Decision for Robert Alan Gassor (OH2052168)
Written decision of the Traffic Commissioner for the West of England for Robert Alan Gassor as operator and transport manager
WESTERN TRAFFIC AREA
ROBERT ALAN GASSOR OH2052168
ROBERT ALAN GASSOR – TRANSPORT MANAGER
AT A PUBLIC INQUIRY IN BRISTOL 18 FEBRUARY 2026
DECISION
The Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (as amended) (“the Act”)
Pursuant to a finding of serious breaches of undertakings, specifically to comply with the rules on drivers hours, the licence is revoked pursuant to Section 26(1)(f). Revocation will take effect from 23 May 2026.
Pursuant to a finding of loss of good repute, the licence is revoked pursuant to Section 27(1)(a). Revocation will take effect from 23 May 2026.
Pursuant to a finding of loss of professional competence, the licence is revoked pursuant to Section 27(1)(a). Revocation will take effect from 23 May 2026.
Robert Alan Gassor is disqualified from applying for or holding an operator’s licence in any traffic area from 24 May 2026 until 23 May 2028.
Robert Alan Gassor has lost his good repute as transport manager and is disqualified from acting as such until 23 May 2027 and until he sits and passes again the transport manager qualification.
The variation application to increase authority is refused.
BACKGROUND
Robert Alan Gassor is the holder of a standard national goods vehicle operator’s licence authorising the use of two vehicles and two trailers from an operating centre at Wendlebury, near Bicester. It was granted in April 2022 with a warning letter for convictions declared. Mr Gassor is also transport manager. The operator is primarily engaged in the movement of liquid waste.
The operator came to the attention of the DVSA following an encounter on 11 July 2023. During that encounter, mechanical prohibitions were issued for an ABS warning light and a leaking exhaust. The driver said that he was self-employed and invoiced Robert Gassor. A number of apparently serious drivers hours offences were also found leading to a follow-up investigation. Mr Gassor subsequently provided further records to DVSA traffic examiner Denise Bendle. These records raised concerns that Mr Gassor may be operating more vehicles than authorised. Digital data for a number of hired vehicles was not provided and operations appeared to be based in Bicester, not at the then listed operating centre near Salisbury. Ms Bendle found that the stated maintenance provider was not being used and Mr Gassor was carrying out inspections himself. Ms Bendle noted an absence of any brake performance testing.
Due to the passage of time, TE Bendle requested further records be produced by 5 June 2024. They did not arrive so TE Bendle called Mr Gassor who claimed not to have seen the original email. On 14 June, Mr Gassor personally delivered records. He said that a small garden shed which he used as an office had been destroyed in an arson attack along with most of the records that had been requested. He had not reported the attack to police.
DVSA carried out a follow-up investigation in May 2025. The outcome was mostly satisfactory in terms of systems but concerns remained of more vehicles in possession than authorised. Mr Gassor submitted an application in October 2024 to increase authority to 5 vehicles and 5 trailers. That was held in abeyance pending the ongoing DVSA investigation.
This outcome along with the roadside enforcement compliance history caused a traffic commissioner to call the operator and transport manager to public inquiry. It was also directed that the variation application be determined at the same hearing.
THE PUBLIC INQUIRY
The case was originally listed for 18 November 2025. That was adjourned at Mr Gassor’s request due to a family bereavement. The case was relisted for 7 January 2026 but Traffic Examiner Bendle was unavailable due to illness. It was further relisted for 18 February 2026. I was told on 16 February that Traffic Examiner Bendle had not returned to work as expected. Her line manager offered to attend on her behalf to assist as far as he could. As the case had started two and a half years earlier and there was no certain return date for the Examiner, I decided to proceed.
Robert Gassor attended unrepresented. Enforcement delivery manager Andrew Ball attended for the DVSA via Microsoft Teams.
Finances – in-private
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
End of in-private session
Andrew Ball, DVSA Commercial Delivery Manager attended to assist in the absence of TE Bendle. I confirmed that Mr Gassor was aware of the potential outcomes from the hearing and he told me that he didn’t need legal assistance as he had nothing to cover-up.
Mr Ball told me that the evidence was that two hire vehicles were in operation, FX67NLO and WU11UCM from 20 – 29 February 2024. At the same time W965RNE and T699AAG were marked VOR but appeared to be in use with fuel card invoices for them.
