Decision for SRB Express Ltd (OF2037352)
Written decision of the Deputy Traffic Commissioner in the East of England for SRB Express Ltd and transport manager Alexander Beric
IN THE EASTERN TRAFFIC AREA
SRB EXPRESS LTD (OF2037352)
And
TRANSPORT MANAGER ALEXANDER BERIC
WRITTEN DECISION OF THE DEPUTY TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER
Decision
Standard International Goods Vehicle Operator’s Licence held by SRB Express Ltd to be revoked under sections 26(1)(b), 26(1)(c)(iii), 26(1)(e), 26(1)(f), 26(1)(h) and 27(1)(a) and (b) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 with effect from 02 July 2026.
Alexander Beric is disqualified under section 28 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 from holding or obtaining an Operator’s Licence, being a director or holding a controlling interest in any company which holds an Operator’s Licence in any traffic area in Great Britain for a period of 12 months from the date of revocation of licence OF2037352 .
Transport Manager Alexander Beric failed to exercise effective and continuous management and has therefore lost his good repute. He is disqualified from being named as a Transport Manager on any Operator’s Licence in any traffic area within Great Britain for a period of 12 months from the date of revocation of licence OF2037352.
Background
SRB Express Ltd were granted a Standard International Goods Vehicle Operators Licence on 22/10/2020 and have been authorised for 3 trailers and 3 vehicles since grant.
Mr. Alexander Beric is named as both the Sole Director and the Transport Manager (TM) on the licence. This licence has no previous compliance history.
Mr. Beric is also the nominated TM on M & M International Transport Ltd, OF0235417. Mr. Beric was nominated in 13/06/2017 and that licence is currently authorised for 1 vehicle and 2 trailers. M & M International Transport Ltd was called to a Public Inquiry on 09/04/2025 following an S-marked prohibition and an unsatisfactory Maintenance Investigation Visit Report (MIVR) which highlighted the following shortcomings: brake performance not being measured sufficiently, gaps in inspection frequency, DDRs appearing at PMI and missing mileage. Both the operator and the TM were given a strong formal warning as a result.
SRB Express Ltd submitted an application for OK2083380 on 18/09/2025, a Standard International Goods Vehicle Licence, requesting authorisation for 3 vehicles and 4 trailers at the following operating centre: Coombe Valley Transport Ltd, 16A Primrose Road, Dover, CT17 0JA.
On 21/11/2025, the request for an interim was refused and Mr. Beric was given 14 days to respond to outstanding points in respect of continuous and effective management. Mr. Beric failed to respond to queries from OTC and the application was therefore deemed incomplete. The application was refused on 22/12/2025.
On 08/12/2025, an MIVR was conducted by DVSA Vehicle Examiner Julian Parkes. Out of the 13 sections analysed, 2 were marked as report to OTC and 3 were marked as unsatisfactory:
-
Operating centre: Issues were raised as the one listed on VOL was not in use. The vehicles were parked in Dover and therefore the Examiner was unable determine whether the parking arrangements were satisfactory.
-
Inspection and maintenance records: the records did not have the maintenance provider name or the brake percentage, or handbrake figures entered. The brake test reports were not made available, and some records were not signed off as roadworthy by the maintenance provider.
- Inspection facilities and maintenance arrangements: The maintenance provider stated on VOL had not been updated by the operator. Instead, a contract was in place with a provider in Kent, and the Examiner was unable to establish whether the facilities were suitable. The operator has an initial failure rate of 53.85% against the national average of 11.76%.
-
Prohibition Assessment: The operator had received 2 immediate prohibitions for tyre damage and a lighting defect as well as 2 delayed prohibitions for spray suppression and tinted windows.
- Transport Manager/ Responsible Person Assessment: Although the required continuous and professional development had been conducted, the Examiner noted that ineffective control in respect of the operating centre and maintenance provider being used before variation was granted.
The operator provided assurances on 19/01/2026 which were deemed as acceptable by the Examiner. The operator acknowledged the shortcomings found in the MIVR and accepted responsibility for not updating VOL.
