Decision for SJ Europe Limited (OK2074550) and Harwinder Singh Atwal (transport manager)
Written decision of the Traffic Commissioner in the South Eastern and Metropolitan area for SJ Europe Limited and transport manager Harwinder Singh Atwal
IN THE SOUTH EASTERN & METROPOLITAN TRAFFIC AREA.
SJ EUROPE LIMITED (OK2074550)
AND
HARWINDER SINGH ATWAL (TRANSPORT MANAGER)
GOODS VEHICLES (LICENSING OF OPERATORS) ACT 1995
GOODS VEHICLES (LICENSING OF OPERATORS) REGULATIONS 1995
TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER DECISION
The application to surrender Licence OK2074550 is refused.
Pursuant to adverse findings under Section 26(1)(b), (e), (f), and (h) and section 27(1)(a) and (b) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995, the Operator no longer meets the mandatory requirements of section 13A(2) and (3) of the 1995 Act – good repute, financial standing and professional competence. Accordingly, Licence OK2074550 SJ Europe Limited, is revoked with effect from 23:45 on 12 January 2026. No direction is made under section 28 of the 1995 Act but any future applications involving this company or Mr Atwal must be referred to a TC/DTC – no delegated authority.
Upon a finding that Harwinder Singh Atwal no longer satisfies the requirements of Section 13A(3) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 to be of good repute, in accordance with Schedule 3 of the said Act, and a finding that he is unfit to manage the transport activities of an undertaking, Harwinder Singh Atwal is disqualified from acting as a Transport Manager, on any Operator Licence in Great Britain for an indeterminate period from 23:45hrs on 12 January 2026. It is not appropriate to set rehabilitation measures at this time as previous refresher training appears ineffective, but Harwinder Singh Atwal has liberty to apply for further details in the future.
Reasons
Approach
There is clear and consistent case law from the Upper Tribunal that a Traffic Commissioner is entitled to treat the conduct of a sole director effectively as the conduct of the Limited Company and good repute or fitness is determined accordingly. Such an approach has received approval from the appellate tribunal on several occasions, such as 2013/008 Vision Travel International Limited and T2013/61 Alan Michael Knight. As well as the operator licensing obligations, a company director must exercise his or her statutory duties of demonstrating independent judgement, reasonable skill, care and diligence, as per sections 173 and 174 Companies Act 2006.
Before preparing this decision, I have re-read the full electronic bundle. I have not set out all the evidence as it is a matter of record in the papers and by way of transcript. I have referred to material evidence relevant to my findings.
Operators and Transport Managers have deemed knowledge of the advice and guidance in the public domain, as per the Upper Tribunal in 2012/030 MGM Haulage & Recycling Limited.
Consideration, findings and conclusions.
The Standard International Operator Licence was granted on 14 August 2024 authorising 10 HGV 1 LGV and 10 trailers. Mr Harwinder Singh Atwal (d.o.b 1984) is the sole director and transport manager. Noting some prior adverse history for Mr Atwal, the licence was granted with the following undertakings:
“By 29/08/2024, Harwinder Singh Atwal will attend a two day transport manager CPC refresher course, run by a trade association (Logistics UK/RHA/BAR/CPT), a professional body (loTA/CILT/SOE/IRTE) or an exam centre approved by an accredited body to offer the transport manager CPC qualification in goods transport, A copy of the certificate of attendance will be sent to the Office of the Traffic Commissioner (Licensing) within seven days of the course taking place.’
The operator will arrange an independent audit to be carried out by the RHA, logistics UK or other suitable independent body 4 months after grant. The audit will assess the systems for complying with maintenance and drivers hours requirements, and the effectiveness with which those systems are implemented the audit should cover at least the applicable elements in the attached annex. A copy of the audit report, together with the operator’s detailed proposals for implementing the report’s recommendations, must be sent to the office of the traffic commissioner (licensing) / office of the traffic commissioner at location within 14 days of the date the operator receives it from the auditor.’”
