Decision for SCS Haulage Ltd (OF1021420)
Written confirmation of the decision of the Traffic Commissioner for the East of England for SCS Haulage Ltd and Simon Christopher Short, Transport Manager
IN THE EASTERN TRAFFIC AREA
SCS HAULAGE LTD - OF1021420
AND
SIMON CHRISTOPHER SHORT – TRANSPORT MANAGER
CONFIRMATION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER’S DECISION
Decision
The operator received a warning with conditions attached to their licence.
Background
SCS Haulage Ltd holds a Standard International Goods Vehicle Operator’s Licence originally authorising 31 vehicles and 35 trailers (see below). The Directors are Diane Jane Short and Simon Christopher Short, who is also the named Transport Manager.
There were two Operating Centres: Federal Estate Compound 1, Newton Road, Higham Ferrers NN9 8HW and Goosey Lodge, Wymington Lane, Wymington Rushden NN10 9LU. Preventative Maintenance Inspections are said to be carried out by Truckeast Ltd, Northants Commercials, K2 Recovery, Corby Commercials Ltd, and Oakley Trailers at 8-weekly intervals. The Federal Estate site was removed after the call up allowing capacity for 20 vehicles and 35 trailers.
There was the suggestion of an application to add a Peter Dunkley as an additional, but the electronic record showed that as ‘not yet received’. A Transport Manager declaration was uploaded on 17 June 2026, and the Deputy Traffic Commissioner directed that it be considered at this hearing. The question of control was relevant to any determination under paragraph 14A(1)(d) of Schedule 3.
Mr Short is also named as the director for George Fisher & Sons (1987) Ltd on the Companies House register.
Hearing
The Public Inquiry was listed for today, 29 September 2026, in Tribunal Room 1 of the Office of the Traffic Commissioner in Cambridge. The operator was present in the form of Mr Short, Director, and as Transport Manager, represented by Mark Davies of Backhouse Jones solicitors and accompanied by Mr Dunkley.
Issues
The Public Inquiry was called following notice 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 relating to the licence requirements and specifically control over the operations.
- 26(1)(e) – statements relating to the Transport Manager’s ability to meet Schedule 3 and to comply with conditions.
- 26(1)(h) – material change:
- 27(1)(a) – good repute, financial standing, Transport Manager meeting Schedule 3.
- 28 – Disqualification.
Mr Short was called separately to consider his repute as Transport Manager, by reference to the statutory duty to exercise effective and continuous management under section 27(1)(b) and Schedule 3, and to consider whether I should make a direction in respect of 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 8 September 2026 with finance and any representations to be sent to my office by 15 September 2026. The financial evidence was explained and sufficient to meet the authority.
Summary of Evidence
DVSA encountered KU25 XSC drawing a 3-axle semi-trailer, C321165, on 28 January 2026, described in the statement of Traffic Examiner Arlane Mansell-Baker dated 9 February 2026. That vehicle was not displaying an operator licence disc. The driver had to call the company to confirm the identity of the operator. Records show that this operator purchased that vehicle in April 2025. It had not been specified. The driver also suggested that he was ‘self-employed’ but invoiced the operator through ‘SC Strazile Ltd, despite being engaged full-time by this operator for approximately 7 years. The driver, Grigore Boroica, was a Director of SC Strazile Ltd.
The DVSA was prompted to commence inquiries with a Traffic Examiner Visit taking place on 13 April 2026. The report of Traffic Examiner Kyle Lewis identified issues with driver control. Drivers were engaged through multiple known agencies and were apparently paid for the work undertaken through the agency, the operator confirmed that the driver engagements were longstanding. It was claimed that ‘the company pay the agency and the agency pay the drivers directly’ and that the agency drivers were managed following the same systems as employed drivers.
The Examiner stated that the overall driver and vehicle maintenance systems were mostly satisfactory with evidence seen of in-depth risk assessments, infringement reports and licence motoring systems. A full contract was in place with Scania (Truckeast) for all vehicles and that the Scania system was also used for tachograph and working-time management with infringements printed and issued to the relevant driver (both employed and agency drivers), then returned for filing. The Examiner noted that there were no infringements on the tachograph records evidenced at the visit. DVSA did not request an explanation from the operator, which was referred to guidance relating to employment status.
