Decision for Ryan HGV Ltd (OF2033375)
Written confirmation of the decision of the Traffic Commissioner for the East of England for Ryan HGV Ltd, transport manager Emilian Uricaru and driver Marian Catalin Dumitrascu
IN THE EASTERN TRAFFIC AREA
RYAN HGV LTD – OF2033375
AND
EMILIAN URICARU – TRANSPORT MANAGER
AND
DRIVER: MARIAN CATALIN DUMITRASCU
CONFIRMATION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER’S DECISION
[TO BE REDACTED]
Decision
The Traffic Commissioner imposed a disqualification of the operator and Director for a period of 12 months. Revocation and disqualification will take effect from 23:45 on 23 December 2025 to allow for a safe run down.
The transport manager lost his repute and had an indefinite disqualification imposed, allowing him to apply to vary upon expiry of the minimum period, at which point he will need to satisfy a Traffic Commissioner of his ability to exercise continuous and effective management
The driver received a one month suspension of his vocational entitlement.
Background
Ryan HGV Ltd holds a Standard International Goods Vehicle Operator’s Licence authorising 1 vehicle and 1 trailer. The Director is Mr Marian Catalin Dumitrascu. The Transport Manager is Emilian Uricaru and has acted in that capacity since 21 February 2023, replacing Andreea Elena Stoian.
There is one Operating Centre, at Peartree Farm, Holyfield, Waltham Abbey EN9 2EW. Preventative Maintenance Inspections are said to be carried out White Stone Commercial Vehicles Services Ltd and Stark Fleet Ltd at 10-weekly intervals.
The application was apparently granted subject to a finance review by 30th June 2021.
The Transport Manager is named on two other operator licences: OF2064108, held by 2INS Ltd, appointed 12 June 2023 and dedicating 4 hours per week, and OF2072093, held by Eclmaten Properties Ltd, appointed 3 April 2024 and devoting 3 hours per week, in addition to 20 hours per week spent as a surveyor.
Hearing
The Public Inquiry was listed for today, 2 December 2025, in Tribunal Room 1 of the Office of the Traffic Commissioner in Cambridge. The operator was present and as the Driver, with a tribunal appointed interpreter to assist. By email at page 160a, Mr Uricaru indicated that he would not be attending the hearing. He indicated his view that the report of the shortcomings was fair. He explained that he had underestimated the duties of Transport Manager and its critical role. He started that he understood the consequences of his decision and took ownership of his actions and the “superficial way I have performed my role”. The Director told me that he was unaware that the Transport Manager had left but on examination, Mr Uricaru had not been seen for a month.
Issues
The public inquiry was called at the request of the operators and following notice (page 135) that I was considering grounds to intervene in respect of this licence and specifically by reference to the following sections of the Goods Vehicle (Licensing of Operators) Act:
- 26(1)(b) – conditions on licence to notify changes including maintenance and the ability of the Transport Manager to meet Schedule 3.
- 26(1)(c)(iii) – Prohibitions.
- 26(1)(ca) – Fixed Penalties.
- 26(1)(e) – statements relating to inspection intervals, and to abide by conditions on the licence.
- 26(1)(f) – undertakings (vehicles to be kept fit and serviceable, effective driver defect reporting, complete maintenance records, drivers’ hours and tachographs)
- 26(1)(h) – material change:
- 27(1)(a) – stable and effective establishment good repute, financial standing, and a Transport Manager meeting Schedule 3.
- 28 – Disqualification.
Mr Uricaru was called to consider whether he had exercised effective and conti9nuous management and therefore whether I should make a finding under section 27(1)(b) preventing him from relying on his Certificate of Professional Competence.
Mr Dumitrascu was called to a conjoined Driver Conduct Hearing to consider whether he continued to be fit to enjoy his Large Goods Vehicle (LGV) driving entitlements.
The operator was directed to lodge evidence including financial, maintenance and other compliance documentation. Compliance documentation was to be supplied to DVSA for analysis by 11 November 2025, with representations and financial evidence to be with the tribunal by 18 November 2025. On 19 November 2025, my office alerted the operator that it did not appear to have provided evidence which would show financial standing to the prescribed sum. It was directed to the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document No. 2 on Finance. Regrettably the average was far from that required for 1 vehicle and even the closing balance was far from sufficient.
