Decision for Runcorn Recycling Scrap Metal Limited OC2078249
Written decision of the Traffic Commissioner for the North West of England for Runcorn Recycling Scrap Metal Limited
IN THE NORTH WEST TRAFFIC AREA
RUNCORN RECYCLING SCRAP METAL LIMITED – OC2078249
WRITTEN DECISION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER
PUBLIC INQUIRY HELD IN GOLBORNE ON 17 APRIL 2025
DECISION:
This application for a Restricted HGV Operator’s licence is refused as the applicant has failed to satisfy the requirements of Section 13B & 13C of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (“the Act”)
This is an application for a Restricted Goods Vehicle Operator’s licence, by Runcorn Recycling Scrap Metal Limited (“Runcorn”) seeking authorisation for 4 vehicles (no trailers are requested). As with all applications, the burden lies with the applicant to satisfy the Traffic Commissioner that they meet all statutory requirements in order to obtain a licence.
Mr. Charles Smith is the sole Director, and the application lists a single Operating Centre, recorded as Unit 1, Runcorn, WA7 1QG. The application states that Preventative Maintenance Inspections are to be carried out by Ditton Road Commercial Repairs Ltd at 8-weekly intervals.
Background
Mr. Smith held licence number OC1029808 as a Sole Trader under the licence name “Charles Smith”. Despite establishing Runcorn as a Limited company in 2012, and moving operations to that company, he failed to apply for a new licence and continued operating using the Sole Trader licence. This appears to have continued until the Sole Trader licence was revoked on 12 June 2024. It then appears that, despite the revocation of that licence, transport operations continued. ANPR evidence provided evidence of a significant volume of journeys undertaken between 02 December 2024 and 28 February 2025.
The Sole Trader licence first came to the attention of this office upon being advised of convictions apparently relating to the Limited company. It was alleged that, on Tuesday 25 July 2023, whilst traffic management remained in place on a road following a serious road traffic collision, a HGV driver – working at that time for Runcorn – deliberately drove through the road closure, cones and signage, ignoring the instructions of the Council Highway Officer, and proceeded to be abusive and threatening to Council staff
A business referred to by police as “Runcorn Recycling Centre Ltd”, were summoned to Court after they failed to respond to a notice of intended prosecution. The Police requested the name of the driver of the heavy goods vehicle involved and the company failed to respond. The Court dealt with this aspect of the investigation in the company’s absence and issued them with a £1000 fine, £400 victim surcharge and £90 Court costs.
The conviction was not declared on the licence application.
In relation to the driver of the vehicle, I was advised by Cheshire Police that he attended North Cheshire Magistrates Court and on 28th May 2024 was convicted for driving a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road / public place without due care and attention, and using threatening / abusive / insulting words / behaviour to cause harassment / alarm / distress. He received the following in Court in relation to these convictions: £207 fine, driving licence endorsed with 5 points, £350 costs to Crown Court Prosecution, £83 victim surcharge, public order offence and £50 compensation payment. This conviction of the driver was not notified to my office.
As a result of the incident the DVSA made several attempts to visit the Operator in order to conduct a maintenance investigation. Unfortunately, this was never achieved due to the non-response from the Operator. The Operator subsequently failed to answer several further letters that were sent to him on behalf of my office. These were issued to the correspondence address and Operating Centre addresses provided by Mr Smith.
In a telephone call on the 20 September 2023, Mr Smith declared that the address recorded on the Vehicle Operator Licensing (“VOL”) system was incorrect and requested all previous correspondence to be re-sent to the new address of Unit 1 Faraday Road, Astmore Industrial Estate, Runcorn WA7 1QG. This is the same address on the new application.
On 04 October 2023 Mr Smith was issued a further letter, to the newly given address, but again he failed to respond. The Sole Trader licence was subsequently revoked.
Pre-Hearing
The letter calling the applicant to a Public Inquiry was issued on 05 March 2025 and it included a number of case management directions to be complied with. This included the requirement to notify this office of attendance, and whether the applicant would be represented. It asked for provision of bank statements to ensure financial requirements for the application were met. It also asked, on account of the history of this applicant, for original maintenance and drivers’ hours records for vehicles for the preceding 12 months, and an outline of how vehicles to be operated under the licence would be maintained and managed going forward.
In advance of the Hearing the majority of these case management directions were complied with. It is notable, however, that original records for maintenance and the compliance with drivers’ hours and tachograph rule were not provided.