The operator was put on notice by my office in a request for an explanation dated 18 May 2026. In response it confirmed that ‘SCS Haulage does not directly employ or hire self-employed drivers, but we do hire Limited Company and PAYE drivers through
driver recruitment companies’. It suggested that this was undertaken when employed drivers were absent due to sickness or holidays. I compared that with the case of Driver Boroica.
The operator appeared to be alive to the concerns as it claimed to use the same agencies and the same drivers are used where possible. The drivers were said to have gone through the operator’s driver assessment, site induction and ‘risk assessments’, meaning that they can then be called upon when required without having to reassess them.
The operator erroneously stated, ‘I am of the understanding that this responsibility lies with the agency who supply the drivers, and under IR35, SCS Haulage meets the criteria of a small sized company’.
The First-Tier Tribunal (Tax) considered the employment status of drivers in TC/2015/03681 RS Dhillon and GP Dhillon Partnership v The Commissioners for her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs. HMRC acted on concerns that haulage operators were wrongly treating workers as self-employed or hiring workers through their own companies in ways that did not comply with tax laws and issued public guidance on its website. Businesses are responsible for deciding if the rules apply, if two or more of the following conditions apply: an annual turnover of more than £10.2 million, a balance sheet total of more than £5.1 million, more than 50 employees. That is irrelevant, regardless of the size of transport business, it will be rare for someone to be genuinely self-employed unless they are an owner-driver.
Guidance offers the following to assist in identifying an employee: They were required to work regularly unless they are on leave, They were required to do a minimum number of hours and expect to be paid for time worked. A manager or supervisor is responsible for their workload, saying when a piece of work should be finished and how it should be done. They could not send someone else to do their work. The operator’s disciplinary and grievance procedures applied. They started work at the Operating Centre. The operator provided the materials, tools, and equipment for their work. They only work for the operator.
The publicly available guidance on the GOV.UK website advises that a person is an agency worker if they have a contract with an agency but work temporarily for a hirer. I quote: “You’re not an agency worker if you use an agency to find permanent or fixed-term employment.” HMRC defines temporary employees as people that are contracted to a job for a limited period, and they are hired straight from the company or through a third-party agency that staffs for other companies. Even workers doing occasional work for a specific business (where the worker has to agree to terms and conditions to obtain the work, where the business provides the materials, tools, or equipment) can be subject to the deduction of tax and National Insurance contributions from their wages. Failure to comply with legal requirements can undermine the ability to hold an operator’s licence.
Where there is a legitimate agency arrangement, the 2010 Agency Regulations provide that, after a qualifying period of 12 weeks, the basic working and employment conditions (working time, overtime, breaks, rest periods for night work, holidays and pay) of temporary agency workers must be at least as beneficial as those that would apply if they had been recruited directly. Agencies also have a legal obligation to gather certain information before offering work to an agency worker. When the agency offers a worker an assignment, they must, at the same time give that worker details which include: the name of the hiring organisation and the nature of its business, the start date, how long the assignment is likely to be for, details of the position and type of work. Regulation 13A of the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003 requires all agency workers, who sign up to an employment business after 6 April 2020, to be given a ‘Key Information Document’.
The operator was asked to provide a ‘Key Information Document’ in relation to the ‘agency’ drivers being used. These were later provided by the operator and upon review did not comply with the legislative requirements, as they did not state the written details of the assignment, covering what duties are required, when the work will be completed and relevant health and safety information. The Key Information Documentation also suggested regular engagement with ‘Wilson Recruitment Ltd’ and ‘DS Drivers Ltd’. Checks of Companies House showed Mrs Diane Short and Mr Simon Short as Directors of DS Drivers Ltd. That connection was not identified when the Key Information Documentation was supplied.
Mr Davies helpfully lodged representations in advance seeking to address “the main issue in the hearing, namely the engagement of drivers by SCS, and that SCS are resolving this issue and prepared to provide an undertaking that the use of self-employed/limited company drivers will cease. “
It was suggested that the failure to specify the vehicle which was stopped by DVSA resulted from an oversight. There was no commercial advantage as the licence was authorised for 31 vehicles at the time and there was sufficient capacity on the licence for the vehicle. It had been subject to the same maintenance regime as the rest of the fleet.
