Decision for St Martins Preparatory School Limited (PB0001701)
Written decision of the Deputy Traffic Commissioner in the North East of England for St Martins Preparatory School Limited
IN THE NORTH EAST OF ENGLAND TRAFFIC AREA
ST MARTINS PREPARATORY SCHOOL LIMITED - PB0001701
WRITTEN DECISION OF THE DEPUTY TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER
In the matter of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981
Public Inquiry held at Leeds on 10 September 2026
DECISION
On findings in accordance with Sections 17(3)(a), 17(3)(aa) and 17(3)(e) of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981, the restricted public service vehicle operator’s licence of St Martins Preparatory School Limited PB0001701 is limited to the operation of 1 vehicle with effect from 23:45 hours on Monday 14 September 2026.
On findings in accordance with Sections 17(3)(a), 17(3)(aa) and 17(3)(e) of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981, the restricted public service vehicle operator’s licence of St Martins Preparatory School Limited PB0001701 is suspended in its entirety for 14 days with effect from 23:45 hours on Friday 25 September 2026 until 23:45 hours on Friday 9 October 2026.
The following undertakings offered by St Martins Preparatory School Limited shall be recorded on the licence PB0001701:
-
St Martins Preparatory School Limited will identify an independent body to carry out an audit of transport safety and compliance systems in March 2027. 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 detailed in the guidance on Operator Compliance Audits available at: www.gov.uk/government/publications/operator-compliance-audits
-
A copy of the report together with the operator’s detailed proposals for implementing the report’s recommendations is to be uploaded to the licence record via the Vehicle Operator Licensing self-service account, or, if the operator does not have a self-service account, emailed to notifications@vehicle-operator-licensing.service.gov.uk by 30 April 2027
-
The operator will confirm the name of the person it has appointed as the responsible person for the licence via the Vehicle Operator Licensing self-service account, or, if the operator does not have a self-service account, emailed to notifications@vehicle-operator-licensing.service.gov.uk by 8 October 2026
Introduction
St Martins Preparatory School Limited (“the operator”) holds a restricted public service vehicle operator’s licence PB0001701 authorising the use of 2 vehicles issued in 2019.
The operator’s directors are currently Ali Khan and Robin John Stattersfield.
The operator has not previously been called to a public inquiry but did come to the attention of the traffic commissioner in 2024 because of a concern it had failed to cooperate with a DVSA investigation. That issue was concluded at the time with the operator agreeing to arrange an independent audit in 2025.
The audit report in September 2025 raised concerns about the operator’s compliance and the traffic commissioner requested the DVSA undertake further investigations. The DVSA reports raised further concerns such that the calling of this public inquiry was considered necessary. Full details of the basis for referral to the public inquiry and the written evidence received before the hearing appear in the brief.
The operator is part of a group of companies involved in private education. Other companies with common directors have also held or applied for operator licences. Two such licences have been revoked following failures to respond to “propose to revoke” procedures (Moor Allerton Preparatory School Ltd PC2018958 in September 2024 and Haddon Dene School Limited PK2018967 in April 2026). I also saw evidence of seven other licence applications made by companies with common directors over the last 5 years that were refused following failures to provide supporting evidence and cooperate with the application process.
There are five other current operator licences held by companies that appear to be in common ownership and/or directorship with a total authority of 18 vehicles:
- The Chadderton Preparatory Grammar School Ltd PC2054803
- Lady Lane Park School Ltd PB2018975
- Clevelands Prep School Ltd PC2018953
- Sackville School Ltd PK2002758
- A S Northern Ltd PC1137802
The Call to Public Inquiry
The Operator was called up to public inquiry by letter dated 30 July 2026. This gave notice that the issues of concern to be considered related to 17(3)(a), 17(3)(aa) 17(3)(d) and 17(3)(e) of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 (“The 1981 Act”) as well as the provisions for good repute and financial standing in Section 14ZA(2). Additionally, notice was given that the disqualification provisions of Section 28 of the Transport Act 1985 would be considered if necessary.
The Public Inquiry
The Public Inquiry was heard at York House, Leeds today. The operator was represented by director Mr Khan. The attendance of his fellow director Mr Stattersfield was excused after he produced evidence of a personal appointment. Also present was Paul Buss, described as the operator’s former transport manager.
Determination
Based on the evidence of the DVSA examiners and the Operator’s frank acceptance of the shortcomings identified in those reports I formally record the following findings of fact:
- The operator has not fulfilled the statements made when applying for the licence, namely that its vehicles would be inspected at 10-week intervals. This satisfies the grounds for regulatory action in Section 17(3)(a) of the Act.
- The operator has not fulfilled the undertaking that vehicles would be kept fit and serviceable or the undertaking to keep proper maintenance records. It has not fulfilled the undertaking to observe drivers’ hours rules, and this satisfies the grounds for regulatory action in Section 17(3)(aa) of the Act.
- The use of vehicles without discs displayed as required and subject to incorrect MoT classification amounts to a material change in the circumstances of the operator that satisfies the grounds for regulatory action in Section 17(3)(e) of the Act.
Having reached the findings of fact recorded above, I have undertaken a balancing exercise in accordance with the guidance contained within the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document 10.
I find the following negative features are present:
- The lack of effective management of vehicle maintenance amounted to a reckless act by the operator that led to an undue risk to road safety.
- There was wholly ineffective management control and insufficient systems and procedures in place to prevent operator licence compliance failings.
- This included ineffective analysis procedures in place to detect drivers’ hours and/or Working Time Directive infringements.
- There was ineffective and insufficient driver training with insufficient monitoring and disciplinary procedures in place.