I did receive written representations and a copy of a “report prepared into the operating systems” of the applicant company.
I am grateful to the applicant and it’s representative for the timely provision of the materials, which were available, in advance of the Hearing.
Public Inquiry
The Public Inquiry took place on Thursday 17 April 2025 at the Golborne Hearing Centre. The applicant company was in attendance through its sole Director, Mr Smith. It was represented by Mr Scott Bell of JMW Solicitors, and supported by Mr Grahame Robinson, Transport Consultant.
I commenced the Hearing by setting out the issues which concerned me as being:
• Whether the applicant met the requirements under S.13B, to be not unfit to hold an Operator’s licence on account of:-
• the alleged convictions and failure to declare within the application;
• the unlawful use of vehicles without a valid operator’s licence, and the failure to stop that use;
• the failure to engage with a DVSA investigation;
• the failure to respond to communications from this office leading to the revocation of the Sole Traders licence.
• Whether the applicant met the requirements under S.13C which, in summary, requires the applicant to have to have appropriate systems in place:-
• I was yet to be satisfied that the applicant has the appropriate systems to comply with the conditions and undertakings of the licence; and
• The operator did not have a nominated maintenance provider.
Mr Bell commenced by making representations in relation to two items.
The alleged convictions & failure to notify
I was advised that the company referred to within the police email as “Runcorn Recycling Centre Ltd” is not known to the applicant. Nor is it found on Companies House. When I asked whether this might be a typo on the part of the police it was put to me that this may be the case, but the applicant has not received the conviction referred to and, to the best of its knowledge, has never been so convicted. As this point had previously been made within the written submissions received in advance of the Hearing I had sought an update from the police. No response to that request was received in advance of the Hearing. As such, I have insufficient evidence to conclude that the applicant company was convicted of the failure to identify the driver. It follows that there could not have been a breach of the requirement to declare the conviction.
Mr Bell also set out the applicant’s position that the driver conviction was not a notifiable offence under the relevant schedule. I state at this juncture that the driver attended and was subject of a Driver Conduct Hearing at the commencement of this Public Inquiry. That Hearing concluded and a separate decision has issued to the driver. I do not readily accept the position that the driver offence should not have been declared – if not on the application, certainly by the Operator of the Sole Trader licence (incorrectly used or otherwise). Section 8 of the 1995 Act is wide ranging and if the offence is not notifiable under the Schedule, it should be notified as a change or as information which may be relevant to fitness. This requirement is set out within the licence document issued to all licence holders – “to tell the Traffic Commissioner within 28 days about any convictions of myself or my staff”.
Mr Bell correctly identified that this is not the critical matter at hand, and I agree. Therefore the point carries very little to no weight in my overall considerations.
Absence of a maintenance provider
On application I was notified that Preventative Maintenance Inspections would be undertaken by Ditton Road Commercial Repairs Ltd at 8-weekly intervals. The report prepared into the operating systems of the applicant, provided ahead of the Inquiry, notified me that ‘Dittons’ had ceased trading.
Mr Bell advised that the applicant had since made alternative arrangements and would be nominating South Liverpool Commercials as the maintenance provider. The failure to appoint a maintenance provider was no longer an item of concern.
Summary of Evidence
Unlawful use of vehicles
The unlawful use of vehicles was not disputed by the applicant. I was advised that Mr Smith has a low level of reading ability. Often documents need to be read to Mr Smith so that they can be understood. It was accepted that since approximately 2013 the entity operating the vehicles was Runcorn, and further accepted that since the revocation of the Sole Trader licence that Mr Smith “unknowingly” continued to operate commercial vehicles until he became aware that the licence was revoked. Mr Smith was advised of the revocation by his insurance broker in November 2024.
The notice of the revocation was issued to the addresses given to this office by Mr Smith, and those addresses were confirmed – along with all details held – as being correct within the declarations he signed to continue the licence each five years. Mr Smith was provided with a recent copy of the declaration, and confirmed it was his signature. Although he doesn’t recall signing it. That declaration confirms that the information held by this office is correct.
I was then advised that Mr Smith until “twelve years ago” had parked vehicles at North West Mixers Repairs (“North West”) and regularly took advice from a person who worked there. That person was identified only as “Geoff”. Even after the vehicles were no longer parked there Geoff continued to look after the paperwork sent to that address for the attention of Runcorn. Mr Smith felt he had been let down by Geoff.
