Decision for S&J Lancaster Services Ltd (OC1125028)
Written decision of the Traffic Commissioner for the North West for S&J Lancaster Services Ltd
IN THE NORTH WEST TRAFFIC AREA
S & J LANCASTER SERVICES LTD – OC1125028
WRITTEN DECISION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER
PUBLIC INQUIRY HELD IN GOLBORNE ON 14 AUGUST 2025
DECISION:
Under provision of Section 26 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (“The Act”), I order the suspension of this operator licence for a period of four weeks with effect from 23:45 on 31 August 2025.
‘S&J Lancaster Services Ltd’ (“Lancaster”) holds a Restricted Goods Vehicle Operator’s Licence authorising 3 vehicles and 2 trailers. The Directors are Mr. James Stewart Ainsworth and Mrs. Angela Dainty. The licence was granted on 09 December 2013.
The operator has a single operating centre, recorded as being Forton Motors. Preston, PR3 1AB. Preventative Maintenance Inspections are said to be carried out by Forton Commercials Ltd at six-weekly intervals.
Background
This operator came to the attention of the DVSA on 25 November 2024 when vehicle YO15 YND was issued with an S-Marked Prohibition following a roadside inspection. Two Immediate defects were issued for separate findings of “Wheel Nut Loose, more than one fitted to that wheel”, in addition a further three defects were recorded on the prohibition notice of a nature that warranted a delayed item classification.
An S-Marking was considered appropriate as the defect or issue was considered to be such that it should have been detected at the first use / driver check.
Subsequently, DVSA undertook a maintenance investigation visit which resulted in an unsatisfactory report with a final rating of “Report to the Traffic Commissioner”. Of the thirteen areas assessed only two were considered to be satisfactory.
Nine areas were scored as “Unsatisfactory” and two areas were scored as “Report to OTC”. The report raised a number of concerns which indicated that the undertakings and conditions of the operator’s licence are not being complied with, and that the approved operating centre was not suitable. Furthermore, that vehicles may be parked at a location not authorised for use as an operating centre.
A further issue identified by the DVSA investigation was that Mrs. Dainty, a director of the company, had not been notified as such to this office. An application to add Mrs. Dainty was made following the DVSA visit, but a search on Companies House showed that Mrs. Dainty had been a director since 2015.
Mrs. Dainty was previously a director of John S Dainty Plant Hire Ltd and Eurowaste U.K. Ltd. Those businesses held licences OC0295992 and OC1040715 respectively and each was revoked in August 2009 after the operators failed to attend a conjoined public inquiry.
Pre-Hearing
A letter calling the operator to a public inquiry was issued to the given correspondence address. This set out the location, date and time of the public inquiry. It also provided a number of case management directions which included (i) the need to respond to this office to confirm who will be in attendance; (ii) a requirement to provide evidence of available finances 14 days prior to the hearing date; and (iii) a list of evidence to be provided to DVSA for assessment 21 days prior to the hearing date.
I am grateful to the operator for complying with these directions, and to Mr. Mitchell – a Vehicle Examiner with the DVSA - for providing a Pre-PI report assessing the latest evidence. VE Mitchell also advised this office, prior to the hearing, that vehicle YO15 YND – subject of the November 2024 prohibition – had been untaxed since 01 August 2025 but, according to ANPR evidence, was still being used and had been sighted on the road 36 times between that date and the date of the inquiry.
Public Inquiry
The public inquiry took place on Thursday 14 August 2025 at the Golborne Hearing Centre. The operator was in attendance by its directors Mr. James Ainsworth and Mrs. Angela Dainty. Vehicle Examiner Mitchell attended to provide evidence on behalf the DVSA.
At the commencement of the inquiry I set out the issues as follows:
-
That the operator may have breached conditions on the licence, namely the requirement to notify changes to directors within 28 days.
-
That the operator is alleged to have been using a location as an operating centre despite it not being approved for that purpose
-
The operator had failed to comply with the undertakings of the licence as evidenced by prohibitions on its record, including the S-Marked prohibition obtained on 25 November 2024, and the subsequent Maintenance Investigation Visit Report.
-
The new evidence that suggested a vehicle was put on the road without being properly taxed.
-
That since the licence was granted there may have been a material change in the circumstances of its holder, namely that it was no longer ‘not-unfit’ to hold an operator’s licence.
Summary of Evidence
Evidence was primarily provided by Mrs. Dainty. I was advised that Mr. Ainsworth played less of a role in the business in recent times. Mrs. Dainty took an active and leading role. I found Mrs. Dainty to be an open and honest witness who told me that she was doing her best to be compliant. There was little to no disagreement with the findings of the DVSA, and the summary position was that the business was aiming to be compliant and was improving.