Mr Atwal completed the refresher training on 28 & 29 August 2024. I agreed to vary the audit undertaking as it only started operating with one HGV in early October 2024. The deadline was amended to 28 February 2025 with a further 14 days to submit the audit and any plan to my office. When received, the audit indicated several areas of concern and concluded that the operator and transport manager demonstrated only a basic understanding of regulatory requirements. The auditor included: ‘These shortcomings pose significant risks to both the operator’s licence and public safety. Without swift corrective actions and a renewed commitment to compliance, the operator faces increased scrutiny and potential enforcement actions, which could adversely impact their reputation and business viability.” The auditor also stated: “There are some serious concerns with this audit, most notable is that the operator has been using the wrong form for daily walk around checks since October 2024. Third party trailer usage, tyre and wheel security procedures are not evident at all, the employee contract could not be evidenced and no sub-contractor agreements appear to be in place when the operator states most of the work is sub-contracted out. Add to that a high number of audit failings, corrective action needs to be implemented swiftly. With the wrong daily walk around form being used, the driver is declaring a number of checks that would be impossible to complete on a daily walk around for a driver, indicating he is not reading what he is signing. There appears to be a lack of oversight of many compliance functions and this has led to the failings in this audit.”
The Operator failed to submit to the Office of the Traffic Commissioner the improvement proposals. At my direction a propose to revoke letter was issued with any reply needing to include those proposals. By inference of his response, Mr Atwal requested a hearing. A Preliminary Hearing took place before me on 25 June 2025. After hearing from Mr Atwal and a transport consultant I determined a Public Inquiry was necessary for the Operator and Mr Atwal as transport manager. A written confirmation of that decision and my reasons were issued the following day.
Formal call up letters were issued to the Operator and Transport Manager on 07 July 2025 with a hearing date of 18 August 2025. Correspondence was received from the transport consultant who was the subject of my disquiet set out during the Preliminary hearing regarding his own involvement prior to 25 June 2025. However, Mr Atwal failed to comply with the case management directions (deadline 29 July 2025), despite chasing calls and messaging from my office. On 09 August 2025 Mr Atwal accessed VOL and removed the specified vehicle and himself as Transport Manager. The Office of the Traffic Commissioner messaging included a reminder that he must still attend the Inquiry. On 13 August 2025 Mr Atwal sent emails saying he no longer required a Licence and he wanted to surrender the Licence. This was added as a matter to be determined on the papers as Mr Atwal was adamant that he would not attend. The hearing was at that point vacated. The actual surrender request was not made on VOL until the day the hearing was originally listed.
Formal call up letters were issued to the Operator and Transport Manager on 07 July 2025 with a hearing date of 18 August 2025. Correspondence was received from the transport consultant who was the subject of my disquiet set out during the Preliminary hearing regarding his own involvement prior to 25 June 2025. However, Mr Atwal failed to comply with the case management directions (deadline 29 July 2025), despite chasing calls and messaging from my office. On 09 August 2025 Mr Atwal accessed VOL and removed the specified vehicle and himself as Transport Manager. The Office of the Traffic Commissioner messaging included a reminder that he must still attend the Inquiry. On 13 August 2025 Mr Atwal sent emails saying he no longer required a Licence and he wanted to surrender the Licence. This was added as a matter to be determined on the papers as Mr Atwal was adamant that he would not attend. The hearing was at that point vacated. The actual surrender request was not made on VOL until the day the hearing was originally listed.
A Traffic Commissioner has the right to refuse to accept the surrender of an operator’s licence where the application to surrender is made at a time when the Traffic Commissioner was “considering taking action” under the relevant legislation, as per the Upper Tribunal in “T/2015/10 Cornwall Busways Ltd” (paras 6 & 7). In my judgement this is an appropriate case to not automatically accept the surrender because (i) at the point of the surrender application Mr Atwal had already provided little co-operation and assurance up to the conclusion of the Preliminary Hearing; and (ii) Mr Atwal failed to comply with the case management directions in the call up letter dated 07 July 2025. On balance, the surrender appeared more likely than not an attempt to circumvent the regulatory regime. It is therefore not in the interest of the public or safety to accept that surrender without considering the merits of the information and evidence available to me.
In terms of the legal tests helpfully set out in “Priority Freight, Bryan Haulage and Arnold Transport”, there are few positives for Mr Atwal as the sole director of the Operator and as a transport manager/former transport manager beyond his attendance on 25 June 2025. There are several serious negatives:
- The Licence was granted only upon receipt of suitable undertakings, accepted to provide assurance considering Mr Atwal’s prior history. What follows breached the trust Mr Atwal insisted existed at that time.
- The basic, significant and extensive failings identified in the independent audit undertaken in February 2025.