I referred Mr Ball to the pre-public inquiry report which appeared to show a difference between duty times recorded on the tachograph and on the weekly sheets. Mr Ball referred to the raw data. On 29 August 2025, Philip Rhodes in JG03DAF, the vehicle is set to out-of-scope and starts to move at 04:11 in the morning, and the final movement is at 19:09. The logbook said 10 hours.
I asked Mr Ball about the “emergency exemption”. He told me that it applied only to domestic operations when an emergency arises. DVSA relied upon the published guidance on gov.uk entitled “Emergency exemption and temporary relaxation of drivers’ hours and working time rules”, updated 4 October 2024. The rules could be suspended in certain circumstances, those being where immediate preventative action is needed to avoid:
- danger to life or health of people or animals
- serious interruption to the maintenance of public services (such as water, gas, electricity or drainage) or in the use of roads
- serious interruption in private or public transport
- serious damage to property
The same guidance included a statement that DfT would not normally expect drivers to have less than 9 hours of daily rest.
I asked Mr Gassor if he had any questions for Mr Ball. Mr Gassor told me that he consulted with a DVSA officer, David Copley, who had said that what they were doing was 100% legal because they were out of scope of both EU and domestic. The “emergency” continues until the situation is under control. The question for Mr Ball was “why did Mr Copley give different advice”. Not surprisingly, Mr Ball could not assist with that specific question and told me that DVSA staff would only refer to the published guidance. Mr Gassor went on to tell me that the 23-day job had been near Port Talbot. There are sand dunes between the steelworks and Pyle. The pipe was old and burst in various places. I asked why vehicles had not been double-shifted, and why drivers had been working shifts of 15 and 17 hours. Mr Gassor told me that’s just how it was done. I asked whether Mr Gassor had a documented risk-assessment that said that it was safe for drivers to be on duty for that length of time. I suggested to Mr Gassor that he had not “exhausted all contingency measures” as the guidance indicated. I was told that the vehicles were allocated to individual drivers so that wasn’t viable and it would mean that he would have to employ more drivers.
Mr Gassor told me that he would never have a tired driver. I referred him to the records for driver [Driver A] who had been on duty on 4 October for 17 hours and 44 minutes, took a 6 hours and 25 minute break and was then on duty for a further 17 hours and 7 minutes. Mr Gassor told me that was the typical 18 hours on, 6 off, that the water companies worked. He told me that was a safe pattern and he had worked it himself.
Mr Gassor told me that he started with one vehicle with a tanker. He moved in to doing emergency work, liquid waste, with large companies. It had been an uphill struggle. There were two full-time drivers, one part-time plus himself. The full-time drivers were employed; he wouldn’t use self-employed drivers anymore. I noted payments to what appeared to be self-employed drivers as recently as October. I was told that they were tractor drivers. He also had a JCB Fast-Track for slurry and farm work. Robert Edwards had been self-employed ad hoc, but “he done what he done so I finished him”. There was another occasional driver but, “since then” there had been no self-employed drivers. I asked for evidence that the drivers were employed – I was told that would be with the accountants. I referred to payments to a [Driver B] and was told that he was a driver. I noted he appeared to be paid lump sums. Mr Gassor confirmed that he was. I turned then to [Driver C] who also appeared to be paid lump sums. I was told that he was also employed. I asked why one driver was paid exactly £1000 a week. I was told that he was paid £200 a day, or £300 - £350 a day on emergency work. I told Mr Gassor that the position appeared to be that they were self-employed and I gave Mr Gassor until the end of the week to provide evidence of employment.
I turned to the maintenance records that had been provided. I referred to T600AAG and Mr Gassor confirmed it was 27 years old. I referred to DVSA’s Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness which Mr Gassor confirmed said that vehicles over 12 years old should normally be inspected every 6 weeks. I then referred to the records for that vehicle which showed an inspection on 7 June 2025 and another on 5 October 2025, no complete inspection had been carried out in between. I was told that it was MOT’d on 3 October. On 7 June there was a PMI, on 10 June, roller brake test identified a wheel with a defective brake, on 31 July, the drive axle brakes are relined, there is no confirmatory brake test, on 22 September, a roller brake test is failed and the vehicle passes MOT on 3 October.
Mr Gassor told me he was a self-taught fitter. He started out as an apprentice mechanic, didn’t have any qualifications but was quite knowledgeable. He had a workshop, thousands and thousands of pounds in tools and parts, jacks to lift the lorries. He was looking to invest in pillar lifts. He didn’t have a pit. I asked who assisted with the PMI – I was told that James Barker would assist. Alternatively, his uncle would assist, or his neighbour would come and give him a hand. His next-door neighbour was also a tyre-fitter.
