Decision for Stuart Thompson (OC2087976)
Written decision of the Traffic Commissioner for the North West of England for Stuart Thompson and transport manager Virginia Thompson
IN THE NORTH WEST TRAFFIC AREA
STUART THOMPSON – APPLICATION OC2087976
AND
Ms. VIRGINIA THOMPSON – TRANSPORT MANAGER
WRITTEN DECISION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER
PUBLIC INQUIRY HELD IN GOLBORNE ON 25 AUGUST 2026
DECISION:
This application for a Standard National Goods Vehicle Operator’s Licence is refused under provision of section 13(5) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (“the 1995 Act”), as the applicant has failed to satisfy the requirements of sections 13A and 13C of the 1995 Act.
Under the provision of paragraphs 16(1) and 16(2) of Schedule 3 of the 1995 Act I find that Ms. Virginia Thompson is no longer of good repute and she is disqualified from acting as a transport manager for an indefinite period.
This is an application for a Standard National Goods Vehicle Operator’s licence by Mr. Stuart Thompson seeking authorisation for 1 vehicle and 1 trailer. As with all applications, the burden lies with the applicant to satisfy the Traffic Commissioner that it meets all relevant statutory requirements in order to obtain a licence.
Additionally, the calling-in papers have called Transport Manager Virginia Thompson to consider whether she continues to be of good repute. On this matter the burden lies with the Traffic Commissioner to make an adverse finding.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Thompson is a sole trader who has previously held two operator licences.
-
Licence OC1124316 was granted on 02 September 2014, authorising one vehicle and one trailer. The transport manager was Ms. Virginia Thompson. This licence was revoked following a public inquiry dated 19 June 2017. In his decision the Deputy Traffic Commissioner concluded that Mr. Thompson no longer satisfied the requirements to be of good repute or of the required financial standing. Ms. Thompson’s good repute as transport manager was marked as “severely tarnished but, by the narrowest of margins, not lost”.
-
Following a new application, licence OC2029622 was granted on 25 November 2020. As before, the authorisation was for one vehicle and one trailer with Ms Thompson the nominated transport manager. On 07 November 2025 the licence terminated as the continuation fee was not paid.
The current application (OC2087976) was submitted on 17 December 2025. Again, authorisation is sought for one vehicle and one trailer, and the nominated transport manager is Ms. Thompson.
When asked how transport needs have been met since the previous licence was discontinued Mr. Thompson did not answer the question stating only, by way of a response dated 20 January 2026, “My licence number OC1124316 expired on 31 October 2025. I allowed this licence to expire as I was undecided as to whether or not to continue in transport. Due to my tractor unit and trailer both being on finance I was unable to sell the vehicles for enough funds to settle the finance agreements. The work I had is still available to me, so I have decided to continue in the transport industry and need to get back to work as soon as possible”.
This statement indicates that the discontinuation of the licence was purposeful, and that Mr. Thompson understood both the consequences of that, and the need to obtain a new licence.
It is also relevant that, on 09 July 2025 when the previous licence was valid, the DVSA encountered a vehicle driven by Mr. Thompson. This identified that Mr. Thompson was driving without a valid Driver CPC card and instances of drivers’ hours infringements.
As part of the application process the OTC licensing team sought to obtain further information regarding the DVSA encounter. Additionally, evidence was requested for financial standing and to demonstrate how Ms. Thompson would ensure effective and continuous management of transport activities. With insufficient clarification received the application was thereafter proposed for refusal, and the applicant has requested a public inquiry.
Accordingly, this public inquiry was convened at the applicant’s request to determine whether the applicant meets the statutory requirements to be of good repute, to have the required financial standing, and to have a transport manager who meets the requirements set out in legislation. Further, due to the issues raised at the DVSA encounter, the applicant is also required to satisfy that there are satisfactory arrangements and facilities to comply with the undertakings and conditions of the licence.
Separately, Ms. Thompson is called in her capacity as transport manager to consider whether she meets the requirement to be of good repute.
PRE-PUBLIC INQUIRY
Letters calling the applicant and transport manager to the inquiry were issued on 13 July 2026, by both post and email, to the given addresses. Those letters set out the date, time and location of the hearing and included case management directions to be complied with ahead of the inquiry.
The case management directions required that the applicant provide this office, not later than 14 days before the inquiry, the following evidence:
- Details of individuals attending the public inquiry
- Evidence of current financial resources
- Any representations or witness statements in support of the application;
- Details of proposed vehicle maintenance systems, including sample safety inspection records, proposed daily defect reporting systems, the maintenance contract, and a draft forward planner.
- Details of how the applicant will comply with the laws regarding drivers’ hours including evidence of proposed systems for driver licence checks, continuous professional development and recruitment and disciplinary processes for drivers and managers;
None of the case management directions have been complied with.
A review of the Case Centre “Record of User Access” shows that Mr. Thompson and Ms. Thompson were each invited to access the papers on 13 July 2026. Mr. Thompson has not accessed the papers, but Ms. Thompson did first access the papers on 10 August 2026 at 09:11am.
My bundle of papers also evidence that the two call-up letters posted to Mr. Thompson and Ms. Thompson were each delivered and signed for on 16 July 2026.
PUBLIC INQUIRY
The public inquiry took place on Tuesday 25 August 2026 and neither the applicant nor the transport manager was in attendance. I first considered whether the hearing should proceed. I took account of the guidance issued by the Senior Traffic Commissioner at paragraph 27 of Statutory Document 9, which states:
- “The Traffic Commissioner is entitled to expect that the party called to a hearing will submit any application for an adjournment.”
