Decision for Sauka Groundworks Ltd (OF2059868)
Written confirmation of the Traffic Commissioner for the East of England for Sauka Groundworks Ltd and transport manager Luke Michael Johnston
IN THE EASTERN TRAFFIC AREA
SAUKA GROUNDWORKS LTD – OF2059868
AND
LUKE MICHAEL JOHNSTON – TRANSPORT MANAGER
CONFIRMATION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER’S DECISION
Background
Sauka Groundworks Ltd holds a Standard Goods Vehicle Operator’s Licence authorising 4 vehicles only. The Directors are Stephen Sauka and Dawn Sauka. They previously held OF2002827 as a partnership, which was then surrendered.
There is one Operating Centre at Frating Farm, Frating Road, Ardleigh Essex CO7 7SU. Preventative Maintenance Inspections are said to be carried out by at Euroswift Haulage Ltd 6-weekly intervals.
OF2002827 was surrendered on 11 August 2021 in favour of an application by this entity. OF2045265 was granted on 22 July 2021, authorising 4 vehicles. The Transport Manager, Keith Challis, resigned on 13 July 2022. The response to the formal notice, suggested that it planned to have a replacement by August 2022. A Period of Grace was granted to 31 August 2022. An online application referring to Luke Johnston was
not completed, so that licence was revoked from 9 September 2022.
Despite the Case Summary, it would appear that substantive grant of this licence followed supply of a compliance audit, confirming the ability of the operator to meet the operator licence requirements.
Mr Johnston is understood to devote at least 8 hours per week to his duties as Transport Manager on this licence (Wednesday afternoon and Saturdays – not operational). He has additional employment as a driver and operative for NS Goodyear Ltd. Mr Johnston was nominated to act on an application by Transdec Transport Ltd (OF0217335). That was withdrawn on 1 June 2022. An application by Orwell Transport Ltd (OF1134605) also proposed Mr Johnston to act as the Transport Manager. There was no response to the request for further details of Mr Johnston’s other work as a driver and he would be able to exercise effective management. That licence was therefore revoked on 27 June 2022.
Hearing
The Public Inquiry was listed for today, 5 February 2026, in Tribunal Room 1 of the Office of the Traffic Commissioner in Cambridge. The operator was present in the form of Stephen Sauka and Luke Johnston, Transport Manager, accompanied by Aaron Sauka.
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 in respect of the mandatory requirements including a Transport Manager meeting Schedule 3.
- 26(1)(c)(iii) – Prohibition Notices
- 26(1)(e) – statements relating to inspection intervals, the Transport Manager meeting Schedule 3, 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)
- 26(1)(h) – material change:
- 27(1)(a) – repute, financial standing, Transport Manager meeting Schedule 3.
- 28 – Disqualification.
Mr Johnston was also called to consider whether he had exercised effective and continuous management and therefore whether I should make a finding under section 27(1)(b) preventing him from relying on his Certificate of Professional Competence.
The operator was directed to lodge evidence in support including financial, maintenance and other compliance documentation. Compliance documentation was to be submitted to DVSA by no later than 15 January 2026 with finance and any representations to be sent to my office by 22 January 2025. FINANCE MET
Summary of Evidence
Vehicle Examiner James King completed a Maintenance Investigation Vehicle Report on 18 October 2024. That identified a number of shortcomings, including:
- Some Preventative Maintenance Inspection records did not refer to metred brake performance readings.
- At the time of the visit the operator did not have a vehicle safety defect and recall system in place.
- At the time of the visit, the operator had an initial failure rate of 25% probably from ‘possible poor maintenance standards from the providers as brake performance failures were identified at annual test’.
- The operator did not have a vehicle emissions management in place. The Examiner was told that ‘if any engine warning lamps were illuminated the vehicle would be taken to be repaired for investigation to be carried out’.