JG03DAF was maintained by Roadside Recovery. Mr Gassor wasn’t very impressed with them. They had moved into the yard and were more a breakdown company. Anything the trucks needed they got. I asked about the qualification of the technician. He was qualified but those qualifications hadn’t been seen. Mr Gassor had read on a forum that he should be auditing them.
I referred to a PMI on 27 July 2025 where a decelerometer had been used on a 3-axle tractor unit. I asked how that could possibly be used to determine that every brake was working properly. Mr Gassor told me they measured the temperature. I noted that the before measurement on one wheel was 21 degrees and afterwards it was 21 degrees. Mr Gassor said that was why he took his trucks for roller brake tests. He accepted that had not been the case on that inspection.
I asked about how many vehicles were in use whilst the hire vehicles were in possession. Mr Gassor told me that he used the old English trucks as cars, so it was private use. As he was a sole trader, he used the fuel card.
I asked about the impact of any regulatory action. Suspension of one month would have a big impact if it happened in the next two months. Suspension of one month at the end of April should be survivable. Curtailing to one vehicle would mean the drivers would be finished and he would just drive himself. Revocation would end the business and be devastating.
I reserved my decision and closed the hearing. I requested the full last three months bank statements and evidence that drivers were directly employed with tax and national insurance deducted at source.
Post Hearing
A protracted exchange began following the hearing. On the evening following the hearing Mr Gassor wrote in email:
“Please see proof of employment and tax etc, Please attached to this e-mail.
Anna Mogford
Tony Wincott
I’m waiting for accountants to sort everything regarding [Driver C] as there was issues with his National Insurance number. I have requested information from the accountants.”
Attached to the email were payslips purporting to be data for the months ending 28 November 2025 and 26 December 2025 for [Driver A] and [Driver B]. The November payslip for [Driver A] itemised 148 hours @ £15 coming to £2,220 plus 1 day driving at £200. I understand [Driver A] carries out administrative duties for the business. Within “deductions” is £2,000 “subs”. The “payment” section shows -£60.76 which is marked as paid on 5 December 2025. For December, there was only the administrative work and no driving. The amount earned was £2,200. Deductions totalled £2,416.96 of which £2,000 was entitled “Subs”. The net payment was -£196.96.
Bank statements were also provided. I could not find any payments which correlated with the pay slips.
[Driver B’s] pay advices showed no hours worked for the months of November or December with pay as zero for each. They did show year to date figures. The bank statements showed a payment to [Driver B] of £1000 on 24 November 2025.
On 20 February, Mr Gassor provided
-
At 12:10, a screenshot of an email from Lanes Group which confirmed that his emailed invoices had been blocked by their spam filter and money was outstanding. Mr Gassor requested a period of grace for financial standing.
-
At 13:53, a “pay advice” for [Driver C] purporting to be January 2026. It showed monthly pay of £12,000. It declared that £9192.64 had been paid on 5 February 2026.
-
At 14:25, an email saying that his partner had been sorting all the unprocessed invoices with Lanes Group.
Review of the bank statements showed that [Driver C] had been paid £2,500 on 10 December 2025, £2,500 on 2 January 2026, £12,000 on 9 January 2026. There was no payment at all to [Driver C] on 5 February 2026.
I was concerned at these discrepancies. I wrote to the operator in the following terms:
-
The pay slip for [Driver C] shows a net amount of pay due for January of £9,402.10. However, the bank statement shows the full payment of £12,000 being made on 9 January. The payslip also shows paid on 5 February when there is no corresponding payment on the bank statement at all and it appears to relate to the January payment. I note also the difficulty faced this week with [Driver C’s] national insurance number. It would appear from these points that [Driver C] has been self-employed up until today, that the pay slip for him for January has been fabricated and that Mr Gassor made a false statement to me about the historic employment status of all his drivers at the hearing on Wednesday. Can he comment on that, please?
-
The pay slips for other drivers seem to show that they are paid some sort of advance and then it is reconciled at month end. I can’t find those reconciliations on the statements.
-
There are no payments that I can see on the statements for payments to HMRC for income tax and national insurance. Why?
Mr Gassor responded within 90 minutes with the following:
“[Driver C] was taken on as an employed driver, I can assure you i was not giving false information to you on Wednesday 18th February.