Change to Directors
It was accepted by the operator that there had been a change to the list of directors which was not notified. The operator claimed to be unaware of the need to notify this office and only became aware when VE Mitchell identified this as part of his investigation. Thereafter an application was submitted to make the correction.
I further inquired as to the background to these matters. I had regard to the fact that the business was incorporated by Mr. Ainsworth on 20 September 2013, and the licence was granted on 09 December 2013. At that time Mrs. Dainty was prevented from holding the position of company director due to restrictions placed on her by the Insolvency Service. She, and her husband Mr. John Dainty, had also both been subject to directions revoking operator licences. I was concerned therefore, that the application was a front for Mrs. Dainty, or her husband, all along.
Concerns were further raised by the fact that in explanation prior to the hearing, Mrs. Dainty was described as being someone who “worked in the office”, but Companies House records suggest that she had been – since the company was incorporated – the sole owner. It was not, therefore, a surprise to find within the DVSA report that Mr. Ainsworth is not actively involved in day-to-day operations – this being the role of Mrs. Dainty, supported by her husband, Mr. John Dainty.
In contrast, Mr. Ainsworth assured me that he was always a director in the company, that the application had been bona fide and that he knew both Mr. and Mrs. Dainty on a personal and professional level. The move to Nans Nook Farm – owned by Mr. & Mrs. Dainty – was a natural process as that’s where operations were carried out.
Operating Centre
The stated operating centre on the VOL system is “Forton Motors, Preston, PR3 1AB”. The DVSA assessment found that this was a car sales outlet which was unsuitable for HGV parking. A visit to the operating centre by the examiner confirmed that the operator was not using that address as the place at which vehicles were normally parked when not in use. The staff at that location were unaware of the operator.
Further investigation concluded that the address being used as the operating centre was Nans Nook Farm, Bay Horse, Forton, LA2 9DF. I am advised that address was also the operating centre of licence OC0295992, held in the name John S Dainty Plant Hire Limited – now revoked.
In evidence the operator confirmed that Nans Nook Farm was being used as the operating centre as it was ‘easier’ to use the farm as that’s where the company business was operated from. I was advised that the Forton Motors address was never intended as the nominated site, Instead the application was made for “Forton Commercials, Cabus Commercial Park, Lancaster New Road, Cabus PR3 1AD”. I was provided with evidence that this was the intended location of the Operating Centre, with a copy of the advertisement, from November 2013, provided in support. That did indeed refer to Commercial’s address.
The operator was unsure why Forton Motors was subsequently named, and not Forton Commercials. I noted, however, that the licence record on VOL and the continuation documents which issued each subsequent 5 years to confirm details held were correct, all listed the address for Forton Motors. It was, I reminded the operator, their responsibility to check this information, to ensure it was correct and, if not, to make corrections.
Furthermore, VE Mitchell had contacted a Mr. Slater at Forton Commercials where it was confirmed that the operator had not used that address as an operating centre either.
It further transpired at this juncture that the operator had a single user account for the VOL system. This was held in the name of Mr. Ainsworth but, despite clear instructions that usernames and passwords are not to be shared, it was being used by Mrs. Dainty.
Compliance with Undertakings
As set out above, this operator was issued with an S-Marked prohibition on 25 November 2024. Two immediate prohibitions were issued due to loose wheel nuts on separate wheels (four out of ten on one wheel, and two out of ten on another). Additionally, three other delayed prohibitions were issued at that same encounter. The S-Marking was deemed appropriate as the issues should have been identified at the drivers’ first use inspection. Accordingly, a Fixed Penalty Notice was issued to the driver.
Of significant concern is that, when the vehicle was presented to have the prohibition lifted, the vehicle again failed its roadworthiness assessment. This time a suspension bush was deemed to be worn to excess. This was blamed, by the operator, on an error by the in-house maintenance personnel.
The subsequent investigation report by VE Mitchell identified a number of concerns. The pristine condition of the records raised questions as to their legitimacy. This was explained as being caused by the maintenance staff taking notes – which would have been illegible – and carefully adding these to the correct format records a little later. Even if accepted, this itself is a concern as the original notes are lost and errors can easily be made when transcribing detail at a later time.
Aside from that, the records used did not confirm to the DVSA requirements set out within the Guide To Maintaining Roadworthiness. Further, they were not properly completed, had significant gaps in rectification records and – as an example - failed to identify the inspector.
There were no inspection records for trailers prior to 11 February 2024 and there was little to no evidence of an effective brake performance assessment.
The inspection facilities themselves were deemed to be inadequate, and the examiner concluded that the poor performance at annual test was as a result of poor maintenance standards. Indeed, the specified maintenance provider, Forton Commercials, was not actually undertaking the inspections. This had moved inhouse – a change which was not notified to this office – and Mr. Dainty, completing the inspections had no formal qualification. The fail rate at annual test was recorded as 60% over the past three years, as compared to the national average of 8%.