- S40 UKA received an S mark prohibition at its annual test on 1 October 2024 due to a service brake not operating on the offside Axle 4 and the secondary braking effort was inadequate on one or more wheels on offside Axle 4. The operator suggested that the maintenance provider had ‘forgotten to carry out the voluntary roller brake test which was due before the vehicle went for MOT’.
- An immediate prohibition was issued at a roadside inspection on 9 March 2023, as there were cuts to the cords in a tyre, an under inflated tyre, two brakes were out of adjustment, and a brake pipe was excessively chaffing. An imbalance in the brake performance was also recorded due to the incorrect adjustment of the brake actuators. Defects should have been identified.
- Mr King questioned the standard of management but was assured that Luke Johnstone had been booked onto a CPC refresher course for 17 December 2025. He was assessed as having ‘Partial Control’.
The operator and Transport Manager responded. The operator indicated that a safety defect and recall system was now in place and that checks would be carried out on a 3-monthly basis. If issues arose then checks would be increased to identity vehicles where attention was required. The operator aimed to improve the test pass rate and roller brake tests were to be carried out on a regular basis. If any defects were identified by drivers, the vehicle would be removed from service until the defects were rectified. Fuel and AdBlue usage monitoring sheets were also introduced.
However, Vehicle Examiner Neil Ridge completed his assessment on 13 November 2025, from a targeted Maintenance Desk-Based Assessment. He noted the following:
- Maintenance forms and standards did not comply with the current Guide to Maintaining. Preventative Maintenance Inspection records were not fully completed. Documentation dating to 12 September 2025, indicated that a vehicle had been returned to service with prohibitable defects. The maintenance provider reports 3x automatic brake adjusters as unserviceable and these were not replaced until the following inspection. The maintenance provider had declared the vehicle as serviceable.
- Initial failure at annual test of 20%.
- The Examiner noted that effective walk round checks were not being completed as driver detectable defects were only recorded at the Preventative Maintenance Inspection. The operator’s invoices were not accompanied by corresponding reports. Some driver defect reports indicated that several were to be repaired or ‘signed off by driver’.
- The Examiner noted that raised shortcomings in brake performance assessments. A vehicle failed at annual test failure on 22 October 2025 and was issued with an immediate Prohibition Notice for tyre condition. The operator suggested that the maintenance provider had admitted fault.
- Anomalies were found in the documentation provided: the Preventative Maintenance Inspection dated 24 October 2025 recorded an odometer reading which was less than that recorded at annual test, 2 days previous. The invoice for the safety inspection includes a pre-check inspection and records work commencing on 20 October 2025.
- Maintenance records provided evidence of broken and damaged studs. Tyre pressures had not been recorded at safety inspections despite the findings and assurances given around the previous visit.
On 18 November 2025, the operator communicated a change of maintenance provider from PRM Commercials to Euroswift Haulage Ltd.
The update report from Mr Ridge was based on an analysis of 6 x Preventative Maintenance Inspection records, 6 x roller brake test reports, 7 x driver defect reports, 6 x wheel change notices, and copy of the maintenance planner. The latter covered safety inspections, annual test, VED, tachograph calibration, and insurance dates. He noted minor errors in the completion of the safety inspection, in that the maintenance provider records both IM36 and IM39 as serviceable whereas only one of these systems is fitted. All the driver defect reports were for S40 UKA (driven by Christian Massie). In addition:
• S20 UKA – Preventative Maintenance Inspection of 12 January 2026 records a brake re-line to axle 4, wheel torque or re-torque has not been evidenced; suggests offside, axle 4, outer tyre has been changed following previous safety inspection. There is evidence of torque and retorque being carried out at this position on the 12 December 2025, but there was no evidence of the tyre change. Both record driver detectable defects. This vehicle was previously driven by Paul Kiley and Kenny Measor.)