It was explained that the Leicester operating centre had not been in use due to a new contract in Dover which commenced in March 2025. At the time, Mr. Beric did not think it was practical for the vehicles to return to the Leicester operating centre whilst the contract was in its infancy. The vehicles were therefore parked at Coombe Valley Transport where formal parking arrangements and a maintenance agreement is in place. Mr Beric stated that once it became clear that there was a secure future with the customer, an application for the Dover operating centre was submitted.
Mr. Beric explained that he did not understand the gravity of operating from a different site and believed they could operate for 3 months without submitting an application.
It was also noted that providers named on the licence, Wagstaff Fleet Vehicles Ltd do not have a company stamp, and this issue had been raised. Although some brake tests were missing, records were still held confirming that the brake tests had been completed. Wagstaff Fleet Services LTD had also confirmed that they were willing to travel to Dover to complete the maintenance requirements, with the operating centre in Dover having a fully equipped workshop with a pit and onsite Roller brake testing.
The failings found in the vehicle maintenance were addressed and the operator confirmed that they were actively planning to upgrade the fleet. Although, the response did not state how the high MOT failure and prohibition rate would be reduced or provide assurances of strengthened systems regarding record-keeping.
Following the unsatisfactory MIVR, DVSA conducted a Traffic Examiner Visit Report (TEVR) on 20/01/2026 which highlighted further issues:
-
Drivers’ hours and record keeping: Print outs were not often produced; there was no evidence of a disciplinary process. The Examiner noted the tachograph data that was supplied, there were 10 apparent offences of insufficient daily rest, including 6 for the Transport Manager. Mr. Beric and his drivers seemed to have mis-interpreted the rules on rest when it involved ferry or train movement interruptions. One of the journeys involved a double manned journey, however it was not recorded as such and as a consequence neither driver had the required minimum rest.
-
Operating Centre: The Examiner noted that there had been no checks on the suitability of the operating centre being used or evidence of the maintenance provider.
Following the investigations by DVSA, a propose to revoke letter was issued to the operator on 25/02/2026. A response was received on 17/03/2026 acknowledging the receipt of concerns raised by DVSA and accepting responsibility for the compliance issues. The operator stated that he had conducted a ‘self-review’ of the operations and corrective measures had now been implemented. The operator also stated that at the time the issues occurred, the licence was authorised for 3 vehicles, full compliance would now be implemented going forward and Mr. Beric was willing to voluntarily reduce the authorisation down to 1 vehicle, being driven solely by himself allowing him to personally oversee all aspects of maintenance, record-keeping and driver compliance.
The operator did not fully address the issues regarding the operating centre but did refer to a voluntary ‘Transport Manager Coaching Session’ with a Transport Consultant conducted on 01/11/2025 which covered compliance and operational improvements. Two mechanics had been appointed to make sure repairs were correct and on schedule and PMI sheets would also begin to be audited and MOT failure investigated. Drivers had also been issued with a toolbox talk in relation to the misuse of ferry mode and were required to retain printouts showing the start and end of ferry movements.
In his response to the propose to refuse letter, Mr. Beric did not request a public inquiry. OTC later wrote to Mr. Beric to clarify if this was something that he wished to pursue, if the Traffic Commissioner did not accept the written representations. OTC later received correspondence stating that if the Traffic Commissioner was not prepared to accept the representations, the operator would request a Public Inquiry.
The Call to Public Inquiry
The call up letter dated 30/04/2026 was sent both to the Operator and Transport Manager (see paragraph 19).
