Decision for Simpsons Transport Ltd (OH2012485)
Written decision of the Deputy Traffic Commissioner for the West of England for Simpsons Transport Ltd and Transport Manager William Jordan Simpson
Written Decision of the Deputy Traffic Commissioner
In the Western Traffic Area
Public Inquiry
Goods Vehicle (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995
SIMPSONS TRANSPORT LTD - OH2012485
William Jordan Simpson – TRANSPORT MANAGER
The licence is revoked under section 27 and 26 of the Act with effect from 21.2.26.
Transport Manager, William Jordan Simpson has lost his good repute as a transport manager and is disqualified from acting as such for 12 months with effect from 21.2.26.
The operator company is disqualified for 12 months from holding or obtaining an operator’s licence with effect from 21.2.26
Background
Simpsons Transport Limited is a limited company with a Standard National operator licence, OH2012485, that authorises the use of 2 vehicles and 2 trailers. This is a valid licence that came into force on 21/08/2018.
On 07/08/2018, the then applicant was called to a Public Inquiry due to adverse licencing history. The licence was granted with undertaking and under the condition of actions by the company prior to grant.
On 11/03/2019, the Office of the Traffic Commissioner issued a propose to revoke letter with regards to a financial undertaking. A response was received 26/03/2019, and on 14/05/2019 a PI callup letter was issued. On 19/06/2019 a PI was held following which the operator was issued a warning.
On 20/05/2022, the Office of the Traffic Commissioner issued a warning letter with regards to a Traffic Examiner Visit that was marked as ‘unsatisfactory’.
On 19/08/2024, the Office of the Traffic Commissioner issued a warning letter with regards to a Maintenance Investigation Visit that was marked as ‘unsatisfactory’ and issued an audit undertaking.
On 05/02/2025, an audit was conducted by RHA. Upon review, and following identification of shortcomings, a DVSA investigation was requested.
The Public Inquiry – Reasons for Call-up
On 18/06/2025, a Traffic Examiner Visit was conducted by traffic examiner David Liddall and completed 16/07/2025. The report was overall marked as ‘unsatisfactory’ with a total score of 6 for shortcomings in the following sections:
- Driver licensing and training
- Driver’s hours/record keeping
- Working time directive
- Enforcement history
- Previous Public Inquiry or requests for explanation/assurances.
TE Liddall stated;
“Numerous encounters since last investigation where drivers hours issues and fail to record other work as well as excise licence offences have been identified….Whilst it is unlikely that many of these would have incurred a financial sanction the repeated number suggests that either lip service is paid to disciplinary matters or the system lacks the required robustness There was no evidence produced of infringement reports having been addressed with the offending drivers Similar comments apply to the management and disciplinary processes for working time.”
On 13/08/2025, a Maintenance Investigation Visit was conducted by vehicle examiner David Garraway. The report was overall marked as ‘Report to OTC’ with shortcomings identified in the following sections:
- Inspection/maintenance records
- Driver defect reporting
- Inspection facilities & maintenance arrangements
- Wheel & tyre management
- Load security
- Prohibition assessment
-Previous public inquiry or RFE assurances
- Transport manager/responsible person assessment.
A response was received 21/09/2025 that was marked as unsatisfactory, and the report was completed on 23/09/2025.
The operator has a Mechanical prohibition rate of 35.71% over the last five years, against the national average of 23.43%. The operator has an initial failure rate at annual test of 18.18% over the last five years, against the national average of 10.13%.
The Public Inquiry
At the PI on the 21st January 2026 the operator/TM, William Simpson, appeared. He was accompanied by his brother, Edward Simpson, the maintenance provider. They were not represented but confirmed that they were fully aware of the issues and the potential consequences and were content to proceed.
I summarised the key issues and heard evidence and representations from the operator/TM and his brother.
Evidence and Findings
The most serious and worrying aspect of this operator’s conduct is the prohibition history. The Maintenance Investigation Report cites the following:
“Prohibitions issued during this sample period, demonstrates a failing in the maintenance system, with a trend of safety critical defects being observed.