A couple of points arose from this evidence. Firstly, the approved Operating Centre for the Sole Trader licence was “North West Mixer Repairs, Widnes, WA8 0SW”. This was the Operating Centre until revocation in June 2024. I was advised, however, that the site was not used by Mr Smith for approximately twelve years. As such, there was an admitted breach of the requirements to ensure vehicles were normally parked at the Operating Centre when not in use. In addition, the vehicles, I was told, were parked at the recycling centre – an address never approved as an Operating Centre. In turn this represents unlawful parking at an unapproved address.
Throughout that time, I was advised, Geoff would have received any post for Mr Smith and dealt with it. North West continued to provide maintenance services until a year ago. At that time Mr Smith moved maintenance to a “Renault Agent”, and then to a “guy coming in” to the yard to do the work. When I asked why he moved from North West I was advised because it transpired that North West kept no maintenance records. As such, Mr Smith recognised change was required.
I asked Mr Smith about the timeline for the use of the vehicles. Even if I was to accept that the continued use of the licence by the wrong entity was an oversight – I was concerned that he had been notified by my office in June 2024, then been notified by his insurance company in November 2024, he then attended an OLAT course on 20 November 2024, and, despite all this, he continued to use the vehicles. My office was advised, in a letter from Mr. Robinson dated 14 November 2024, that Mr Smith believed that, as nothing had changed in the management of the business, he was able to continue to use the same licence. That letter continued, “He now conceded that this is not correct and accepts it was wrong to do so having received advice on this matter”. It is a concern, therefore, that Mr Smith then continued to operate his vehicles further, until April 2025 when he received legal advice recommending this ceased.
When I asked him why the use of vehicles continued after he was clearly notified, Mr Smith told me that he had bills to pay and required the vehicles to ensure continued income.
Failure to engage with the DVSA and Office of the Traffic Commissioner
Throughout my inquiries regarding unlawful use of vehicles it was discussed, at length, the issues Mr Smith had in receiving communications. I was advised that the addresses used by the DVSA and my office were incorrect. Evidence shows that correspondence was notified to the address listed on Mr Smith’s VOL account (Midas Engineering, Faraday Road, Astmoor Industrial Estate, Runcorn WA7 1QG) and the notified Operating Centre address (North West Mixer Repairs, Widnes, WA8 OSW).
As already established above, “North West” ceased being used as an Operating Centre twelve years prior. That address was never changed on the VOL system, and no application was ever submitted to nominate it as an Operating Centre.
In addition, the Faraday Road address – “Midas Engineering” – was the address provided by Mr Smith on application of his Sole Trader licence. It is on the same short road as the recycling centre, but was never updated or corrected by Mr Smith despite his signing renewal declarations stating that the records held by this office were correct.
I am asked to consider that the failure to engage with DVSA and my office was a combination of Mr Smith’s difficulty with reading, and officials addressing communications to incorrect addresses. Mr Smith, I was told, had advised this office of the correct address. Mr Bell took me to some examples of addresses used by the DVSA and this office to communicate with the Operator. One letter was issued to Mr Smith’s home address – but Mr Smith claims never to have received that.
Appropriate Systems
As set out above, an applicant for a Restricted operator’s licence must demonstrate that there are satisfactory facilities and arrangements in place to ensure a range of requirements are met. These include complying with drivers’ hours and tachograph rules and maintaining vehicles in a fit and serviceable condition.
In support of this I was provided with the report prepared by transport consultant, Mr Robinson. This set out a range of proposals for future compliance. I was curious as to why this report only reflected proposals and not evidence of effective systems. I note that this is a company who has not yet managed vehicles, indeed this Operator has admitted using vehicles right up until the start of this month (April 2025). Mr Robinson advised me that he had not assessed any records for the vehicles that had been in use.
This is a business who is applying for a goods vehicle operator’s licence and who, I am told, has sought to be honest about the continued unlawful use of vehicles. I question why such an application would not be supported with evidence to show, whilst vehicles were used unlawfully due to supposed misunderstandings, those vehicles were well maintained, safe and compliant with all other requirements.
The answer may be easy to find. I note that the Sole Trader licence, as at 12 June 2024, had a Red rating on their Operator Compliance Risk Score (OCRS), and its vehicles had a 72.73% initial fail rate and a 72.73% final fail rate at annual test. This is as compared to the HGV national averages of 12.51% & 8.62% respectively.