The Operator’s call up letter specified 5 main areas which the Traffic Commissioner wished to be satisfied of in relation to the applicant as follows:
-
You have breached the conditions on your licence by failing to notify the change in operating centre and the change in mandatory requirements including the ability of the transport manager to meet Schedule 3 (section 26(1)(b) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995);
-
Your vehicles or drivers have been issued with prohibition notices by DVSA or the police in the past five years (section 26(1)(c)(iii) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995);
-
The following statements you made when applying for the licence were either false or have not been fulfilled (section 26(1)(e) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995):
- that your vehicles would be inspected at the 6-week intervals you promised they would be;
- that safety inspections and/or maintenance and repair work would be carried out by Wagstaff Fleet Services;
- SRB Express Ltd would abide by any conditions which may be imposed on the licence;
- that vehicles would normally be kept (when not in use) at the operating centre at Wells & Roots Yard, Thurmaston Footpath, Thurmaston Lane Leicester, LE4 9FU;
-
You have not honoured the undertakings you signed up to when you applied for your licence (section 26(1)(f) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995), namely:
- that your vehicles [and trailers] would be kept fit and serviceable;
- that you would observe the rules on driver’s hours and tachographs and keep proper records;
- that you would keep records for 15 months of driver defect reports, safety inspections and routine maintenance and make them available on request;
- drivers would report promptly any defects or symptoms of defects that could prevent the safe operation of vehicles and/or trailers, and that any defects would be promptly recorded in writing;
-
since the licence was issued, there has been a material change in the circumstances of its holder (section 26(1)(h) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995), namely the changes in operating centre and maintenance provider, the Traffic Commissioner should wish to be satisfied that you have sufficient financial standing to support the total number of vehicles authorized under licence.
In addition, the operator was informed the traffic commissioner is also concerned that their nominated transport manager, Alexander Beric, may not be exercising continuous and effective management of the company’s transport activities, as they must do and If they do not have a transport manager who is professionally competent and of good repute, their licence is at risk.
In the separate call up letter, the Transport Manager was advised that inquiry would be made to determine whether he continues to meet the requirements to be of good repute and professionally competent.
The Public Inquiry
The Public Inquiry was scheduled to be held in Tribunal 1 at the Office of the Traffic Commissioner, Eastbrook, Shaftsbury Road, Cambridge, CB2 8BF on 11/06/2026, starting at 10:00.
During the afternoon of 10/06/2026 I received a copy of letter sent by email to the OTC caseworker by Beverley Bell CBE, consultant, who had been instructed by the operator. Ms Bell informed OTC ‘The purpose of our letter is to notify you that our client company does not oppose the making of an order for revocation pursuant to the section 26 grounds referred to in the call-in letter dated the 30th of April…’ Some background and submissions were also included.
The letter also stated ‘Our client is currently driving one of the authorised vehicles on the continent and therefore will not be able to attend the public inquiry hearing tomorrow. No discourtesy to the Traffic Commissioner is intended.’
On the morning of 11/06/2026, as indicated by Ms Bell, the operator failed to attend the public inquiry. I determined that the Inquiry should proceed in the absence of the operator as they had voluntarily absented themselves having been given proper notice of the hearing, no application for an adjournment had been received and through their representative they had indicated consent to proceeding in their absence and, indeed the revocation of the operator’s licence.
For these reasons, no oral evidence was called, and I have decided this case ‘on the papers’ which included the 110-page electronic bundle together with the contents of the latter dated 10/06/2026 from Ms Bell.
The Evidence
It is not necessary for me to repeat the evidence in this decision as the operator accepted all the Section 26 grounds listed in the call up letter. For the sake of brevity however I summarise the areas of concern and shortcomings upon which I made findings as follows:
- The operating centre listed on the licence was not being used by the Operator.
- There were multiple omissions in the safety inspection records some of which were not signed off as roadworthy by the provider.
- Numerous records showed late safety inspections.
- Of eight safety inspections examined, none were fully compliant and all had brake test related issues or omissions.
- The operator had a very high MOT fail rate (53.85% initial fail and 38.46% final fail rate).
- There were multiple issues with insufficient daily driver rest due to drivers and Transport Manager not fully understanding how to use ‘ferry mode’. This resulted in multiple apparent offences.
- Tachograph print outs were not being produced.
- The operator had no evidence of warnings or a disciplinary procedure.
- The Transport Manager showed ineffective control of the transport operation.
- The operators’ vehicles or drivers had received 2 immediate and 2 delayed prohibitions in the past 5 years (38.46% mechanical prohibition rate and 25% offence prohibition rate).
The DVSA had been unable to provide a pre-PI report as the Operator/transport manager had failed to send any of the evidence required under the directions attached to the call up letter. This also contained a direction to submit financial evidence in order for me to assess financial standing and sufficient finances to maintain the vehicles.