LD18NAV - 14/08/24 - IM8 (I), Deep cut in tyre and cord or cords are exposed. Nearside Axle 1 IM8 (I), Deep cut in tyre/ cord or cords are exposed. Offside Axle 1.
C356157 - 28/05/25 - IM8 (I), Deep cut in tyre and cord or cords are exposed. Nearside Axle 1.”
The Examiner states:
“100% of PG9 (I) prohibitions being issued, are considered as Safety Critical defects. As these defects were observed by DVSA inspectors during roadside encounters, this indicates the faults could have been detected by the driver, had a diligent driver inspection process been compiled, implemented and adhered to.”
In addition to the prohibitions above, the Encounter History at pages 112-3 of the PI brief shows prohibitions in respect of deep cuts/defects in tyres on the following dates:
- 2.2.23
- 7.8.23
- 10.4.24
- 15.4.24 x. 2
Unfortunately, the prohibitions have continued even after the MIVR and the assurances given in response. As part of the call-up letter directions were given for current records to be assessed by DVSA for a supplementary report. With regard to prohibitions the report states;
“The Operator was encountered by DVSA at the roadside Four (4) times during this review period. From the 4 encounters, 3 PG9(I) and 2 PG9(D) were issued, relating to tyre and suspension air bag defects. These were for under inflated or cut in tyre and cords visible. On all occasions the driver defect reports for the issuing dates have been supplied, and no defects recorded. Had the Drivers carried out their duties diligently, and stricter walkaround check procedures been implemented, the tyre defects could, and should have been observed, enabling a repair to be carried out prior to being used on the public highway, or encountered by enforcement agencies.”
“Encounter dated 09/10/25, LD18NAV was observed with a seriously under inflated tyre on Axle 3 Offside, Overload Likely on the other tyre of twin fitment, PG9(I). Approx 100km travelled between walkaround check and encounter recorded. During same encounter, the trailer attached C328714, was observed with a defective tyre on Axle 1 Offside, Deep cut in tyre with cord or cords visible PG9(I).”
“Encounter 22/12/25, LD64ROV, 1 PG9(I) a seriously under inflated tyre on Axle 3 Offside, Overload Likely on other tyre of twin fitment, and 2 PG9(D) were issued for defective suspension air bags delaminating and cords being visible, Axle 2 Nearside & Offside. No observations made by the maintenance provider on the safety inspection report dated 24/11/25, regarding the defective suspension items, prior to the encounter.”
On the role of the Transport Manager, the VE states;
“It is concerning that the Transport Manager appeared unaware of the ongoing areas of non-compliance, and the necessity for continuous internal auditing of procedures, until prompted by the RHA audit. This concern is substantiated by a statement in the response letter: “It made sense to take on all the advice and information we could get from them (RHA), before making any wholesale changes to the company.”
Of course, there should be no delay in implementing essential changes which merely give effect to the undertakings made when applying for an operator’s licence but that appears to be what has happened in this case. The Audit undertaking was only required because of past failings and the evidence given to me about training for drivers, and the absence of disciplinary actions, gives me no confidence that the operator/TM is capable of changing the culture of non-compliance in this business.
The VE observed regarding driver checks;
“Driver defect reports (DDR) supplied for both vehicles in service, covering the whole period requested. No driver reportable defects recorded on any of the defect reports supplied, effectively recording NIL defects every time the vehicles are being used. No evidence of any defects or rectification work being carried out between safety inspections. This includes any possible replacement of bulbs.”
An operator/TM has a responsibility to maintain accurate and complete records but in this case;
“The Operator only supplied partial copies of the safety inspection reports for the duration requested. Only the front page supplied recording the vehicle or trailer number and inspection date. Unable to ascertain if inspections have been completed fully and correctly due to the roadworthiness declaration and completion sections missing.”
“No evidence supplied when requested, of wheel fitting security and re-torque records following wheel/tyre replacement following from prohibition being issued.”
“Due to the inspection reports supplied not being of the full configuration, I am unable to assess if there have been any continued improvements regarding the completion and management of the maintenance document procedures.”