- Insufficient changes have been made to ensure future compliance
- Insufficient procedures in place to ensure appropriate use of tachograph records by drivers.
- The MoT failure in March 2025 involving the vehicle with a tyre cut to its cord is evidence of a road safety critical defect on a vehicle in service.
- There is a low average first time pass rate at MoT.
- Although this is the first public inquiry for this operator licence, the shortcomings in the licence were identified in the traffic examiner’s report in 2024, the audit in September 2025 and the further DVSA investigation in March 2026. The operator has failed to respond with sufficient pace and effectiveness to the issues identified at each of those stages.
I identify the following positive features:
- The operator acted swiftly to take vehicles out of service after the March 2026 DVSA visits whilst it reviewed its procedures.
- There is some evidence that appropriate systems and procedures are now in place to prevent operator licence failings, albeit these remain largely untested because of the decision to suspend operations.
- Directors, other managers and a driver have received training.
- The operator on this occasion co-operated with enforcement investigation.
- No prohibitions have been issued to the operator.
The negative features far outweigh the positive features. There was an almost complete lack of effective management control of the operator’s licence. I am satisfied that the directors abdicated their responsibility for compliance to the school head and other local staff who were unqualified and ill-equipped for the task. The MoT failure in March 2025 is one illustration of the absence of effective control. The operator was unable to provide me with an explanation of how the minibus came to be presented for MoT with a tyre cut to the cord. It is clear that the issue was not investigated at the time, and no one has been held to account for the failure. Such a defect raises considerable concern about road safety especially in a vehicle being used to carry schoolchildren.
Much of the operator’s submission to the public inquiry sought to draw attention to its responsible decision to take its vehicles out of operation pending the public inquiry. I do give it credit for that decision but only to a limited extent. I consider the effect of that decision has been to avoid the risk of further compliance issues rather than address the causes. Some work has been done to revise systems and procedures but without a vehicle in operation, they cannot be said to have been tested and shown to be effective.
It is also clear from the evidence I heard today that Mr Khan and the operator continue to lack a full understanding of the expectations of a compliant licence holder. There has been some attempt to address this by attendance at OLAT courses and speaking to transport consultants, but this does not appear to have progressed matters. For example, Mr Khan was unable to give me a conclusive answer as to the identity of the operator’s current maintenance inspection provider and he asked for guidance on whether driver’s hours rules applied to the operation.
I also struggled to gain an understanding of exactly who would be the person responsible for the operator’s compliance going forward. It appears that day to day management of the licence will be left to the newly appointed head teacher and a school administrator with some oversight from a compliance manager and the directors. I was told the head and administrator had been trained on matters such as tacho analysis, but I remain concerned that they have no formal transport training or experience and are expected to fulfil the role alongside their main school duties. This does not appear to represent a significant change from the previous arrangements that led to the public inquiry being called. Mr Khan also suggested that he was considering appointing an external transport manager but that did not appear to be a well-developed proposal. I accept the operator’s undertaking to formally identify a “responsible person” for the licence in the coming days but do find it troubling that was not an issue resolved before the public inquiry.
I consider that the position here can be characterised as involving what Statutory Document 10 describes as “persistent operator licence failures with inadequate response” and the starting point for regulatory action is in the “serious” category.
I have gone on to consider the question set out by the Upper Tribunal in Priority Freight 2009/225 whether the operator can be trusted to be compliant in future. I have considerable doubts about that question. I am not reassured that effective changes have been made and the issues resolved. For example, despite the issues with recording of vehicle status being explicitly flagged up in March 2025, there were changes in vehicles made in July 2026 that were not notified on VOL until 9 September 2026 (the eve of the public inquiry).
I have balanced this with the positive features identified above and have given some weight to the operator’s argument that its effectively self-imposed suspension has deprived it of the opportunity to demonstrate its revised systems will deliver compliance.
By the thinnest of margins, I am persuaded that I can find cause to trust the operator to be compliant in future and draw back from revocation.
Nevertheless, I consider that significant regulatory action of another form is required to underline the expectation of future compliance. I have considered the guidance offered in Thomas Muir (Haulage) Limited (1999) SC 86 that regulatory action has a purpose in “deterring the operator or other persons from failing to carry out their responsibilities under the legislation. However, taking such considerations into account would not be for the purpose of punishment per se, but in order to assist in the achievement of the purpose of the legislation”.
I consider that the proportionate initial form of regulatory action should be a complete suspension of the licence for a period of 14 days. My findings are sufficiently serious to justify a much longer suspension, but I will reduce the period to reflect the fact the operator has already suspended its operations of its own initiative.
In addition to the regulatory purpose of the suspension, it is also intended to serve a practical purpose by allowing further time for the operator to prepare its systems, staff and vehicle so that when its operations do resume, it is in a fully safe and compliant manner.
The operator sought to assure me that it would not put a second vehicle into operation until it was satisfied that it was fully compliant. The extent of my concern about this operator’s approach is such that I consider that formal action is required to ensure that pre-condition is met. For that reason, I direct that the licence is limited to authorising one vehicle until further order. If the audit that the operator has undertaken to prepare in March 2027 is satisfactory and no other adverse matters have come to the traffic commissioner’s attention in the intervening period, it may ask at that point for the limitation to be removed.
The operator is warned in explicit terms that it must finally resolve all outstanding issues in relation to its compliance and must ensure it remains compliant thereafter. If it fails to grasp the final chance I have given it in this decision and is called to a further public inquiry, it can expect significant action to be taken on this licence, and which may potentially affect the other licences within the group. I would strongly recommend that the operator engages a specialist external body to assist with its compliance such as a transport consultancy or law firm with expertise in transport compliance.
Gerallt Evans
Deputy Traffic Commissioner
10 September 2026