Yes i admit difficulty obtaining NI number but we’ve got it and all his taxes WILL be paid up to date.
I have spoken to the accountants and want everything up to date.
I’ve paid [Driver C] in block payments and I have over paid [Driver C] on the 9th January by around £2600 which is my mistake.
The only self employed drivers was [Redacted] and [Redacted] back in 2023/4.
[Driver B] is employed
[Driver C] is employed
[Driver A] is employed.
Previous drivers employed
[Redacted]
[Redacted]
[Redacted]
[Redacted]
Cash flow has been a disaster as ive showed you regarding Lanes and the fault with the invoices not being recieved due to there firewall protection system.
Also the company called NN drainage that went into liquidation.
I’ve spoken to my staff and assured them that I will have everything sorted and have paid round figures to them in payments.
The next payment after 9th January to [Driver C] was made on the 13th February for £2000
I will contact the accountants regarding the 5th of February as I honestly dont know why this has happened.
We had to change accountants as our previous accountants did not do what we asked, our new accountants are sorting everything out for us.
I promise you I will not give false information to you. I am an honest hard worker trying my best in life.
This operators license is very important to my family and myself.
On 23 February, I received a letter from Stack & Jones Accountants detailing work they had carried out for Mr Gassor. That was the following:
-
Preparation and submission of the 2022 Self Assessment tax return, based on the records and information provided.
-
Preparation and submission of the 2023 Self Assessment tax Return, based on the records and information provided.
-
Preparation and submission of the following VAT Returns, based on the records and information provided:
Quarter Ended September 2022
Quarter Ended December 2022
Quarter Ended March 2023
- Preparation and submission of payroll, based on the records and information provided, for the following months: - -
January 2025 to December 2025
January 2026
Nothing provided addressed my concerns. I note that I reviewed the case again on Sunday 1 March and I asked for the following from Mr Gassor, and it was requested from him the following morning:
- All payslips for [Driver A] from 1 April 2025 to 31 January 2026
- All payslips for [Driver C] from 1 September 2025 to 31 January 2026
- All payslips for [Driver B] from 1 April 2025 to 31 January 2026
- A clear statement from his accountants of the staff included in the payroll for each month from 1 April 2025 to 31 January 2026 and the amounts paid each month
- Why the payslip details do not accord with the bank statements
- Why there were issues with the NI number of [Driver C] on 18 February 2026 when the evidence indicates that he started work for this operator on 29 August 2025
- A statement from the accountants and Mr Gassor for why the accountants have not submitted a VAT return since March 2023
- Evidence of PAYE and NI having been paid to HMRC for drivers [Redacted] from 1 April 2025 until 31 January 2026 including payments having been made on bank statements.
On 3 March, Mr Gassor asked for more time to collate the information. He also said the following:
I’m requesting a little more time please to get Statements etc from the accountants, also I can send the payslips over but will need help from my partner anna as I’m no use with computers
[Redacted] payslips can be sent for period requested
I will request clear statement for payroll from accountant
ive paid employees block payments to amend at a later date
I had trouble getting the N I number off [Driver C] but with full intention of payslips being back dated to his start date the new employee tax form was sent into accountants when he started working for me
WE was using an accountant in Bicester called Wilkins accountants that was to do paye and vat but to our shock only did paye and put us very much behind so once I was aware changed my accountants to stack and jones who are now catching up for us and we appointed them I believe in January 2025, so very stressful but they are going through everything and sorting it all for me.
I have not paid any taxs this tax year but I will have all the paye settled by the end of the tax year.
I’m extremely stressed about this whole matter jumping through hoops to make everything fully compliant and correct in every manner, being completely honest to the TC.
I’m very hard working but seem to attract constant bad luck which is beyond a joke now.
my drivers are all employed, I will not accept any illegal running or activities at all.
I’ve taken on an ex employee Paul Batson to help with the work load we now have.
I admit I’m behind but will catch up 2025 has been an awful year and the costs I had acquired
I allowed until noon on 5 March as I was going on leave that weekend and was keen to complete the decision before then. At 17:29 on 4 March, Anna Mogford wrote:
“Please find final payslips.
Any missing please contact me.
With regards to payments for tax and NI and VAT are all behind.
Rob is behind due to NOT getting payments from our customers.
Our accountants are playing catch up after being let down from or old accountants Wilkins in Bicester due to not doing absolutely nothing on Robs behalf .
Rob however is in the process in getting a HMRC payment plan together. If you would like proof I would be happy to forward this to you.
