport operation in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 3 of the GVLOA 1995.
As noted above, Mr O’Reilly was aware of the public inquiry. Email reminders of the inquiry had been sent by the OTC. Attempts had also been made to telephone the operator. The contact details were those provided by the operator on the Vehicle Operating Licensing (VOL) system.
Mr Breffni emailed the OTC at 15:15 hours on Monday 16 June 2025 two days before the inquiry stating the following:
“Good after noon Mr [__]
Good talking to you. I have forwared you some of the emails between my self and tamara reilly . Going forward I will not be able to attend the public inquirory. Also if you decide to take my licence away I would be very grate full if you would consider reducing my licence down to one and after a peroid of time you would ask for all my paper work. if this is not a option i would be very grateful if you would give me one month to let the people know what is happing who i work for
Kind Regards
Breffni O’Reilly”
I am informed that the letter to Ms McNerney was returned to the OTC marked undelivered. The letter had also sent by email.
THE EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS
Relevant evidence includes the two prohibition notices, the recent DVSA reports, the recent correspondence between the operator and the OTC and the recent history outlined above. 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 and facts before me I am satisfied that the operator has not maintained its vehicles to a sufficient standard. This is confirmed by the prohibition notices issued in recent years; see for example at [73, 79]: including: ‘deep cut in tyre, … tyre tread worn, … spray suppression equipment missing … emission control equipment modified … wheel nut loose, oil and waste leak,’. These are putting road safety at risk.
It also appears to me that the operator has not been using an effective and stable establishment, as confirmed by the comments within the MIVR.
In terms of finances, the operator said in recent correspondence that bank statements had been provided to a member of the OTC. However, as part evidence that was required to be submitted for the inquiry in accordance with the directions sent to the operator, it was required to provide current financial information at least 14 days before the inquiry. It has not done so, and I am unable to ascertain whether the operator has sufficient financial resources to maintain any vehicles under the licence as is required under section 13A(2) and Schedule 3 of the GVLOA 1995.
The failure to provide information and the failure to attend DVSA meetings all highlight a disregard for the regulatory authorities and suggest an unwillingness to comply with the regulatory regime. Many of the multiple areas marked unsatisfactory or ‘Report to OTC’ at [65ff] arise because there is no evidence at all that any maintenance, operational or management systems in place for the operator. The chronology of events since the last public inquiry further highlights a lack of professional competence. The report of the traffic examiner and appendices at [82-92] details the efforts that the DVSA officer took to attempt to engage with the operator and gather information to be able to assess the driver and management systems in place concluding at [84]: “I have been unable to assess the systems in place if any of Reliant Transport Ltd”.
In terms of the transport manager, there has been no engagement or with Ms McNerney the appointed transport at any point since the last public inquiry. Despite correspondence being sent by the OTC. This is then evidence that there is no continuous and effective control of the operator’s activities and operations. It also demonstrates a failure by the operator to manage and have effective oversight of its designated transport manager.
Having regard to the above, I find that there have been the following breaches of the GVLOA 1995:
- section 26(1)(c)(iii) and that prohibition notices have been issued by the DVSA in the past five years;
- section 26(1)(f) relating to undertakings given in applying for the licence including that vehicles are to be fit and serviceable, that the rules on drivers’ hours and tachographs would be observed and that proper records would be kept, that there would be effective written driver defect reporting with full maintenance records being; and,
- section 26(1)(h) and a failure to notify the Traffic Commissioner of a material change in the operations namely that it has not been operating from the operating centre listed on its licence and, further, that it may not have sufficient financial resources.
I am satisfied that, contrary to section 13A(3) and paragraph 14A(1) and (3) of Schedule 3 of the GVLOA 1995, the operator is not professionally competent and has not designated an individual that is professionally competent to carry out functions on its behalf.
DECISION
Having made the above findings, I remind myself of relevant provisions within the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document 10 including:
“4. The legislation exists to ensure the promotion of road safety and fair competition and traffic commissioners will have regard to the relevant decisions of the higher courts and the principle of proportionality in deciding what intervention is commensurate with the circumstances of each individual case. …”
I also have regard to the commentary at paragraph 50:
“50. A traffic commissioner should consider all the relevant negatives and positives when balancing the relevant factors and so should also carry out an assessment of the weight to be given to all the various competing elements. This also applies to consideration of a transport manager’s repute. The Upper Tribunal has imported a preliminary question, namely: how likely is it that this operator will, in future, operate in compliance with the operator’s licensing regime? If the evidence demonstrates that it is unlikely then that will, of course, tend to support a conclusion that the operator ought to be put out of business. If the evidence demonstrates that the operator is very likely to be compliant in the future, then that conclusion may indicate that it is not a case where the operator ought to be put out of business. Promises are easily made, what matters is whether those promises will be kept: actions speak louder than words. …”
On the positive side there is an implicit recognition by the Operator that maintaining an Operator’s licence in the circumstances of this case is unlikely: see e.g. the email of 16 June 2025. There is some positive feature in that operator did finally correspond with the OTC albeit at a very late stage in the proceedings.