Summary of Evidence
I referred to the statement of Traffic Examiner Adrian Bodswory (page 66). DVSA encountered vehicle DK61 UDT, pulling C315587, on 31 May 2024 and 16 August 2024. The annual test certificate for the vehicle had expired on 30 April 2024 and for the trailer on 30 June 2023 respectively. It was also found that the 2-year tachograph calibration test had expired on 6 April 2024. An S marked roadworthiness prohibition was issued to trailer C315587 referring to the tyre tread worn below legal limit. I observed the photographs. The state of the tyres was appalling. The vehicle was being driven by the Director, Mr Dumitrascu. He requested that the interview be deferred due to his understanding of English but see below.
Driver Marian Catalin Dumitrascu was issued with a Fixed Penalty Notice for offence CU30 - Using a vehicle with defective tyre(s) and his licence was endorsed with 3 penalty points
DVSA undertook an unannounced maintenance investigation on 9 October 2024 by attending the Operating Centre at Peartree Farm. However, the operator was not present. Inquiries suggested that the operator was not known at the address. In evidence the Director suggested that he had started an application for a new Operating Centre at the beginning of November, but that was not lodged until 1 December 2025 and has yet to be granted.
The operator and Transport Manager subsequently attended a site in Harlow on 14 October 2025 bringing DK61 UDT and maintenance documentation relating to that vehicle. The Examiner, Mr Forshaw, identified the following alleged shortcomings:
- Vehicle DK61 UDT was inspected and issued with a delayed prohibition for a missing speed limiter plate. In evidence the Director suggested he did not know it was required. This appeared to illustrate the lack of operator knowledge and Transport Manager involvement.
- Inspection records were found to be incomplete and inspection intervals had been extended.
- 3 Preventative Maintenance Inspection records showed the same odometer reading. No brake performance testing had been recorded.
- There was no evidence of a VOR or safety/defect recall system in place.
- Weaknesses in the driver defect reporting system, for instance the Preventative Maintenance Inspection of 1 September 2023 identified tyre tread at 2mm, but the driver report of 31 August 2023 failed to identify. A Prohibition Notice was issued on 16 August 2024 for a trailer tyre below legal limit.
- The contractor details on the Preventative Maintenance Inspection records were not notified at the time and annotated ‘Stark Fleet Ltd.
- The standard of maintenance was described as inadequate due to the poor annual test history.
- There was no evidence of wheel security procedures or tyre management.
- No evidence of load security training.
- Prohibition assessment – S marked PG9 issued on 16 August 2024 for a tyre tread below the legal limit. During the inspection on 14 October 2024 a delayed PG9 was issued.
Traffic Examiner Julia Mepsted conducted the interview under caution on 7 September 2024, when the operator indicated that an interpreter was not required. Mr Dumitrascu admitted the offences and referred to personal issues.
I referred to the statement of Traffic Examiner Christopher Lordan dated 28 October 2024 (page 180). He completed the analysis of tachograph data downloaded from DK61 UDT and supplied by Mr Forshaw. That data covered the period of 22 April 2024 to 15 September 2024 inclusive. The test certificate for the tractor unit had expired on 30 April 2024.That analysis confirmed regular use during that period when the vehicle was driven by either Mr Dumitrascu or Iulian Sava for 22 days.
Ms Mepsted also undertook the assessment on 25 November 2024 (page 131) and recorded the following alleged shortcomings:
- The operator used a vehicle without an annual test in force and with an expired tachograph calibration.
- There was no driver induction or training for this single vehicle operation.
- Load security and safety was apparently discussed by the Transport Manager and Mr Dumitrascu.
- There was a suggestion that Driver ‘Sava’ was self-employed but may now have returned to Romania. Drivers are expected to book their own training.
- It was suggested by the operator that the Transport Manager downloaded the Vehicle Unit, and driver cards every two weeks. Data showed that DK61 UDT had not been downloaded for 104 days.
- Systems for managing calibrations and annual test were found to be ineffective.