At this moment in time we are owed over £195000 and could clear a good amount of the back date of amount due.
Rob is well aware of this not looking good. But please take into account of the troubles he has had getting money into the trading account to trying and stay on top of things.
All employees ARE employed and yes we did have trouble getting the NI off [Driver C]. Currently this is now sorted. I have sent you an payroll summary.
Rob has a year of bookings for festival work (sewage removal) and would not like to let them down at short notice.
Rob understands your concerns, However he also understands the predicament he is in and the picture it paints.
This only leave me to say that I hope you may consider a time scale to resolve HMRC payments for Rob to continue trading this business.”
At 14:27 on 5 March, Mr Gassor sent through an activity statement, that is an invoice, from his accountants. The case manager called Mr Gassor and explained again what was required. Whilst I was away on leave, the accountants provided an email to say they were unwilling to say anything further.
Mr Gassor wrote on 13 March to say that he was starting to make payments to HMRC with effect from 20 March; no supporting evidence was provided.
Review of the payslips that were provided again showed no matching transactions at all on the bank statements.
CONSIDERATION AND FINDINGS OF FACT
Drivers hours compliance
Most of the operator’s operations claim to run under an “emergency” exemption. Mr Gassor told me that this was in-line with the primary contractor’s 18 hours on, 6-hours off working practice which was normal for the industry. In Traffic Examiner Bendle’s statement of 19 December 2024, she details drivers driving with as little as 6 hours and 7 minutes rest in a 24-hour period. Her analysis is incomplete because a large number of analogue tachograph record sheets were not provided by Mr Gassor. Mr Gassor blames that on an arson attack on a shed where the documents were stored. Mr Gassor had not reported that matter to the police so there was no crime reference number. It is notable that not all the charts were lost in the fire, just some. Why would he not make a police report if important documents had been lost? That is not credible and I find that Mr Gassor deliberately withheld tachograph records or, in the alternative, that those records never existed.
TE Bendle also provided a pre-hearing update. She analysed the logbooks kept by the drivers on emergency work. She notes that the longest consecutive period on an emergency is twenty-three days. There are major contradictions between the logbook data and that recorded on the tachograph – which, I accept, did not need to be used, but was. I am given examples. On 9 October 2025, [Driver C] begins his duty on both tachograph and logbook at 00:03 hours in the morning. It concludes on both records at 17:19 hours. The tachograph records breaks of 3 hours and 56 minutes leaving a duty time of 13 hours and 18 minutes. On 4 October, [Driver A] recorded 17 hours and 27 minutes duty time on the tachograph but 10 hours on the logbook.
TE Bendle sets out an analysis of twenty-eight emergency shifts where there is a significant disparity between the duty time recorded on the tachograph and that in the logbook. On every occasion, the driver records precisely 10 hours duty time. If this is true “emergency” work, it seems unlikely that the drivers working day can be so precisely managed that they have a duty time of exactly 10 hours. In an emergency, clearly the drivers do whatever they are needed to do and that may well involve a lot of sitting around in case they are needed. The times spent driving vary between 1 hour 46 minutes and 7 hours 25 minutes which is what would be expected. The ten-hour figure would appear to be something that drivers are expected to record. I find it more likely than not, but by a wide margin, that the duty times recorded in the logbooks are fictitious and false.
[Driver A] is recorded as having been involved in emergency work for 23 days from 4 October. Neither the pay slips nor the bank statements show any reference to this work.
The Department for Transport has published guidance on the “emergency exemption and temporary relaxation of drivers hours and working time rules” on the gov.uk website, last updated on 4 October 2024. It identifies that the domestic drivers hours rules can be automatically suspended in emergency events which are defined as:
“(a) events which cause or are likely to cause such—
(i) danger to life or health of one or more individuals or animals, or
(ii) a serious interruption in the maintenance of public services for the supply of water, gas, electricity or drainage or of telecommunication or postal services, or
(iii) a serious interruption in the use of roads, railways, ports or airports, as to necessitate the taking of immediate action to prevent the occurrence or continuance of such danger or interruption, and
(b) events which are likely to cause such serious damage to property as to necessitate the taking of immediate action to prevent the occurrence of such damage.”