Before making the findings of fact below, I satisfied myself that each was sufficiently evidenced within the bundle notwithstanding the operator’s acceptance.
Findings of fact
Taking account of the written evidence and the operator’s admissions, I found the following breaches were proved on the balance of probability:
-
The operator breached the conditions on your licence by failing to notify the change in operating centre and the change in mandatory requirements including the ability of the transport manager to meet Schedule 3 (section 26(1)(b) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995);
-
Vehicles or drivers have been issued with prohibition notices by DVSA or the police in the past five years (section 26(1)(c)(iii) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995);
-
The following statements you made when applying for the licence were not fulfilled (section 26(1)(e) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995):
- that your vehicles would be inspected at the 6-week intervals you promised they would be;
- that safety inspections and/or maintenance and repair work would be carried out by Wagstaff Fleet Services;
- SRB Express Ltd would abide by any conditions which may be imposed on the licence;
-
that vehicles would normally be kept (when not in use) at the operating centre at Wells & Roots Yard, Thurmaston Footpath, Thurmaston Lane Leicester, LE4 9FU;
-
The operator had not honoured the undertakings you signed up to when you applied for your licence (section 26(1)(f) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995), namely:
- that vehicles [and trailers] would be kept fit and serviceable;
- that you would observe the rules on driver’s hours and tachographs and keep proper records;
- that the operator would keep records for 15 months of driver defect reports, safety inspections and routine maintenance and make them available on request;
-
drivers would report promptly any defects or symptoms of defects that could prevent the safe operation of vehicles and/or trailers, and that any defects would be promptly recorded in writing;
-
since the licence was issued, there has been a material change in the circumstances of its holder (section 26(1)(h) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995), namely the changes in operating centre and maintenance provider, the Traffic Commissioner should wish to be satisfied that you have sufficient financial standing to support the total number of vehicles authorized under licence.
-
The licence holder no longer satisfies one or more of the requirements of section 13A, specifically the no longer have appropriate financial standing (section 27(1)(a) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995.
- In terms of the Transport Manager, I find that he did not have continuous and effective management of the operation which was clearly evidenced in the Maintenance Investigation Visit Report and the lack of responses to that therefore the transport manager designated on the licence no longer satisfies one or more of the requirements set out in paragraph 14A(1)(b), (c) and (d) (section 27(1)(b) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995).
Decision & Reasons
Having made the finding in relation to the transport manager, I moved on to my decision on the operator’s licence. The Standard International Goods Vehicle Licence OF2037352 in the name of SRB Express Ltd is revoked under the following sections of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995:
- Section 26(1)(b) – Breaches of licence conditions
- Section 26(1)(c)(iii) – Vehicles or drivers issued with prohibitions
- Section 26(1)(e) – Statements made when applying were either false or not fulfilled.
- Section 26(1)(f) – Undertakings not honoured
- Section 26(1)(h) – Material changes
- Section 27(1)(a) – licence holder no longer satisfying the requirements (mandatory).
- Section 27(1)(b) – Designated transport manager no longer satisfying the requirements (mandatory).
I considered the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document 10 and found there to be several factors which increased the seriousness of this case which included:
- The decision of the operator to use a non-authorised operating centre was a deliberate act affording unfair commercial advantage.
- A substantial number of prohibitions.
- Ineffective management control.
- Ineffective or insufficient driver training with insufficient or ineffective monitoring and disciplinary procedures in place.
- No evidence of effective changes made to ensure future compliance.
- Operator’s failure to comply with directions from the OTC.
- Insufficient procedures in place to ensure appropriate use of tachograph or manual records (including Digi cards) by drivers.
- Low average MOT pass rates.
I found none of the suggested positive features listed in Statutory Document 10 applied.
I next considered the seriousness of the case and concluded that in light of the number of negative features and the deliberate conduct in using the unauthorised operating centre this was a severe case.
In terms of the transport manager, I found there to be multiple failings in his duties relating to driver administration, driver management, vehicle administration and vehicle management. In short, I was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the transport management did not have continuous and effective management of the transport operation.