The VE concludes;
“The Operator appears to have implemented changes over the last 15 months, which have resulted in minimal improvements. The Prohibition rate is high, and the nature of the defects being observed are continuously related to tyres. “
“The Transport Manager explains the reason for the tyre defects to be because of the terrain they operate in, and it is the nature of the task. With the working environment taken into consideration and the evidence of the prohibitions received, there is no evidence of additional interim cautionary tyre checks being carried out by the driver, prior to travelling on the public highway, or a more stringent tyre maintenance procedure being compiled and implemented.”
I would add that apart from the duty of the operator/drivers to undertake additional checks if they know their working environment is potentially damaging to vehicle safety, it also contradicts the consistent “nil defects” on daily check sheets as the terrain in far more likely to result in driver reportable defects such as light fittings and tyres.
In terms of the Transport Manager’s “continuous and effective management of the transport operations”, William Simpson was realistic and apologetic regarding his failings. I heard that William Simpson works as a driver for Yodel “25-30 hours” per week, and I find that he has not devoted sufficient time, energy and commitment to his directorial and transport manager duties on this licence.
The VE states in the Addendum Report;
“From the evidence supplied, I don’t feel the Transport Manager is effectively carrying out their duties or Pro-Actively managing the operation. By not continually reviewing the company policies and procedures or carrying out recorded Quality reviews of driver and maintenance documentation and activities, the operation continues to be non-compliant.”
Determination
I concur with the VE’s view and find that William Simpson has lost his repute as a Transport Manager. On loss of repute as a TM, I recognise his candour in those failings, by limiting the inevitable disqualification from acting as a transport manager in the future, to a period of one year.
Regarding the operator’s repute, I note the VE’s summary;
“In Conclusion, whilst there have been some improvements to the management IT systems in use, the repeated nature of the prohibitions being issued, indicate that NO IMPROVEMENT’s have been made to the operation procedures to ensure the vehicles are fully compliant during their Day to Day running. This remains a concern.”
In seeking to balance the positives against the numerous adverse findings above, I take into account the “minimal improvements” cited by the VE. These include the rolling road brake tests and the maintenance planner.
These pale into insignificance against the continued failings referred to above including;
- Prohibitions in respect of matters previously identified as risk areas
- Ineffective driver defect walk round checks
- Incomplete preventative maintenance records
- Poor MOT pass rate
- Ineffective wheel and tyre management policy.
I note that despite the obvious failings in the drivers’ walk round checks leading to the high prohibition rate, the operator/transport manager has been unable to evidence any disciplinary action. Whether the fact that one of the drivers is his father may be a contributory factor but I have no confidence in any meaningful improvement being achieved in the future if the spectre of a looming public inquiry could not effect change.
I give the operator/TM credit for the openness of his final evidence/representations to me in acknowledging that things have “not been good enough” and that his transport management has been lacking. I particularly appreciate his recognition that the fundamental issue here is road safety and the risks posed to road users by unsafe 44 tonne vehicles.
The past, and recent, history of this operator’s licence and the failure to fully comply with clear assurances leaves me with no confidence that the operator can be trusted to run a compliant licence in the future. Applying the Priority Freight question, (T/2009/225) question; “how likely is it that this operator will, in future, operate in compliance with the operator’s licensing regime?” I determine the answer to be, “highly unlikely”.
With regard to the Bryan Haulage (no.2) (T/2002/217) question, “is the conduct such that the operator ought to be put out of business?” the answer is firmly “yes”. Repeated Immediate prohibitions in respect of tyres on 44 tonne vehicles result in an unacceptable risk to the safety of drivers and other road users, and revocation/cessation of business is appropriate and necessary.
I revoke the operator’s licence under section 27 of the Act on a finding of loss of good repute and on loss of the Transport Manager’s repute.
Revocation is further ordered under the discretionary grounds of section 26 of the Act having found prohibitions, breaches of the undertakings to keep vehicles fit and serviceable and to keep proper records.
I determine that the repeated failures justify a period of disqualification for the operator company/Director under section 28 of the Act. Again, I recognise the candour and attempts made by the operator/TM in keeping the period of disqualification to what I consider to be a minimum period of 12 months.
Anthony Seculer,
Deputy Traffic Commissioner,
27 January 2026