Decision for Silverbirch Contracts Ltd OM2034055
Confirmation of the Traffic Commissioner's decision in the Scottish Traffic Area.
IN THE SCOTTISH TRAFFIC AREA
SILVERBIRCH CONTRACTS LTD - OM2034055
CONFIRMATION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER’S DECISION
Decision
The operator’s licence will be revoked at 23:45 on 28 May 2026.
Background
Silverbirch Contracts Ltd holds a Restricted Goods Vehicle Operator’s Licence authorising 3 vehicles and 2 trailers. The Director is John Gibson. The Companies House register indicates that the operator is involved in construction work.
There is one Operating Centre at Unit 12 Highhouse Industrial Estate, Barony Road, Auchinleck, Cumnock KA18 2LL. Preventative Maintenance Inspections are said to be carried out by Professional Distribution Services at 10-weekly intervals.
The licence commenced on 23 September 2020, with no previous intervention recorded against the operator.
Hearing
The Public Inquiry was initially listed for 25 March 2026, when Mr Gibson indicated that he would be attending. The hearing could not proceed on that date because the Office of the Traffic Commissioner was unable to secure an available traffic commissioner who was able to sit. When this became apparent, tribunal staff apparently telephoned the operator on 24 March 2026 to give notice that the hearing would have to be adjourned. I understand that a complaint has been raised regarding the late notification.
Mr Gibson was apparently to travel from London to the Public Inquiry and indicated that he would not make himself available in the months of April, May and June due to large work contracts and holiday commitments. No further detail was supplied but that was repeated in an email. Notification of the new date was sent on 20 April 2026 with a response the following day: “I was unavailable to attend during the months of May and June” and apparently sought compensation following the previous adjournment. For some reason correspondence from this office conflated the request for expenses with attendance at the hearing. Given the statutory responsibilities, any claim will be a matter for DfT and its Executive Agency to address rather than through operator licence fees.
That aside I considered the interests of justice. I noted that the operator was emailed on 29 April 2026 seeking details of why the operator was unable to attend the reconvened hearing. A response, dated 6 May 2026, suggested the following: “Due to a huge downturn in work locally I have had to take on a huge building contract down in london to try and support my employees wages. I am based down in London on a huge building complex for Simply construction Uk, which I need to be there to oversee and have deadlines to meet, therefore it would have a detrimental financial impact on myself and my business and my employees and their families, if I am required to travel.” No evidence was offered in support and the operator failed to engage with the office to identify a suitable date rather than seeking to delay the hearing further.
In any event, this operator’s licence is granted with authority to operate from a site in the Scottish Traffic area. The work in London apparently commenced in March or even earlier. The latest correspondence refers to a project lasting into June. Section 5(4) of the Act provides that an operator’s licence shall not authorise the use of any heavy goods vehicle unless the place which is for the time being its operating centre - (a) is in a traffic area in respect of which the licence was issued; or (b) is outside that area but has not been the operating centre of that vehicle for a period of more than three months.
NU63 WMX was apparently sold on 28 November 2025 but remained specified. NX12 BXN has apparently been off the road since 1 October 2025, accordingly little other documentation was provided to the Examiner. As at the date of the Public Inquiry NU63 WMX, NX12 BXN and BX58 CWU remained specified on the licence. Given the issues identified below and having given notice to the operator, the hearing proceeded on 7 May 2026 in the Tribunal Room of the Office of the Traffic Commissioner in Edinburgh. I delayed the start of the hearing, but the operator failed to attend.
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 including the specification of vehicles.
- 26(1)(c)(iii) – Prohibition Notices.
- 26(1)(e) – statements 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 in fitness to hold the licence and in the availability of finance required to support maintenance.
- 28 – Disqualification.
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 4 March 2026 with finance and any representations to be sent to my office by 11 March 2026. The operator had produced unaudited company accounts said to be dating from December 2023. In a similar vein, the printouts referring to a facility with Funding Circle but were not verified. In the absence of some recognised certification, these appeared to be largely self-serving and could carry little weight, given the statutory purpose of section 13D.
Determination
On 27 August 2025, vehicle BX58 CWU (specified on 27 October 2020) attracted a Prohibition Notice when presented for annual test due to leaking brake fluid. It was re-presented on 3 September 2025 when it again failed and was issued with another Prohibition relating to the service brake not binding.
This prompted DVSA to commence a maintenance investigation, with Vehicle Examiner Stephen McLeod undertaking an unannounced visit on 6 October 2025. The Case Summary highlights the shortcomings identified by the Examiner:
- Inspection/Maintenance records – BX58 CWU was off the road from October 2024 to October 2025 due to a defective rear axle, but inspection records were not properly completed, with the record dated 5 September 2024 showing no brake performance test. The VOR system was said to be ineffective, with no VOR record available.