- Mr Atwal’s failure to submit the improvement plan required as part of the audit undertaking. It was only submitted after receiving the letter proposing to revoke the Licence.
- My decision dated 25 June 2025.
- The failure to comply with any of the Public Inquiry case management directions, preventing a current assessment of compliance with the Licence conditions and undertakings.
- The failure to produce financial evidence prevented an assessment of whether the ongoing mandatory requirement of financial standing is met.
- All the failings may materially impact road safety and/or fair competition.
The duty to co-operate with each Traffic Commissioner and enforcement authorities is long standing. The Upper Tribunal was unequivocal on the principle in “T/2010/064 JWF (UK) Ltd” “This operator had ample opportunity to engage in a professional and co-operative way with VOSA and with the Traffic Commissioner. If operators fail to do so, they cannot complain when such repeated and obvious avoidance of engagement results in the loss of a licence. In this case, serious questions relating to maintenance and road safety remained unanswered, quite apart from the other matters that seriously undermined the ability of VOSA, and the Traffic Commissioner, to investigate and regulate the activities of this operator, effectively.” It is an aggravating feature where the failure includes the terms of a specific undertaking offered to obtain a Licence namely, (i) poor compliance despite refresher training; and (ii) failure to submit an improvement plan with the audit.
As the sole director Mr Atwal was meant to exercise quality monitoring and oversight of the transport operations. As the transport manager Mr Atwal was meant to exercise continuous and effective management of the transport operations. Where the same individual holds both roles then even more care must be taken. The evidence before me, including the lack thereof, is overwhelming that Mr Atwal failed to fulfil either role. That is because I am satisfied that if positive evidence existed there would be no good reason to do otherwise than produce it for 25 June 2025 and/or 18 August 2025.
There are some cases where it is only necessary to set out the conduct in question to make it apparent that good repute is lost, and a Licence should be revoked, as per the Upper Tribunal in “2012/034 Martin Joseph Formby t/a G&G Transport, 2012/020 A+ Logistics Ltd”. It is of utmost seriousness when an Operator fails to produce all records and information preventing a full compliance assessment of the vehicle operation and whether financial standing principles are met. This is the case even where a Licence is recently granted, as here. Operator Licencing is based on trust. When a Traffic Commissioner finds reason to test that trust, then timely and diligent disclosure is mandatory. The chronology and findings above demonstrate that this Operator has failed to a significant degree. I no longer trust Mr Atwal and his approach since October 2024 is an affront to the legitimate, hardworking commercial vehicle industries. Accordingly, I have reached the decisions set out in paragraphs 1 and 2 above.
Save for financial standing, all the above failings apply equally to Mr Atwal as a transport manager. He was separately called with corresponding case management directions. It is not possible to distinguish between loss of good repute of the Operator where he is sole director and his good repute as a Transport Manager. The independent audit findings and concerns identified on 25 June 2025 are disappointing where a 2-day transport manager refresher course was undertaken in August 2024. In the absence of any further evidence, I am left to conclude that Mr Atwal is not ‘competent’ in the common sense meaning of the terms. Accordingly, I have reached the decision set out in paragraph 3.
TC DECISION
The application to surrender the Licence is refused.
Pursuant to adverse findings under Section 26(1)(b), (e), (f), and (h) and section 27(1)(a) and (b) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995, the Operator no longer meets the mandatory requirements of section 13A(2) and (3) of the 1995 Act – good repute, financial standing and professional competence. Accordingly, Licence OK2074550 SJ Europe Limited, is revoked with effect from 23:45 on 12 January 2026. No direction is made under section 28 of the 1995 Act but any future applications involving this company or Mr Atwal must be referred to a TC/DTC – no delegated authority.
Upon a finding that Harwinder Singh Atwal no longer satisfies the requirements of Section 13A(3) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 to be of good repute, in accordance with Schedule 3 of the said Act, and a finding that he is unfit to manage the transport activities of an undertaking, Harwinder Singh Atwal is disqualified from acting as a Transport Manager, on any Operator Licence in Great Britain for an indeterminate period from 23:45hrs on 12 January 2026. It is not appropriate to set rehabilitation measures at this time as previous refresher training appears ineffective, but Harwinder Singh Atwal has liberty to apply for further details in the future.
MISS SARAH BELL
TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER FOR GREAT BRITAIN
Issued: 05 January 2026