As above, I had previously been advised Mr Smith required assistance and needed someone to read documents to him. I therefore sought to understand how this would be managed going forward. Mr Smith’s response indicated that he would be relying heavily on third parties. This included a new provider of tachograph services, the newly nominated maintenance provider, a heavy reliance on Mr Robinson, and – of significant concern – a labourer within the yard.
Findings
Unlawful use of vehicles
I am satisfied to the civil standard that there has been unlawful use of vehicles. For approximately 12 years, since the Limited Company was established, the business has incorrectly relied upon the Sole Trader licence. Then, since June 2024, the company continued to operate despite the licence it had, incorrectly, relied upon being revoked.
I find that this usage may, initially, have been a misunderstanding of the law but I am satisfied that, from late 2024, any continued use was deliberate. Mr Smith was made aware of the fact that no licence was in place from a range of sources, and yet he continued to operate. In evidence he told me that this was because he had bills to pay. This allows me to conclude that he placed commercial gain before compliance with the regulated regime.
In addition, I also discovered that Mr Smith failed to use his nominated Operating Centre, and parked vehicles at a place with was not appropriately authorised. Again for an extended period of some 12 years.
This is all consistent with an individual who either is completely unaware of the requirements to hold an operator’s licence, or one who is content to completely disregard them.
Failure to engage with the DVSA and Office of the Traffic Commissioner
I am asked to consider that, in previous dealings with Mr Smith, the DVSA and my office failed to communicate with the correct addresses. I am told this has now, as part of the application, been corrected and can be relied upon going forward.
I do not accept this as being sufficient reasoning. Mr Smith did respond to at least one request for information (dated 01 October 2023). He also signed declarations at each renewal period stating that the records held by this office were correct.
Mr Smith was required to notify this office of any change of address, and he failed to do so. On this matter I have regard to paragraph 9 of the Upper Tribunal decision of T/2024/592 Ocean King Limited
“It is an established principle, that the operator licencing regime relies on trust. One important aspect of that trust is that the Traffic Commissioner must be able to rely on an operator having in place:
(a) an address at which he can reliably receive important correspondence, (whether it be from the DVSA, the Office of the Traffic Commissioner, the Central Licensing Office or any other significant source), and,
(b) a system which ensures that correspondence is fully answered, within any time limit which has been set, or else within a reasonable time and that if documents are requested that they are sent.
(see paragraph 6 of the Upper Tribunal decision of T/2010/056 Mohammad Islam trading as Instant Freight).”
Any failure of Mr Smith to respond to the various requests from the DVSA and this office are his failures alone.
The failure to provide updated and correct addresses for correspondence is again a feature which is consistent with an individual who either is completely unaware of the requirements to hold an operator’s licence, or who is content to completely disregard them.
Appropriate Systems
The failure of Mr. Smith to provide original maintenance records and drivers’ hours records as per my case management directions – along with the absence of any reference to those within the report prepared in support of the application – is such that I am satisfied to the civil standard that there are no such records. This despite vehicles being operated as recently as the start of this month. Those vehicles should have been maintained to the necessary standards and the OCRS and annual test scores satisfy me that they have not. As such I am yet to be satisfied that the Operator meets the requirements set out in Section 13C.
As with all applications, the true test is whether or not the applicant can satisfy me that they are capable of establishing appropriate systems. The evidence before me is such that I cannot be so satisfied. Mr Smith had been let down before by his reliance on third parties, yet he seems to continue to put a heavy reliance on them with no regard to lessons learned.
One’s ability to read should never be an obstacle from entering the occupation of road transport operator, but the applicant must establish systems and processes to ensure that records can be reviewed, challenged, assessed and quality assured. Mr Smith appears to be departing himself, once again, from all such responsibility. It is he that I’m being asked to trust with an operator’s licence. No one else, and in particular not those which whom there are no formal engagements, and certainly not those that are not qualified – I again reference his suggestion that a labourer in the yard might be relied upon.
It is Runcorn I am being asked to trust with an operator’s licence. It has a single Sole Director, Mr Smith, and I have no assurances that he, or the company, can be trusted to comply with the requirements. As per the Upper Tribunal’s decision in 2014/024 LA & Z Leonida t/a ETS
“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.”
Post-Hearing
As I had indicated that I would be providing a written decision, I was asked for a period of time (one week) to allow the provision of inspection reports for the proposed vehicles to be used on the licence. Due to the Easter break and the time to be taken to write a decision, I allowed the provision of the inspection reports.
