Decision for Shellard Travel Ltd (PF2057170)
Written decision of the Traffic Commissioner for the East of England for Shellard Travel Ltd and Shane Scragg, transport manager
IN THE EASTERN TRAFFIC AREA
SHELLARD TRAVEL LTD – PF2057170
AND SHANE SCRAGG – FORMER TRANSPORT MANAGER
CONFIRMATION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER’S DECISION
Decision
The licence is revoked.
Operator and named director are disqualified for a four-year period.
The former transport manager has lost his good repute and is disqualified for a minimum of one year.
Background
Shellard Travel Ltd holds a Standard International Public Service Vehicle Operator’s Licence authorising 4 vehicles. The Director is Adam Christopher Shellard. Christopher Hughes was the Transport Manager from 17 July 2025. On 18 August 2025, he notified my office that, after speaking to “the operator” he had decided to withdraw his resignation, but his name had already been removed from the licence. He was therefore advised of the need for an application. Shane Scragg was the Transport Manager between 11 May 2013 and 7 April 2025.
There is one Operating Centre at Unit 9, Lower Rectory Farm, Sharestone Road, Swadlincote DE12 7AJ. Preventative Maintenance Inspections are said to be carried out by Paul S Winson Coaches Ltd in Loughborough at 10-weekly intervals. DVSA received information in June 2025 via an email from the contractor indicating that it had ceased business contact with the operator. There was a suggestion that X123 STL was for sale on Ebay.
The licence is subject to various restrictions on the operation of small vehicles, which were offered at grant.
Following notification of Mr Scragg’s resignation formal notice was sent to the operator on 8 April 2025 referring to the mandatory and continuing requirement for professional competence. In a response dated 23 April 2025, the operator sought a Period of Grace to pursue the nomination of a Mr Knight. That was subsequently withdrawn as was explained in an undated letter received on 13 May 2025 in which the operator referred to advertising for a new Transport Manager, and the intention of Mr Shellard to sit the CPC exam. That latter suggestion was not sufficient basis for a Period of Grace but the subsequent nomination of a qualified CPC holder, Mr Hughes, on 13 June 2025 gave a basis. However, the application remained incomplete, and it was only through the exercise of discretion that the operator narrowly avoided revocation and only after Mr Hughes set out how he intended to meet the statutory duty to exercise continuous and effective management of the transport undertaking.
Hearing
The Public Inquiry was listed for today, 17 September 2025, in Tribunal Room 1 of the Office of the Traffic Commissioner in Cambridge. The operator was not present. DVSA had relayed intelligence suggesting that Adam Shellard might have been detained by police regarding inquiries into serious offences, but there was no contact from anyone in the company.
By email of 31 August 2025, Mr Hughes notified my office that he would not be attending this Public Inquiry He stated that: “Mr Shellard engaged my services as a Transport Manager, upon being named onto the Operating Licence Mr Shellard was not fully forthcoming with information requested. Information that Mr Shellard did provide was not fully compliant with information requested. I therefore withdrew my services. Mr Shellard then engaged the services of Invergold Associates, I agreed then to reinstate my services as a Transport Manager. Mr Shellard has failed to engage with the process. I therefore withdrew my offer to be reinstated as his named Transport Manager.” I was unable to put this, or the other matters set out below as neither the operator nor the former Transport Manager appeared.
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 Public Passenger Vehicle Act 1981:
- 17(3)(a) – statements regarding inspection intervals, to be conducted by the notified contractor, where vehicles would normally be kept, and to comply with conditions on the licence.
- 17(3)(aa) – undertakings (vehicles to be kept fit and serviceable; to employ an effective written driver defect reporting system, to retain full maintenance records for the required period, to comply with the rules on drivers’ hours and tachographs).
- 17(3)(b) –conditions on the licence to notify any occurrences which affect the ability to hold the licence, including good repute and professional competence.
- 17(3)(c) – Prohibition Notices.
- 17(3)(e) – Material Change:
- 17(1)(a) – stable establishment, good repute, financial standing and professional competence,
- and section 28 of the Transport Act 1985 – Disqualification.