The guidance goes on to remind operators and drivers of their duties under health and safety law. It concludes that “DfT would not normally expect drivers to:
- drive for more than 11 hours in one day
- have less than 9 hours of daily rest
- work for more than 7 days before the start of the regular or reduced weekly rest (if operating under the assimilated rules)
- have less than 24 hours weekly rest
- In addition, DfT would expect drivers to still ensure they take a 45-minute break after 4.5 hours driving.
There are strong indications that the drivers here have significantly less than 9 hours daily rest but the poor standard of record-keeping mean that it is not possible to know. That is a major failing of transport management and of the operator.
It appears that some of the work carried out by this operator might fall in to this exemption. But what is an “emergency” and how long does that situation last? In terms of road transport law, the Divisional Court considered the meaning of “emergency” in the case Higgins v Bernard (1972) W.L.R 455. That was a case where a motorist claimed as an emergency a feeling of drowsiness in defence to an offence of stopping on the hard shoulder of a motorway. Having concluded that too much emphasis should not be put upon the suddenness of the onset, Lord Widgery CJ concluded thus:
- “The only remaining question is whether the defendant qualified on the test so described, and in my judgment I think he clearly did not, because if one thing is clear in this case it is that the drowsiness and the potential danger if he continued to drive was clearly apparent to him before he embarked on the motorway at all. Accordingly, it cannot be said that he got on to the carriageway of the motorway in circumstances in which the danger was not apparent, and that the danger thereafter supervened. The danger was clear to him before he elected to go on to the motorway, and he cannot plead its recognition as an emergency for present purposes. I would allow the appeal and send the case back with a direction to convict.”
In the case before me, the operator is contracted to provide tankers. There is no doubt that there will be times when it is dealing with what, for some people, are emergency situations. But it cannot rely on that when it is contracted to shifts of eighteen hours on and six off for days on end. Should a pipe burst whilst they are on site and need to take action as their normal working time has elapsed, use of the “emergency” exemption might be reasonable. But there is no emergency when the operator could and should have planned to send a second driver. There is no emergency when a job continues beyond the immediate action needed to prevent loss of life or serious damage. There is no emergency when the direction of the engagement is known in advance. The road safety risk must be balanced with the risk that is giving rise to the emergency. Tired drivers also pose an immediate and very serious risk to themselves and other road users. I find that Robert Gassor has routinely and systematically abused the emergency exemption when a proper risk-assessment would have led to vehicles being double-manned from a very early stage of the operation. He told me that he instructed drivers to carry out the long shifts because the alternative would mean employing more drivers. That is a deeply cynical approach to road safety. I find Section 26(1)(f) made out and I attach significant weight.
Maintenance
Traffic Examiner Bendle identified that the stated maintenance provider at time of licence grant had been replaced by in-house maintenance. Mr Gassor told me that he was “self-taught”. I do not find that to qualify him to sign a declaration of roadworthiness on a 44-tonne articulated combination or 26-tonne, multi-axle tractor unit.
Some of the vehicles specified on the licence are very old. T699AAG was first registered on 3 June 1999. DVSA’s Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness says this: “National statistics show that as vehicles and trailers age, the average annual MOT failure rate increases and they are more likely to experience in-service roadworthiness defects than newer vehicles. Therefore, the guidance has reflected that older vehicles and trailers will need more frequent maintenance and has indicated a minimum safety inspection frequency of six weeks requirement for vehicles and trailers aged 12 years and older. However, depending on usage, i.e., low mileage and light conditions, the frequency may be extended”. The vehicles on this licence are in use day after day with regular driving whilst fully loaded and often in arduous, off-road, conditions. Yet Mr Gassor has specified an 8-week cycle. Worse still, he has failed even to meet that with no complete PMI conducted on T699AAG from 7 June to 5 October 2025, a period of over seventeen weeks. The gap prior to 7 June was ten weeks.
JG03DAF appears to be a 2013 vehicle, thirteen years old. It is maintained by “Roadside Recovery Repair”, an independent contractor. The standard of maintenance appears poor. On 27 July 2025, the PMI is signed-off as roadworthy but the brake test is via a decelerometer. This is a three-axle tractor unit. It is impossible from a decelerometer test to establish that every part of every braking system is working as it should. That is the test in law in the 1986 Construction and Use Regulations. That declaration of roadworthiness should not have been signed. The roadworthiness declaration is again signed without a brake test of any kind on 13 September 2025 with a roller brake test carried out six days later, fortunately showing that the brakes were working as intended.
The operator has a 28.57% failure rate at MOT against a national average of 11.92%. It would seem that the poor maintenance practices are producing those poor results. Section 26(1)(f), that vehicles have not been kept fit and serviceable is made out.