The Traffic Examiner was informed that the Transport Manager spends approximately 2 hours at the premises once or twice a week to conduct downloads. Driver ‘Sava’ was apparently unable to produce his Romanian CPC qualification card and returned to Romania to obtain a new one. The circumstances led DVSA to question the efficacy of operator oversight and Transport Manager management. An unsigned and undated response to DVSA made reference to personal issues but admitted shortcomings. In future training and instructions would be given to all drivers and brake testing would be undertaken at alternate Preventative Maintenance Inspection:
-
The vehicle on the license has been used without the appropriate test certificate and with an expired tachograph calibration. These issues have been highlighted by the transport manager.
-
For the future we aim to provide appropriate training and instructions to all drivers in regard to load security and wheel and tyre management. Brake test will be done every other safety inspections.
-
I will revise the PMI planning system and defect reports. Starfleet LTD is the current repairer and it does reflect on the VOL as well.
-
The prohibition issued at the fleet assessment has been cleared.
-
My personal life circumstances and work have been overwhelming in the last year. From may till august last year I wasn’t able to go to work on regular bases due to [REDACTED]. I have indeed shown low standards in regard to the way the vehicle is maintained and the overall activity is controlled an managed.
-
I often disregarded transport manager’s advices and instructions.
-
I am on the only bread earner in the household. Please allow me to make things right.
The Transport Manager responded as follows:
-
For the future we aim to provide appropriate training and instructions to all drivers in regard to load security and wheel and tyre management.
-
I have instructed the operator that brake tests to be done at least every other safety inspections, at least 4 times per year.
-
I will revise the PMI planning system and defect reports.
-
Starfleet LTD is the current repairer and it does reflect on the VOL as well.
-
The prohibition issued at the fleet assessment has been cleared.
-
The vehicle on the license has been used without the appropriate test certificate and with an expired tachograph calibration. I have warned the operator about the seriousness of the situation and my intent of ending our collaboration if the situation will not be rectified.
-
Mr Marian Dumitrascu had explained that he has personal problems and he needs support.
-
My intention was to still collaborate and to rectify our issues.
-
I have failed to maintain a decent control and oversight with the operator and unfortunately, at times this operator delayed to answer to all my request.
-
We will make all the changes needed and work to improve ourselves, following and revising the Operator Licence Regulations
-
I will plan to attend a refresher course and further training.
I have referred to his latest email of 17 November 2025, above, where the Transport Manager accepted the shortcomings and withdrew from the position.
The updated report from Vehicle Examiner Mr Whawell dated12 November 2025. He indicated that the Preventative Maintenance Inspection records were of a suitable standard, although there was no revision date recorded. They also appeared to record adjusted tyre pressures. However, tyre manufacture dates were not recorded on any of the inspection records for vehicle DK61 UDT. The inspection records for that vehicle cover a period of 12 October 2024 to 30 January 2025 and only two roller brake performance test printouts were produced, dated 5 September 2024 and 12 October 2024. Nevertheless, the inspection records gave a satisfactory marking against brake performance although no figures were recorded. The Preventative Maintenance Inspection records for vehicle DF15W UK covering a period of 18 July to 3 November 2025 also only include two brake performance tests on 12 March 2025 (at annual test) and 3 November 2025. The remainder suggested that brake performance was not applicable. The Preventative Maintenance Inspection records for trailer C410162 (manufactured 2015) covered a period from 19 November 2024 to 14 July 2025 but no defects were recorded on any of the records. All the records indicated that brake performance was not applicable, and no printouts were produced. The Preventative Maintenance Inspection record for trailer C321622 (manufactured 2015) was dated 24 August 2025 come up with no defects recorded and no brake performance test. In response to the maintenance investigation visit on 9 October 2024, the operator gave assurances that “brake test will be done every other safety inspections”. The Examiner compared this performance with the Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness. He found that was a high number of Preventative Maintenance Inspection records showed tyre pressures being adjusted, they were not always properly recorded. The continuing lack of knowledge was confirmed in examination at Public Inquiry.
Whilst the inspection intervals were found to be satisfactory, vehicle DK61 UDT was extended between 12 October and 23 November 2024 = 72 days, but within ISO week 52. The former planner was not produced. The latest Preventative Maintenance Inspection record for DK61 UDT was dated 30 January 2025 but not removed from the record until 12 May 2025. I noted further evidence against the shortcomings was produced. Copies of driver defect reports for vehicles DK61 UDT and DF15 WUK were provided but there was no evidence that defects had been rectified.