Mr Scragg was called separately to consider whether he had exercised effective and continuous management and therefore whether I should make a direction in respect of his repute under Section 17(1)(b) and Schedule 3.
The operator was directed to lodge evidence in support, including financial, maintenance and other compliance documentation. The latter documentation was to be with DVSA for analysis by 27 August 2025, with the remaining financial evidence and any representations to be with my office by 3 September 2025. DVSA received none of that documentation (see above), and nor did I.
Determination
Allegations were received which apparently prompted DVSA to commence inquiries. In March 2025 the Traffic Examiner attempted to visit the authorised Operating Centre but found it was no longer in use and had not been since October 2024. Arrangements were then made with Mr Shellard to attend on 4 April 2025. That had to be rescheduled to 9 April 2025, although Mr Shellard proved to be unavailable as he had to travel to Spain to deal with two broken down coaches (SF56 UAE and X123 STL), neither of which were apparently specified. Vehicle Examiner Peter Flanaghan and Traffic Examiner Peter Cotgreave subsequently conducted their investigation visits on 15 April 2025.
In summary, the Traffic Examiner’s report dated that same day records:
- No Transport Manager.
- Use of an unauthorised site to keep vehicles with inadequate parking.
- 12 of the drivers were found to be ‘self-employed’.
- No formal driver training.
- No monitoring of Driver CPC qualifications.
- Absence of driver licence checks
- No effective route planning.
- Working Time records not checked.
- No disciplinary system.
The operator’s response admitted the breaches and referred to the employment of Mr Knight. Additional information was subsequently sought by OTC Licensing and the application then withdrawn by the operator on 8 May 2025 as all communications with Mr Knight had ceased. The response to the DVSA referred to an application for a new Operating Centre, suggested that the Director had attended a Transport Manager refresher course, that drivers had now been employed on a PAYE basis, and that driver licences would be checked every 13 weeks with annual Driver CPC updates. The operator had implemented a driver induction program and was using FleetGo to monitor drivers’ hours and Working Time, with a maintenance planner now in place. I was denied the opportunity of checking against those assurances.
Mr Cotgreave also completed his report on 15 April 2025. His findings can be summarised as follows:
- Use of an unauthorised site as an Operating Centre.
- Incomplete Preventative Maintenance Inspection records - missing dates or unsigned.
- 17% of inspections were late.
- Inconsistent use of the forward planner and no first use inspections for SF56 UAE or X123 STL.
- No driver defect reports provided.
- Change of maintenance contractor not notified.
- No vehicle emission systems.
- No wheel security or tyre management.
- No Transport Manager.
As suggested above, the operator responded to those allegations on 19 May 2025 by referring to the application for a new Operating Centre, by referring to a reinforced 6-weekly inspection schedule (see above), the use of digital records including an app for driver walk round checks (to be audited monthly), the implementation of a VOR system, implementation of PSV112 incident report, implemented internal emissions checks, implemented tyre management logs, appointed new Transport Manager and will conduct internal quarterly audits. The Vehicle Examiner noted that there was little detail on how any changes would be implemented and by whom. Neither SF56 UAE nor X123 STL were available for inspection.
There was no response from Mr Scragg. It was suggested that Mr Scragg had taken all the systems with him. The Traffic Examiner reported that the operator appeared to have none of its own systems in place and had been solely reliant on Mr Scragg, who had resigned effective of 7 April 2025. I was unable to put any of these matters to Mr Scragg as he failed to appear.
I received a variation application on 1 April 2025, for a new Operating Centre at Unit 9, Lower Rectory Farm, Sharestone Road, Swadlincote DE12 7AJ. The change in Operating Centre was subsequently granted on 3 June 2025 in order to regularise the position and pending consideration at this hearing, there being no facility to grant interim authority under this legislation.
I referred to the Encounter History prepared by DVSA. Notably, the operator was issued with an S marked Prohibition Notice on 28 August 2025 regarding vehicle V123 STL whilst driven by Carl Alan Belton for a tyre tread on axle 1 worn beyond the legal limit, exposing cords. He was also issued with a Fixed Penalty Notice. The additional text suggested that the driver had reported the tyre to the “operator” that morning. He was apparently told that fit to drive having been considered at the previous inspection. There was a query regarding the VED for the vehicle.