• S40 UKA – Preventative Maintenance Inspection of 18 November 2025, records a brake re-line to axle 1, wheel torque and re-torque were evidenced; Preventative Maintenance Inspection of 7 January 2026, records a brake re-line to axles 3 and 4, wheel torque and re-torque were not evidenced; Preventative Maintenance Inspection of 7 January 2026, suggests offside, axle 2, tyre has been changed following the inspection. There is evidence of torque and retorque being carried out at this position on the 26 November 2025, a defect report supports the replacement of the wheel and tyre at this location; Preventative Maintenance Inspection of 7 January 2026, is 8 days overdue and was carried out in the next ISO week.
• S50 UKA – Preventative Maintenance Inspection of 8 January 2026, records a brake re-line to axle 4, wheel torque and re-torque was not evidenced; it also suggests offside, axle 1, tyre has been changed following previous safety inspection. There was no evidence of torque and retorque being carried out, nor is there any evidence of a tyre change; suggests nearside, axle 2, tyre has been changed following previous safety inspection. There is evidence of torque and retorque being carried out at this position on the 12 December 2025, but there was no evidence of the tyre change; axle 3, outer tyre has been changed following previous safety inspection. There was no evidence of torque and retorque being carried out at this position nor is there any evidence of a tyre change. This was driven by Robert Donnelly.
Mr Ridge indicated that there had been improvements in the completion of Preventative Maintenance Inspection records, now accompanied by laden roller brake tests. Safety inspections for S20 UKA suggested shortcomings with the driver walk round checks and defect reporting, whilst defect reports for S40 UKA showed the reporting and rectification of driver reported defects. There was some evidence of a wheel security system but appeared to be ineffective as the evidence showed missing records of wheel torque and re-torque as well as tyre replacements. Further improvement was required in the management and monitoring of some maintenance systems.
Determination
Based on the evidence above, I was satisfied that I should record adverse findings under the following sections of the Act; 26(1)(b) – conditions on licence to notify changes in respect of the mandatory requirements including a Transport Manager meeting Schedule 3, 26(1)(c)(iii) – Prohibition Notices, 26(1)(e) – statements relating to inspection intervals, the Transport Manager meeting Schedule 3, 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), and 26(1)(h) – material change.
I was satisfied on the basis of those findings that Mr Johnston had not exercised effective and continuous management. He attended recent refresher training in December 2025, but he now needs to exercise far greater scrutiny of drivers and the contractor, and to ensure that this is reflected in the compliance documentation which forms an essential part of the operator licence obligations. I was told that he and Aaron Sauker undertake gate checks of drivers. There has been a tendency amongst some to carry out repairs without making records. Mr Johnston’s repute is tarnished, and he has been warned as to the consequences if he does not achieve the required level of management going forward.
Mr Ridge referred to the apparent improvement, but maintenance and driver defect reporting require tightened management. He had identified ineffective management control and systems. There was a poor average first-time pass rate at annual test, albeit this is a small fleet and the rate is improving. The operator was slow to address the concerns, particularly where road safety critical defects were evidence by the “S” marked prohibition. The evidence showed ineffective instruction of drivers on defect reporting. The change in maintenance contractor showed early promise but January records were not fully completed.
The operator provided me with the following undertaking:
“The operator undertakes to identify an independent body to carry out an audit of transport safety and compliance systems. The audit will assess the systems for complying with maintenance 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 uploaded to the licence record via the Vehicle Operator Licensing self-service account, or, if the operator does not have a self-service account, emailed to notifications@vehicle-operator-licensing.service.gov.uk within 6 months.”
Weighing that into the balance, I was able to adopt a starting point of MODERATE. I made clear that I expect the audit to confirm compliance. I took evidence on the impact of regulatory action and determined that a curtailment to 3 vehicles was appropriate deterrent action, in the interests of future compliance. Any increase would require a full application. The curtailment commences at 23:45 tonight. The operator’s repute is tarnished, so there can be no repeat.
R Turfitt Traffic Commissioner 5 February 2026