Unauthorised use of an operating centre
TE Bendle conducted tachograph analysis for the period June and July 2023. A benefit of an old analogue chart is that it records start and finish locations. The charts indicate that the vehicles were based at Bicester. The operating centre at that time was in Salisbury. An application to use Bicester was made in October 2023. I find that there has been historic unauthorised use of an operating centre.
Use of more vehicles than authorised
Traffic Examiner Bendle alleges that more vehicles were available to the business than the two which are authorised. In her statement at page 121 of the bundle, TE Bendle identifies six vehicles that were specified on the licence in the period April 2022 to June 2025. She evidences that hire vehicles have been in use but that the owned vehicles have also been recorded on fuel card transactions during the same time period when removed from the licence. Mr Gassor told me that he likes old English trucks and he uses them for his personal transport. Whilst I find it challenging to believe that he would do his weekly shop in a 26-tonne tractor unit, that is his evidence. I do not have sufficient contrary evidence to make an adverse finding to the civil standard.
Use of self-employed drivers
Mr Gassor was adamant in his evidence that all drivers were directly employed with tax and national insurance deducted at source. It was that which gave rise to the protracted exchange post-hearing which I have set out above. His position, though, has now changed in that he says that he is intending for the tax to be paid by year end.
The position of [Driver C] is most instructive. [Driver C] began driving for Mr Gassor in August 2025. He appears on the payroll summary from August 2025. But no tax deduction is taken for the months of August or September. The pay slips and payroll summary show that tax deductions should have been taken from October. However, I find that the pay slips and payroll summary do not reflect the true position. I make that finding for the following reasons:
- It was only after the hearing on 17 February that the accountants indicated that getting [Driver C’s] national insurance number was preventing pay slips being made available, yet he had been employed and was recorded as paying tax and national insurance since October and August respectively
- It is impossible to reconcile the amounts due to be paid to [Driver C] from the payroll with any bank statement transaction
- This is particularly acute in January where the bank statements show [Driver C’s] actually being paid the full gross amount of £12,000 without any deductions having been made at all
As [Driver C’s] appears, far more likely than not, to have been paid his gross pay with no deductions, I find that he has been self-employed. Why does this matter? The law is as follows.
Section 2(1) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (“the 1995 Act”) provides that:
- “Subject to subsection (2) and section 4, no person shall use a goods vehicle on a road for the carriage of goods-
(a) for hire or reward, or
(b) for or in connection with any trade or business carried on by him, except under a licence issued under this Act: and in this Act such a licence is referred to as an ‘operator’s licence’.”
Subsection (2) refers to specific exemptions such as use as a recovery vehicle, cabotage, agricultural use and so on. It is not relevant here. Section 4 allows a traffic commissioner to grant an exemption in emergency situations. It was last used during Covid when there was an urgent need to use vehicles for the building of temporary morgues. I use that example to show that emergency refers to a societal or national need, not a business one.
The person who is considered to “use” a vehicle is defined at Section 58(2) of the 1995 Act as “the driver of a vehicle, if it belongs to him or is in his possession under an agreement for hire, hire-purchase or loan, and in any other case the person whose servant or agent the driver is, shall be deemed to be the person using the vehicle; and references to using a vehicle shall be construed accordingly.”
In the case of a self-employed driver, the driver is the servant of themself. They pay themselves and give themselves their directions. Such a position has been considered by the Upper Tribunal in the case of T/2019/54 Bridgestep. In its conclusions, it commented:
- “This was a bad case in which the company and transport manager had made a conscious decision to enter into an arrangement with the company’s drivers which was highly questionable if not a sham. The reasons for doing so were anti-competitive being as they were, concerned solely with the cost of employing the drivers and by reducing that cost, gaining a competitive advantage over other compliant operators. Whilst the vast majority of new operations make the right decision to employ their drivers, paying national insurance, pension contributions, holiday and sickness entitlement, these Appellants did not do so.”
So I find that Robert Gassor has been lending his licence authority to [Driver C] to allow [Driver C] to operate as an illegal operator for reasons of financial benefit. This goes directly to Mr Gassor’s good repute as both operator and transport manager as does his obfuscation of the position throughout these proceedings.
Financial Standing
Mr Gassor was very reluctant to provide financial information in any detail. I was initially provided only with extracts of bank statements making any analysis impossible. When an analysis was able to be carried out, it showed less than the amount needed for the current authorisation, being just enough for one vehicle.