- Inspection facilities and maintenance arrangements – Annual test history indicates poor maintenance, with safety critical defect failures. In the last 5 years, there has been a final failure rate of 60% and prohibitions issued at test. BX58 CWU failed on 3 September 2025 for brake bind (a paid retest to clear prohibition) and previously on 27 August 2025 for brake systems, speedometer/tachograph, and aim of headlights; with an S marked Prohibition issued for “brake fluid leaking, obvious leak leading to brake failure, axle 2 nearside” indicating that the operator did not have effective systems to identify defects and prevent defective vehicles being used. The previous inspection was on 22 August 2025, which identified the need to renew the rear axle.
- Vehicle emissions – No evidence of a system for managing and monitoring.
- Wheel and tyre management – No evidence of tyre management system.
- Mr Gibson had not attended any training to assist with the management of the operator licence. The Vehicle Examiner described ‘partial control’ of transport operations.
On 3 November 2025, the Examiner emailed the operator chasing an overdue response and extended the deadline to 7 November 2025. The same day, a ‘Shauna Stakim’ replied, copying in Mr Gibson, but provided little detail:
“I have attached copies of the VOR sheet, Ad Blue Log and Weekly Wheel Nut Torque Register.
Regarding the rest of the points, we will in the future undertake independent audits and complete more thorough internal checks before vehicles are sent for tests. This will allow us to identify any issues that should be rectified before tests are carried out.
John, the managing director, is booked in for the transport managers’ course to further his knowledge, allowing him to manage the O-License requirements more efficiently.”
Attached documents included AdBlue log, VOR sheet, Completed Inspection sheet for vehicle BX58 CWU dated 5 September 2024, and weekly wheel torque/retorque sheet.
The update report of 11 March 2026 prepared by Mr McLeod simply recorded that NU63 WMX was sold on 28 November 2025 but has remained specified. NX12 BXN has apparently been off the road since 1 October 2025, accordingly little other documentation was provided. The forward planner was checked and found to be satisfactory. According to the VOL record, NU63 WMX remains specified on this licence. There was no-one present to explain why 10-weekly inspections had been adopted for a vehicle an NX12 plate.
The appellate Tribunal described the flexibility available to operators in its decision of 2011/022 Andrew Chatter, whilst also identifying the need to ensure fairness to all operators. The operator provided bank statements from November 2025 to January 2026, the average of which was not sufficient for even one vehicle [REDACTED], and a document entitled ‘evidence of loan payments’ to which I have referred. The operator was asked to provide statements for the same period or verified evidence of an ongoing loan facility but failed to provide any such documentary evidence. The operator also supplied a set of unaudited company accounts dating from 2023. I am aware that the Upper Tribunal decision in Parks Haulage [2026] UKUT 2 (AAC) may have led to some confusion with over-reliance being placed on the previous decision in 2020/066 Thandi Coaches (Red) Ltd, whilst omitting reference to the impact of Morgan J Ltd [2024] UKUT 337 (AAC). In this case the company accounts were of such an age, lacked any independent verification and failed to satisfy me that the purpose of section 13D could be met, so I placed little weight on those dated accounts.
Based on the evidence summarised above, I was satisfied that I should record the following adverse findings: sections 26(1)(b) – condition on licence to notify changes including the specification and operation of vehicles, 26(1)(c)(iii) – Prohibition Notices, including S marked as a significant failure, 26(1)(e) – statements to abide by conditions on the licence and where vehicles would normally be kept, 26(1)(f) – undertakings (vehicles to be kept fit and serviceable, effective driver defect reporting, complete maintenance records), 26(1)(h) – material change in the availability of finance required to support maintenance.
In 2013/007 Redsky Wholesalers Ltd, the Upper Tribunal approved of the application of the Priority Freight question (2009/225) namely: how likely is it that the operator will comply in future. As per the Upper Tribunal decision in 2013/082 Arnold Transport Ltd – actions speak louder than words. Putting aside the operator’s failure to attend the hearing, the evidence suggested an operator unable to meet the basic maintenance requirements, with an attendant risk to road safety. There was nothing before me to suggest any improvement or to evidence the claims made by Ms Stakim. Operators must be able to trust other operators to observe the relevant requirements. 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. On the evidence before me, the operator appeared incapable of meeting the basic requirements of the licence and, given the risks, should be removed from the industry.
I took account of the reference to remote working, although it is unclear what form those operations might take. I allowed time for a safe run, noting the involvement with a construction project. This being the first Public Inquiry, I also allowed that time to make written representations on the possibility of disqualification. The operator’s licence will be revoked at 23:45 on 28 May 2026.
R Turfitt
Traffic Commissioner
7 May 2026