The examiner described the operator’s response to the visit on 9 October 2024 as poor and vague. In his assessment of the documentation (provided in advance of the Public Inquiry) was that it did not provide sufficient evidence that those previous shortcomings had been addressed. He had good cause to question the level of management displayed.
Traffic Examiner Ioan Olaru provided an update report dated 27 November 2025 from 1 summary infringement report covering the period from 1 August 2025 to 10 November 2025, 2 Driving licence checks, Digital data for vehicle DF15 WUK and Drivers Mr Marian Catalin Dumitrascu and Iulian Sava and a missing vehicle mileage report. However, the operator failed to produce evidence of Disciplinary action, relevant development and training, and Vehicle Unit downloads.
The operator submitted 1 summary of infringements covering 1 August to 10 November 2025, 6 Working Time infringements involving Mr Dumitrascu, and 1 Driver’s hours infringement identifying Mr Sava. Tachoscan analysis of the digital data provided covering the same period revealed 4 driver’s hours infringements for Mr Dumitrascu:
- 22 to 23 August 2025 – incorrect mode switch, card left overnight in “other work mode” instead of break.
- 28 August 2025 – Continuous driving overtime by 26 minutes but not identified by the operator.
- 14 to 15 September 2025 – incorrect mode switch, card left overnight in “other work mode” instead of break.
- 26 October 2025 – insufficient daily rest within 24 hours, daily rest taken too late by 1 hour and 2 minutes. This infringement was not identified by the operator. The total working time recorded on the Tachoscan report was 16 hours and 2 minutes and not 13 hours and 39 minutes as per the presented report.
The operator’s infringement report indicated that Mr Iulian Sava took an insufficient break on 16 August 2025. However, the digital tachograph record showed him inserting his driver card in vehicle DF15 WUC at 22:44 on 15 August 2025 and then removed at 05:11 on 16 August 2025, completing a total of 3 hours and 11 minutes of driving. The operator presented 1 Driving licence check for Mr Sava in November 2025 and 1 Driving licence check for Mr Dumitrascu dated 11 November 2025, but no other checks were submitted, indicating a failure in the system. In conclusion, whilst the operator provided some of the required digital data and no driving without a card was found, the compliance systems were found to be ineffective.
Determination
Based on the evidence summarised above, I was satisfied that could and should record adverse findings in respect of the following sections of the Act: section 26(1)(b) – conditions on licence to notify changes including maintenance and the ability of the Transport Manager to meet Schedule 3, 26(1)(c)(iii) – Prohibitions, 26(1)(ca) – Fixed Penalty, 26(1)(e) – statements relating to inspection intervals, and to abide by conditions on the licence, 26(1)(f) – undertakings (vehicles to be kept fit and serviceable, effective driver defect reporting, complete maintenance records, drivers’ hours and tachographs). The concerns in respect of the operator’s ability to meet those undertakings were based on up-to-date evidence.
I have referred to the loss of financial standing and the Transport Manager above, demonstrating clear material changes under section 26(1)(h). In the absence of mandatory and continuing requirements, I was obliged to make adverse findings under section 27(1)(a), pointing to revocation of the licence. The absence of both did not suggest a likelihood that the operator would be able to comply in future. In addition, whilst noting the limited positives identified in the Examiners’ update reports, the response had been far too slow and even now the Director’s knowledge was sadly lacking. I do take account of the annual test improvement, but this resulted from the DVSA intervention I referred to the Upper Tribunal in 2013/082 Arnold Transport Ltd on the importance of trust and the need for operators to take proactive steps to address shortcomings. That decision also went on to explain that Director fitness is an essential element in determining an operator’s repute. Here, the company is effectively the Director.
Mr Uricaru made frank admissions as to his performance. He did not attend the Public Inquiry but indicated his acceptance of the inevitable findings. I recorded that he had not exercised effective and continuous management and had failed to notify me of the same at the relevant time. I therefore recorded a loss of repute pursuant to section 27(1)(b). I noted his other appointments but also other employment as a surveyor. In his absence it was difficult to set a suitable rehabilitation measure so I imposed an indefinite disqualification, allowing him to apply to vary upon expiry of the minimum period, at which point he will need to satisfy a Traffic Commissioner of his ability to exercise continuous and effective management. OTC has 1 week to notify.