However, the full financial position has now become clearer. His accountants have confirmed that no self-assessment has been completed since that for the year 2023. His last VAT return was for the quarter ended March 2023. It is clear that Mr Gassor is woefully behind in his tax payments to HMRC. That being the case, it appears that what little money Mr Gassor does have in his account is due to the Crown and not lawfully available to him. He says in an email dated 13 March that he “will be making large payments on a weekly basis to complete the tax payments for PAYE for covering 2025/26”.
I do acknowledge that Mr Gassor has outstanding payments from Lanes Group due to issues with their firewall but the Crown again has first claim on that money until a formal time to pay arrangement is settled. I have no evidence of that having been done. I have no evidence of the quantum owed to the Crown nor that due from Lanes, merely claims from Mr Gassor. I find that financial standing is not satisfied. Absent any evidence that the situation may be remedied, a period of grace is refused Section 27(1)(a) is made out. Revocation is mandatory.
Good repute as transport manager and operator
Robert Gassor has sought to obscure the true position throughout this investigation. An early example is the claimed loss of documents in an arson attack that went unreported to police and seemed only to consume some of the paper tachograph records. His record-keeping and that of his drivers has been so poor that it is impossible to determine whether rest periods and working time requirements have been met. I find that, more likely than not, to be deliberate. He sought to mislead me in public inquiry as to the position with his finances and with driver employment. I find he has very little credibility as a witness and I give very little weight to anything he says.
Mr Gassor has known all along that he is badly in arrears in his tax affairs. A trustworthy operator would have been upfront about that from the moment the situation arose, which appears to be in 2023. In trying to hide the true situation, Mr Gassor has severed the trust that must exist between operator and regulator.
There are further aggravating features. The operating centre in Salisbury had clearly ceased to be used by June 2023 but an application was not made for Bicester until October. Maintenance has been brought in-house for one vehicle and carried out by an unqualified individual. Even then, the maintenance schedule has not been met by a large margin, and the schedule is wholly inappropriate to the age of the vehicles and the work undertaken. Cost has been the overriding factor. That is unacceptable in the extreme. Maintenance of the second vehicle is outsourced but little better.
I must look for positive features and I do. Mr Gassor attended the public inquiry and complied, in part at least, with the public inquiry directions. I can find nothing more.
So I must ask myself whether I can trust this operator and transport manager to be compliant in the future. Having found that Mr Gassor sought to mislead me, and that he lied to the Traffic Examiner in relation to the failure to produce tachograph records, I find that trust is broken and I cannot trust him to comply. I then consider the lack of compliance over nearly all fronts and I find that this is an operation that needs to be brought to an end both in terms of road safety and fair competition.
The same reasoning applies to Mr Gassor’s repute as transport manager. He has hidden the true position and made decisions based on finance not compliance. He has allowed vehicles not to be fit and roadworthy nor has there been compliance with rules on drivers hours.
The good repute of Robert Gassor as both operator and transport manager is lost. Section 27(1)(a) is further made out and revocation is mandatory.
Disqualification as an operator does not require any additional feature but nor is it automatic. Mr Gassor has sought to mislead throughout. He has been non-compliant across the board. The licence was granted with a warning for previous convictions. It seems compliance and Mr Gassor are not easy bedfellows. I find that he needs a significant period of reflection outwith the industry. I adopt the mid-level of the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s starting point. As a transport manager, I adopt the starting point in line with the legislation.
It follows that I am not satisfied as to the mandatory criteria for the variation application and it is refused.
DECISIONS
Pursuant to a finding of serious breaches of undertakings, specifically to comply with the rules on drivers hours, the licence is revoked pursuant to Section 26(1)(f). Revocation will take effect from 23 May 2026.
Pursuant to a finding of loss of good repute of, the licence is revoked pursuant to Section 27(1)(a). Revocation will take effect from 23 May 2026.
Pursuant to a finding of loss of professional competence, the licence is revoked pursuant to Section 27(1)(a). Revocation will take effect from 23 May 2026.
Robert Alan Gassor is disqualified from applying for or holding an operator’s licence in any traffic area from 24 May 2026 until 23 May 2028.
Robert Alan Gassor has lost his good repute as transport manager and is disqualified from acting as such until 23 May 2027 and until he sits and passes again the transport manager qualification.
The variation application to increase authority is refused.
Kevin Rooney
Traffic Commissioner
28 April 2026