Other shortcomings identified by the maintenance investigation included: no evidence of systems for monitoring emissions; no systems for wheel security or tyre management (despite the recent S-Marked prohibition); and ineffective arrangements for load security.
Ahead of the inquiry more recent records were provided for assessment. Despite the helpful guidance provided by VE Mitchell, the operator had yet to resolve the operating centre issue and had still not notified this office of the change to maintenance arrangements. Only the inaccuracy in the list of directors had been addressed. Further issues with maintenance records were identified but, overall, VE Mitchell did conclude that improvements had been made - stating that the operator had taken some steps to address areas of non-compliance and, if they continued to improve, the operator should be able to operate at the required levels.
Vehicle Excise Duty
Mrs. Dainty confessed to being completely unaware that vehicle was untaxed before being notified upon her arrival at the hearing centre. I was told that she had tried, unsuccessfully, to tax it before the commencement of the hearing and would retry at its conclusion. Alternatively, I was assured that it would be taken off the road immediately if the online process to tax the vehicle could not be followed.
Findings
The DVSA findings were not challenged and the operator sought to rely on the fact that some improvements had been made and would continue to be made. Having considered the evidence before me I make the following conclusions.
Change to Directors
I remain concerned about the motivation behind the original application and whether this was a front for either Mrs. Dainty, or Mr. John Dainty. Fronting is a serious allegation, and I have regard to the principle that the more serious the allegation, the more cogent the evidence is required to be. There is evidence, but the passage of time is significant, and I do not have further detail before me on the exact conditions applied to Mrs. Dainty following the previous insolvency. I therefore draw back from making any adverse conclusions on fronting.
The operator should, however, have notified this office of the change to directors long before it did. Even if this was an innocent oversight, it raises questions about the wider knowledge of this operator. Notifying this office of changes within 28 days is included as a general condition of the licence. This includes the need to notify changes to maintenance and inspection arrangements. The hearing highlighted that the bringing of maintenance arrangements and inspections in-house was not notified to this office. A further breach of the licence conditions.
Operating Centre
I am minded to accept the operator’s claim that the address added to the VOL system was not the address applied for. This, however, offers no explanation as to why neither the intended address, nor the incorrectly recorded address, was subsequently used. For a long period of time – not quite quantified at the hearing – a third address was used. Nans Nook Farm has never been nominated as an operating centre for this operator, has never been advertised as an address for this operator, and has therefore never been approved.
Aside from the final directions of this decision, I remind the operator that Nans Nook Farm is not an approved operating centre and therefore must not be used as one until an application is made and approved. I am happy to accept Forton Commercials (rather than Forton Motors) as being the applied for, advertised, and approved operating centre and I shall issue an instruction to the OTC licensing team to make this correction.
Compliance with Undertakings
Noting that the recent assessment identified improvements I remind the operator that I offer no words of congratulations. Having proper systems in place is not aspirational. These are ongoing mandatory requirements which should have been in place since the grant of the licence. That it has taken significant intervention by DVSA to jolt the operator into action is a concern in itself.
What I find is an operator that has failed to have proper systems in place and remains in a position where improvement is required. The current maintenance arrangements are assessed as inadequate, and action is now required to address this shortcoming. The operator is put on notice of the need for significant improvement, or change. There can be no excuse for future failures if the decision is made to continue to rely upon the internal maintenance provision when considering the DVSA findings.
Vehicle Excise Duty
Like the other shortcomings, this is evidence of poor management systems and insufficient oversight. I note that the vehicle has since been taxed.
Decision
In consideration of the facts of this case I make adverse findings under the following provisions:
- Section 26(1)(b) – that the licence holder has contravened any condition attached to the licence, namely, the requirement to notify changes to the maintenance and safety inspection arrangements
- Section 26(1)(b) – that the licence holder has contravened any condition attached to the licence, namely, the requirement to notify changes to the company directors.
- Section 26(1)(c) – that during the past five years there has been a prohibition of the driving of a vehicle of which the licence holder was the owner when the prohibition was imposed.
- Section 26(1)(ca) – that during the past five years there has been a fixed penalty notice issued to the licence holder, or an agent of the licence holder.
- Section 26(1)(e) - that the licence-holder made, or procured to be made, for the purposes of an application for the licence, a statement of fact that, whether to his knowledge or not, was false, or a statement of expectation that has not been fulfilled, namely that they would comply with the undertakings and conditions of the licence.
- Section 26(1)(f) – the licence holder has failed to comply with an undertaking of the licence, namely the requirement to make proper arrangements to ensure motor Vehicles and trailers, including hired vehicles, are kept fit and serviceable, as evidenced by the five-year MOT and Encounter statistics.