The test history showed that all 3 presentations had passed but, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary or to suggest an improvement, it was perhaps inevitable that I would make adverse findings under the following sections: 17(3)(a) – failure to meet statements regarding inspection intervals, to be conducted by the notified contractor, where vehicles would normally be kept (to 3 June 2025), and to comply with conditions on the licence; 17(3)(aa) – breach of undertakings (vehicles to be kept fit and serviceable; to employ an effective written driver defect reporting system, to retain full maintenance records for the required period, to comply with the rules on drivers’ hours and tachographs); 17(3)(b) – failure to comply with conditions on the licence to notify any occurrences which affect the ability to hold the licence, including good repute and professional competence; 17(3)(c) – Prohibition Notices (see encounter history); 17(3)(e) – Material Change, including the Fixed Penalty Notice.
The decision of 3 June 2025 regularised the position in respect of establishment. No financial evidence was produced. There has been no Transport Manager in place since the resignation of Mr Hughes. The Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document No. 2 and 3 explain the consequences when mandatory and continuing requirements are not met. I was required to revoke this licence under section 17(1)(a). However, I proceeded to consider the issue of repute, starting with the question posed by the Upper Tribunal - whether the operator can be trusted to ensure future compliance, in 2009/225 Priority Freight Ltd. The evidence before me showed that basic requirements of the Operator’s Licence had not been met. No explanation was offered as the operator not only failed to appear but again failed to communicate with my office. The changes, even down to the absence of a maintenance contract clearly point towards continuing non-compliance. On that basis, I concluded that the operator should be removed from the industry, and I recorded a loss of repute under section 27(1)(a).
I can do no better than refer to the Upper Tribunal in 2014/008 Duncan McKee and Mary McKee and 2006/277 Fenlon - trust is one of the foundation stones of operator licensing. Traffic Commissioners must be able to trust operators to comply with all the relevant laws, rules, and regulations because it would be a physical and financial impossibility to police every aspect of the licensing system all day and every day. In addition, operators must be able to trust other operators to observe the relevant laws, rules and regulations. If trust between operators breaks down and some operators believe that others are obtaining an unfair commercial advantage by ignoring laws, rules or regulations then standards will inevitably slip, and the public will suffer.
I referred to the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document No. 10 on disqualification. The Senior Traffic Commissioner suggests a disqualification of 1 to 3 years on first Public Inquiry. However, there is no tariff, and I must look at the circumstances of the case. Whilst there was no previous action I was concerned by the complete lack of communication. Even as the new Operating Centre was being granted, the maintenance contractor withdrew. The operator failed to notify me of that and other changes and completely failed to engage with the Public Inquiry process, thereby wasting valuable tribunal time (funded through operator licence fees). Other operators looking at the facts of this case would be entitled to question their efforts to comply, if deterrent action were not to be taken as per the Tribunal in 2019/025 John Stuart Strachan t/a Strachan Haulage. I therefore concluded that a disqualification of 4 years is appropriate for both operator and the named Director under section 28. Even after that period, if they wish to re-enter the industry, they will need to satisfy a Traffic Commissioner of their suitability.
The failure by Mr Scragg to either attend or engage is not indicative of a reputable Transport Manager, quite the opposite. He has denied me the opportunity to ask questions as to how he had permitted the shortcomings identified by the Examiners. That did not amount to effective or continuous management. I accordingly recorded a loss of repute under section 27(1)(b). In the absence of any representations, I was unable to identify an appropriate rehabilitative measure. Accordingly, the disqualification is for an indeterminate period. Mr Scragg can apply to vary that disqualification but should note that the amendments to paragraph 17 of Schedule 3 of the 1995 Act provide for a minimum period of one year disqualification of a Transport Manager after ceasing to be of good repute, beginning with the day on which the order was made, before any disqualification order may be cancelled. All directions above are to take immediate effect.
R Turfitt
Traffic Commissioner
17 September 2025