The negative factors are the breaches of legislation, the prohibition notices, the findings in terms of the operating centre, the failure to correspond and provide information required and requested to the OTC and the DVSA, and the failure to cooperate with the DVSA by, for instance, failing to attend site visits.
It appears to me that the operator has little knowledge or understanding of the advice and guidance available in how to maintain compliance with its operator’s licence. Yet operators are deemed to know the advice and guidance that is in the public domain. In LA & Z Leonida t/a ETS [2014] UKUT 0423 (AAC) the Upper Tribunal noted that:
4 … 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.
Taking into account the positive and negative factors and by reference to the suggested starting points of regulatory action found in Annex 4, Statutory Document 10, I find that this case may be regarded as severe.
I also have regard to the effect of the regulatory action proposed on the business. 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? After repeating all of my findings I answer that question in the negative. I have then asked myself the question posed by the Upper Tribunal in 2002/217 Bryan Haulage Ltd No. 2; is the conduct of this operator such that they ought to be put out of business? After repeating all of my findings and despite the credit that I have given to the operator for the positives in this case, I decide that it is proportionate to answer that question ‘yes’. As a result, Reliant Transport Limited has lost its good repute as an operator. Having lost its good repute it is a mandatory requirement that I revoke the Licence OF1107227 under section 27 of the GVLOA 1995. Repeating all of my findings, and after again reminding myself of the credit I have given to the operator for the positive points in this case, it is proportionate to revoke licence OF1107227 held by Reliant Transport Limited. The order of revocation will take effect at 23:45 hours on Friday 4 July 2025.
I have allowed two weeks before the revocation of this licence comes into effect on the strict understanding that no vehicle is operated by Reliant Transport Limited in any way that is unlawful or in breach of the general conditions attached to the licence. The two weeks is to be used to wind down the transport operation. I note that the Operator asked for a month to wind matters down. In my view it could have chosen to attend the hearing to make any submissions in this regard, and it chose not to.
In terms of Ms McNerney the transport manager, there has been no indication to me that she has played any role in managing the operations under the licence. A responsible transport manager should be demonstrating continuous and effective management of operator’s licence, and this is not in evidence before me. As the appointed transport manager, Ms McNerney has shared responsibility for the findings and the negative factors that exist. Accordingly, Ms Helen McNerney has lost her repute as a transport manager.
DISQUALIFICATION
I now turn to the question of disqualification under section 28 of the GVLOA 1995 which I am obliged to consider given my decision on revocation and loss of good repute. I have considered the comment of the Transport Tribunal in Michael Fenlon [2006] no. 2006/277 that:
8 … trust is one of the foundation stones of operator licensing. Traffic Commissioner’s must be able to trust operators to comply with all the relevant laws, rules and regulations because it would be a physical and financial impossibility to police every aspect of the licensing system all day and every day. In addition operators must be able to trust other operators to observe the relevant laws, rules and regulations. If trust between operators breaks down and some operators believe that others are obtaining an unfair commercial advantage by ignoring laws, rules or regulations then standards will inevitably slip and the public will suffer. …
Disqualification is a potentially significant infringement of rights, and the Upper Tribunal has indicated that while there is no ‘additional feature’ required to order disqualification the Operator/individual are entitled to know the reasons for that disqualification. Disqualification is not always ordered in addition to revocation: see e.g. Catch22Bus Limited, v The Secretary of State for Transport [2019] EWCA Civ 1022 [2020] RTR 12. Paragraph 65 of Statutory Document 10 notes that:
“65. … The case law indicates a general principle that at the time the disqualification order is made that the operator cannot be trusted to comply with the regulatory regime and that the objectives of the system, the protection of the public and fairness to other operators, requires that the operator be disqualified.”
I also have regard to paragraph 108 of Statutory Document 10 and of “… the general legal principle that each case must be looked at on its merits. …”.
Having regard to my findings and decisions on revocation and the loss of good repute and also having regard to the suggested starting points in paragraph 108, I disqualify the operator and its director, Mr Breffni O’Reilly from holding an operator’s licence for 3 years. I also disqualify Ms Helen McNerney for acting as a transport manager for 3 years. A further reason for my decisions on disqualification are that all of the characters associated with the operator’s licence need a period of time to reflect on what has happened or not happened with this licence and then plan, if they so wish, to remedy the shortcomings and the general approach to large goods vehicle operations and management. This should not be done at the risk of road safety and fair competition.
20 June 2025
Dr Paul Stookes
Deputy Traffic Commissioner