In the week that followed I note a transport manager application submitted, and I have received an inspection report and brake test each for vehicles SV09 MWY and FJ10 LHV.
Decision
In closing I am asked to consider that Mr Smith’s evidence and testimony has been open and honest. I am advised that prior to the incident involving the driver Mr Smith has held an operator licence for 20 years with no other incidents or issues with the Office of the Traffic Commissioner. I advised that Runcorn is of good character with no other convictions. For these reasons Mr Smith, and his applicant company, meets the requirements to be not unfit.
In further support of the application, I am invited to grant a time limited interim, for a period of three months, within which the applicant company commits to apply to upgrade the Restricted Licence to a Standard Licence, necessitating the engagement of a CPC qualified Transport Manager. I note that, in the week following the Inquiry, a Transport Manager application has been submitted by the applicant.
Firstly, I cannot agree with the assessment on fitness. This incident has opened a proverbial pandora’s box for Mr Smith and Runcorn. This Inquiry has identified some twelve years of unlawful operations, illegal parking, failure to notify changes, and poor maintenance of vehicles.
I find that Mr Smith’s initial failings were, more likely than not down, to a lack of knowledge – certainly my conclusion having met Mr Smith is that he’s largely unaware of the requirements of operator licencing, and he continues to depend heavily on others despite all the historical warnings that this is an unwise approach. Any opportunity for Mr Smith to rely entirely on an innocent lack of knowledge has, however, been undone by his continued use of vehicles long after being told that it was wrong, and my office being advised that he accepted it was wrong.
I adopt the words of the Upper Tribunal when assessing the word “Fitness” in NT/2013/82 Arnold Transport & Sons Ltd
It means, for example, that an operator who cannot be trusted to comply with the operator’s licensing regime is unlikely to be fit to hold an operator’s licence.
On consideration of the evidence before me I conclude that the applicant does not meet the requirements of S.13B to be “not unfit”.
In addition, the applicant is required to satisfy me that it has appropriate systems for compliance with the requirements of the licence. It has provided no evidence of such systems despite continuing to operate vehicles until the month of the Inquiry. Furthermore, the evidence before me concludes that any systems it does have fall short of requirements. OCRS and annual test records are concerning, there are no maintenance records kept, there are no drivers’ hours records retained, systems have previously failed to update correspondence addresses and vehicles had been unlawfully parked for a significant period of time.
I conclude that the applicant does not meet the requirements of S.13C. Two inspection reports with brake tests conducted after the Inquiry is not sufficient evidence to tip the scales in favour of the applicant within my balancing exercise.
I have had regard to the suggestion of allowing a time limited interim on condition of an upgrade to a Standard Licence, supported by a Transport Manager. I have regard to Annex 3 of the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document #10
Interim licences/directions can be granted for goods applications only and are always at the discretion of the traffic commissioner. A traffic commissioner can only grant an interim licence/direction where there is prima facie evidence that all of the requirements appear to be met. Should there be any evidence to cast doubt on the fulfilment of any of the requirements the caseworker will be unable to recommend the grant of an interim until the applicant provides evidence to satisfy the traffic commissioner that the requirement is met. In cases where further evidence is required to support a finding, the traffic commissioner may consider allowing a time limited interim to that effect
Whilst the recommendation to support this application with a Transport Manager is not without merit, this is not a case where mere additional evidence is required. An operator’s licence, even an interim licence, is authority to operate heavy goods vehicles on the public highway. I have no evidence before me that would align with a view that “there is prima facie evidence that all of the requirements appear to be met”. I refer back to the Upper Tribunal in 2014/024 LA & Z Leonida t/a ETS. It remains for Mr Smith to satisfy me that he can be trusted with “ensuring that the road transport aspect of the business operates in compliance with the regulatory regime”.
I therefore refuse this application as the requirements of S.13B and S.13C of the 1995 Act have not been satisfied.
This, being an application, is such that I cannot consider disqualification, and it therefore remains open to the applicant to reapply. Any application for a Standard Licence, supported by a Transport Manager – which remains sensible – requires the applicant to be of appropriate good repute. Whilst any application will be considered on its own merit’s I would recommend that any application is supported by evidence of Mr Smith’s rehabilitation. I would suggest a starting point of three months with no unlawful use of vehicles as being appropriate evidence in this case.
David Mullan
Traffic Commissioner for the North West of England
30 April 2025