- 26(1)(f) – the licence holder has failed to comply with an undertaking of the licence, namely the requirement to make proper arrangements to ensure drivers report promptly defects or symptoms of defects that could prevent the operation of vehicles and/or trailers and that any defects are recorded in writing
- 26(1)(f) – the licence holder has failed to comply with an undertaking of the licence, namely the requirement to make proper arrangements to ensure that all maintenance records are kept for a period of 15 months and that these are made available on request
The findings above are significant, but I am mindful that regulatory action under provision of Section 26 is discretionary. On consideration of the guidance provided by the Senior Traffic Commissioner on starting points for regulatory action, as set out at Annex 4 of Statutory Document 10, I place this case within the category of “Serious”. There are persistent operator licence failures with a response which has, thus far, been inadequate.
In the positive, the operator has been honest about their shortcomings and have advised me that they are improving with a view to ensuring full compliance. This is supported by the most recent assessment of evidence, but more remains to be done.
The Senior Traffic Commissioner reminds us, at paragraph 28 of Statutory Document 10, of the requirement to make decisions which are commensurate with the circumstances of each individual case and the purposes of the legislation, quoting 2013/046 Shearer Transport Ltd:
- “any regulatory action by the traffic commissioner should not be punishment in itself, but designed to assist in the promotion and achievement of the legislation. Clearly, such action can include an element of deterrence in order to prevent and discourage conduct that undermines the licensing regime.”
Significant regulatory action is, I conclude, justified and proportionate in this case. In balancing the positives and negatives I find that the negatives, as detailed above, far outweigh the limited positives. I have given serious consideration to revocation of this licence but I find, by a narrow margin, that some opportunity to survive and become compliant is warranted.
This operator needs an opportunity to step back and review all systems and procedures, and to design and put in place necessary measures and improvements. This, in my view, needs to be done without the distraction of attempting to run any vehicles. Time is to be allowed for a period of reflection and practical improvement.
I consider that any less than four-weeks suspension, with the entire fleet grounded during that period, is insufficient for the scale of the task. I also consider that the four-week suspension, which falls to the more serious end of the 14-28 day range suggested in Statutory Document 10 for a case in the serious category, is proportionate. I hope, also, that it serves to impress upon the operator the importance of compliance with all conditions and undertakings in the future.
I am told by the operator that a four-week suspension would be extremely uncomfortable, but they could manage it. I find that this case falls into the category of “I hope you survive but if not, so be it”.
Accordingly, the operator’s licence is subject to a full suspension commencing 23:45 on 30 August 2025, ending at 23:45 on 28 September 2025.
I make this conclusion having had regard to the following undertakings offered, and accepted, These will be added to the operator licence, and I expect them to be complied with fully.
- By 14 November 2025, Mrs. Angela Dainty and Mr. James Ainsworth will attend a one-day operator licence management course, run by either:
· a trade association (e.g. Logistics UK/ RHA/ BAR/ CPT);
· a professional body (e.g. IoTA/ CILT/ SOE/ IRTE);
· an approved examination centre offering the relevant transport manager CPC qualification for the type of licence held; or
· a firm of solicitors (or their associated training organisation) with significant experience with road transport regulatory and compliance issues (defined as having represented road transport operators and/or transport managers in at least 20 public inquiries over the past two years).
A copy of the certificate of attendance will be uploaded to the licence record via the Vehicle Operator Licensing self-service account within seven days of the course taking place. If the attendee does not have a self-service account, the certificate will be emailed to NorthWestHC@otc.gov.uk within seven days of the course taking place.
-
By 14 September 2025 the operator will create a separate VOL user ID and password for Mrs. Angela Dainty. Those details will not be shared with any other user within the business.
-
By 14 September 2025 the operator will correct the VOL record for Safety and Compliance, ensuring an accurate record is made of those responsible for Maintenance and Safety Inspections.
-
By 14 September 2025 the operator will have submitted an application to nominate the correct operating centre. The operator is reminded that until a change is applied for, and approved by this office, the address known as Nans Nook Farm is not an approved operating centre and the continued parking of vehicles at that address, when they are not in use, is unlawful.
-
The operator undertakes to identify an independent body to carry out an audit of transport safety and compliance systems during March 2026. The audit will assess the systems for complying with maintenance and/or drivers hours requirements, and the effectiveness with which those systems are implemented. The audit should cover at least the applicable elements detailed in the guidance on Operator Compliance Audits available at: www.gov.uk/government/publications/operator-compliance-audits
-
A copy of the report together with the operator’s detailed proposals for implementing the report’s recommendations is to be emailed to NorthWestHC@otc.gov.uk by 17 April 2026.
The operator is put on notice that DVSA will be informed, and any evidence that operations continue during the period of suspension would constitute a significant breach of trust and would likely result in the future revocation of the licence.
David Mullan
Traffic Commissioner for the North West of England
27 August 2025