I also reminded myself that the transport manager was given a strong formal warning on 09/04/2025 (the Public Inquiry into M&M International Transport Ltd (OF0235417)). For these reasons I find the transport manager to have lost his repute and accordingly I must disqualify him from acting in that capacity for a minimum period of 12 months. I find no reason to impose a disqualification in excess of 12 months in this case, however owing to not having heard evidence from the transport manager and his failures in responding to DVSA or the OTC directions, I direct that any future application for Mr Beric to be named on a licence as transport manager must be referred to a Traffic Commissioner and not dealt with administratively. The purpose of this direction is to ensure proper scrutiny can be given to any future application.
The final two of my findings that the TM no longer met the requirements of Schedule 3 and the operator had failed to satisfy me of their financial standing, meant that revocation of the licence was mandatory.
I next considered the issue of disqualification of Mr Beric under Schedule 3 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995. Before doing so I considered the submissions made on the operator’s behalf by Ms Bell. On the issue of disqualification, the representations state ‘He understands that the order for revocation will be made but he asks that in view of his acceptance of the failings that an order for disqualification is not made’. Whilst I took account of the acceptance, I also noted this had been communicated to me late afternoon on the day before the public inquiry therefore I placed very little weight on this.
As the revocation had been mandatory for the reasons in paragraph 35 above, I had not found it necessary to consider the question of whether the operator could be trusted to run a compliant operation in the future (The ‘Priority Freight’ question [2009/225 Priority Freight Ltd & Paul Williams]) however I did consider this when deciding upon disqualification. I concluded in light of the deliberate use of the unauthorised operating centre, the multiple shortcomings, the lack of evidence of improvements and the failure to comply with directions that this was not an operator I could trust to run a compliant operation in the future.
Moving on to ask myself the ‘Bryan Haulage’ question [2002/217 Bryan Haulage (No.2)] – Is the conduct such that the operator ought to be put out of business, I concluded that it was. The shortcomings were serious; there were issues of non-compliance which had afforded the operator an unfair commercial advantage and had the potential to risk public safety and there was no evidence of satisfactory improvements. In short, I had no evidence that any future operation by this operator would be run in a compliant manner. For these reasons I concluded that Mr Beric was not fit to hold an operator’s licence therefore he should be disqualified from doing so.
My final consideration was whether I should delay the revocation of this licence. I noted in Ms Bell’s submissions, the operator had requested the revocation to not take effect ‘until 23.59 on the 9th of July 2026 to enable an orderly wind down of the business to take place.’ It was also submitted that ‘The director is also a nominated Transport Manager on the licence held by M & M International Transport Limited OF0235417 and this is the other reason the request for 28 days is made so that that operator can find an alternative transport manager.’
I note that in Mr Beric’s initial response to the propose to revoke notification dated 17 March 2026, he stated ‘At the time the issues occurred, the licence authorised three vehicles. Managing compliance across multiple vehicles placed significant pressure on the operation. To ensure full compliance moving forward, I am willing to voluntarily reduce the licence authorisation to a single vehicle.’ Whilst no such reduction was made and at the time of the PI, 2 vehicles were specified on the licence, it was clearly in Mr Beric’s contemplation to reduce the operation and effectively become an ‘owner/operator of a single vehicle. I do not consider and operation of such a limited scale will require a month for what was described as an orderly wind down.
In determining the appropriate period of disqualification, I reminded myself that the operator and transport manager were both Mr Beric, I had disqualified Mr Beric from acting as transport manager for 12 months and the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s guidance in Statutory Document 10 indicates a period of 12 months to 3 years for an operator being disqualified at their first public inquiry. Whilst Mr Beric had appeared in a previous public Inquiry this was in his capacity as transport manager therefore, I treated this as the operator’s first public inquiry. Taking account of this I decided the disqualification should be for a period of 12 months.
Taking account of the likely scale of this operation and the ongoing risks inherent in allowing the operation to continue I have concluded that a proportionate period to allow is 2 weeks therefore the revocation shall take effect from 02 July 2026. It follows that the orders in relation to the Transport Manager and the Disqualification of Mr Beric shall take effect from 02 July 2026 in order to avoid any unavoidable offences being committed.
Rakesh Sharma
Deputy Traffic Commissioner
14/06/2026