This is not a case where all the shortcomings can solely be blamed on the Transport Manager. The duties on Transport Manager and operator are not mutually exclusive, particularly where the Director in effect acts as owner/driver. The failures extend across the operator licence undertakings with the actions of the Director directly connected to the driver’s hours failings. The appellate Tribunal has frequently described compliance with those requirements as being fundamental to road safety. It is an area where I must be able to trust the operator to comply. At no point was I advised that personal circumstances were preventing that or the Transport Manager from meeting his duties. Based on the operator’s ability to comply, I concluded that it should be removed from the industry and recorded a loss of repute under section 27(1)(a).
My findings are also relevant to the question of disqualification and the length of such. I decided that it was fair to deal with the matters holistically. I took evidence on the impact of action under both jurisdictions. Work is obtained whenever the operator requests it through the Amazon app. By reference to the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Guidance Statutory Document 10, the operator’s conduct fell into the “serious” category in Annex 4. I have referred to paragraph 108 of the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Guidance Statutory Document 10. To correct the recent decision in Fraser Devlin [2025] UKUT 364 (AAC), this forms part of Statutory Directions which I must follow, but these are nevertheless, starting points. I was aware that this was the first Public Inquiry although DVSA had given notice and advice back in 2024. Shortcomings were continuing at the date of the hearing. As with the Devlin case, I was satisfied that the conduct described above attracts a disqualification to protect the public interest and the regulatory object of road safety and fair competition. I imposed a disqualification of the operator and Director for a period of 12 months. Revocation and disqualification will take effect from 23:45 on 23 December 2025 to allow for a safe run down.
As the Upper Tribunal explained in 2014/059 Randolph Transport Ltd and Catherine Tottenham, if the operator or Director re-apply, they will be required to satisfy a Traffic Commissioner that it is appropriate to lift those disqualifications
Driver Conduct
Mr. Dumitrascu held substantive LGV entitlement, subject to the endorsements referred to above. In addition, I was referred to the four driver’s hours offences. There had been no driver CPC training since 2022.
The relevant legislation is set out in Sections 110-122 of The Road Traffic Act 1988. The legislation draws a clear distinction between Large Goods Vehicle (LGV) licence holders and applicants and Passenger Carrying Vehicle (PCV) licence holders and applicants. Section 112 of the 1988 Act provides that the Secretary of State shall not grant to an applicant a LGV driver’s licence or a PCV driver’s licence unless he is satisfied, having regard to his conduct, that he is a fit person to hold the licence applied for. It is section 121(1) which defines conduct - in relation to an applicant for or the holder of a LGV driver’s licence or the holder of a UK licence for the Community, his conduct as a driver of a motor vehicle.
The Administrative Court, on the application of Meredith and Others EWHC 2975 (Admin) 18 explained that, whilst the personal circumstances of the driver are, at the preliminary stage of consideration of fitness, irrelevant to the question whether his conduct as a driver has been such as to make him unfit, save to the extent that those circumstances concern his conduct as a driver. Personal circumstances which go to mitigate the conduct itself (such as illness, or emergency, or momentary lapse of attention, or carelessness) will be relevant, while personal circumstances which would, in the ordinary sentencing exercise by a criminal court go to mitigation of penalty (such as loss of work, or other hardship, or the dependence of others upon the licence-holder) would not. I was told that his personal issues had now resolved.
The Court did not go on to consider the applicability of the principle of deterrence, which was considered by the Court of Session in Thomas Muir (Haulage) Limited v The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [1999] SC 86, but regulatory action undoubtedly contributes to achieving the purpose of the legislation. The Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document No. 6 on Vocational Driver Conduct advises on a month of suspension per offence. As stated above, I approached this intervention talking into account the overall impact on the driver and his ability to earn. Whilst deterrence action was required, I limited that to 1 month suspension with the commencement date, as above.
R Turfitt
Traffic Commissioner
2 December 2025