Following qualified legal advice, the operator approached the ‘agency’ drivers to explain that they needed to be engaged on a PAYE basis. Operators should avoid advice, on-line chatter or misconstruing the application of the IR35 off pay-roll rules. Drivers started to transfer to full-time employees of SCS from DS Drivers. The intention of the Directors is to close DS Drivers but there was some confusion as to the future use of agencies. I received useful clarification during the hearing(see undertaking below).
The short update report prepared by Mr Lewis dated 21 September 2026 was based on raw tachograph data for three vehicles and all relevant drivers from 13 April 2026, infringement reports for the previous three months, download reports for the previous 6 months, driving licence checks for the last six months and evidence of professional development and any disciplinary action. The Examiner confirmed that details of all the named drivers were checked again Companies house. All those recorded under “DS Drivers” were found to still be Directors of limited companies with the classification of “Freight Transport by Road”. There had been no change since April 2026. No evidence was received to indicate that drivers are now employed.
Systems appear to be managed as originally assessed in April 2026 with infringement reports discussed with drivers and explanations/printouts included with documentation received. Driving licences were checked within a three-month period, although more than one driver was found to have attracted three-point endorsements. The importance of proper control was highlighted by the absence of any explanation or reason recorded on the missing mileage reports with the Examiner referring to one significant period of driving without card.
Determination
Based on the evidence above I was satisfied that I should record adverse findings under sections 26(1)(b) and (e) regarding the failure to specify a vehicle and to employ effective controls over the operation.
Mr Davies legitimately pointed to the assessment in the TEVR and subsequent DVSA report TEVR. So called agency or self-employed drivers were inducted and trained in the operator’s systems in the same way as employed drivers, with the clear intention that they be more than a temporary engagement. The drivers were said to be under the control and direction of the operator. They were given instructions by the operator and expected to comply with the operator’s procedures. Driver’s hours analysis was undertaken by the operator, and driver infringements were raised and followed the same systems for employed drivers. What was described, did not amount to a self-employed driver. Submissions also confirmed that this was more than temporary.
I sought to understand the motives behind the arrangement, particularly where the Directors appeared closely involved and to have benefitted personally. I was told that the operator currently employs 9 full-time drivers on a PAYE basis. DS Drivers was supplying 7 drivers to the operator. DS Drivers was apparently established in 2015 as the operator was struggling to attract/ retain employed drivers on a PAYE basis.
The reliance on IR35 called into question the level of knowledge and ability to oversee compliance. I was satisfied that this was a genuine misunderstanding although the arrangements were sophisticated. For some reason the Directors’ considerations stopped at IR35 guidance, which clearly did not apply to the business. Operators who do not seek qualified advice from a member of a regulated profession or specialist body and engage this type of device, risk the appearance of trying to gain an unfair competitive advantage. The Transport Manager also risks the attention of a Traffic Commissioner, who will closely examine the levels of control.
It is not for drivers to dictate how operations under a licence are to be run. I took account of the progress made with the following drivers having now transferred to PAYE status: Hugh Ringland, Adam Armstrong, Grigori Boroica, Richard Evans, Oleg Evans, Sandor Tamas, Grigorz Kaniewski, Oleg Adam, and Video Acostachioaie. I compared the example of an Assignment Details Form dated 8 July 2026 referring to the operator and agency worker Nick Stojsavljevic to undertake HGV 1 work – general haulage on an ad hoc basis for a period of 6 months, with the more formalised Key Information Document, which refers to a contract for services with More Driver Solutions Ltd but a minimum hourly rate and the deduction of PAYE and NI contributions. That provides for 5.6 weeks of holiday entitlement per year as a statutory minimum. I also took account of the following undertaking:
- All permanent drivers will be employed on a PAYE basis with any temporary driver (as defined by the guidance on GOV.UK) will be employed through an agency and will not involve personal service companies.
On that basis, I was persuaded that Mr Dunkley should be able to meet the requirements of Schedule 3. I therefore permitted his appointment as an additional Transport Manager.
Given the steps outlined above and the recent voluntary reduction to ensure that operations continue within those terms, I was persuaded to deal with this matter by warning the operator that its repute had been tarnished by these events. Any repeat can expect more serious intervention.
R Turfitt
Traffic Commissioner
29 September 2026