No adjournment has been requested, and I am satisfied that both the applicant and the transport manager are aware of the public inquiry. I conclude that they have chosen not to attend despite this inquiry being convened at the applicant’s request. I am further mindful that my public inquiry room is scheduled for hearings until November 2026, therefore any adjournment would not be brief. I do not consider it would be in the public interest not to deal with this application today and go to the expense of relisting for an alternative date with no confidence that those called would be any more likely to attend.
Accordingly, I determined that the inquiry would continue and I would make a determination based on the best available evidence before me.
CONSIDERATION
Section 13A(2)(b) – Applicant’s Good Repute
As set out above, Mr. Thompson confirmed that discontinuation of his previous licence was intentional, and he demonstrated an awareness of the need to obtain a new licence in order to recommence operations. However, ANPR evidence obtained for vehicle GL66KFD shows that the vehicle (which was specified on both the previous licence and this application) continued to be sighted on the public road despite no operator licence being held and it not being specified on any other operator licence.
The volume of sightings picked up by ANPR, being 2,320 across the period November 2025 to July 2026, is indicative of continued business use. This creates a significant breach of trust, particularly when Mr. Thompson was clearly aware of the consequence of not continuing his operator’s licence.
It is also highly relevant to the issue of trust and good repute that the applicant failed to comply with the case management directions for this inquiry and failed to attend this inquiry.
Whilst the details from the DVSA encounter remain unclear, Mr. Thompson has acknowledged in correspondence that he had an expired driver CPC and that he had insufficient weekly rest periods. His failure to attend this hearing has prevented me from making further inquiries regarding these matters. Furthermore, as the burden lies with the applicant, he has denied himself the opportunity to provide me with clarification, evidence, or mitigation which might provide positive features towards my considerations.
Section 13A(2)(c) – Financial Standing
The applicant was put on notice of the requirement to provide evidence of financial standing ahead of the inquiry. The burden rests on the applicant to demonstrate access to the prescribed level of financial standing. It has failed to do so.
Section 13A(3)(c) – Transport Manager
The applicant is required to designate a suitable number of people to satisfy the requirements set out in paragraph 14A(1) and (3) of Schedule 3 of the 1995 Act. Paragraph 14A(1)(b) requires that the transport manager must be of good repute.
Ms. Thompson has been placed on notice that this inquiry will give consideration to her good repute and, should adverse findings be made, an order of disqualification could follow. Unlike the application, in this regard the burden lies with the Traffic Commissioner to make an adverse finding.
The facts of this case are that vehicle GL66KFD has been sighted consistently since the application was made without a licence having been granted. When the previous licence was in place Mr. Thompson, as a driver, was found to be driving without a valid Driver CPC and having insufficient weekly rest periods. This happened at a time when Ms. Thompson was due to be exercising effective and continuous management of transport operations.
The failure to attend this public inquiry has denied me from making the reasonable inquiries that I would like to. Accordingly, in the absence of any explanation or mitigation for the concerns identified, I am unable to trust Ms. Thompson to comply with the regulatory requirements
Consequently, the operator would be unable to satisfy me that it has nominated a transport manager who is of good repute.
Section 13C – Compliance with Undertakings and Conditions
The calling-in letter set out my case management directions to provide evidence that this applicant has proper arrangements to comply with the requirements of Section 13C. These are often referred to as the requirement to comply with the conditions and undertakings of the operator’s licence. It includes, among other things, arrangements to comply with the laws regarding drivers’ hours and the facilities and arrangements to maintain vehicles in a fit and serviceable condition.
These matters go to the very heart of road safety and fair competition. This is relevant to this application due to the prolonged use of a vehicle in the absence of a licence to do so, and the issues identified at the DVSA encounter. The absence of the directed evidence means that I am unable to be satisfied that suitable arrangements exist. The failure of the applicant to attend this inquiry has denied it the opportunity to provide me with evidence to the contrary.
DETERMINATION
As stated above Mr. Stuart Thompson has made an application for a Goods Vehicle Operator’s Licence and, on application, the burden lies with the applicant to satisfy me that the relevant legislative requirements are met.
On consideration of the evidence before me, the applicant has failed to satisfy the following requirements:
-
Section 13A(2) – The traffic commissioner must be satisfied that the applicant (i) is of good repute; and (ii) has appropriate financial standing.
- Section 13A(3) – the traffic commissioner must be satisfied that the applicant has designated a transport manager who is of good repute.
- Section 13C – The traffic commissioner must be satisfied that the applicant has the appropriate arrangements to meet the requirements to hold an operator’s licence.
Additionally, the evidence is such that I conclude Ms. Virginia Thompson is no longer of good repute pursuant to paragraph 16(1) of Schedule 3 of the 1995 Act. As required under the provision of paragraph 16(2) I direct that she is disqualified from acting as a transport manager. As Ms. Thompson has not made herself available at public inquiry I apply an indefinite disqualification. Unlike a time-bound period, it is open to Ms. Thompson to apply to have the order cancelled. The order cannot be cancelled before the expiry of one year from the date upon which it is made. Thereafter, any application for cancellation must satisfy the requirements of Schedule 3, including the prescribed rehabilitation provisions.
Section 13A(2)(b) – Applicant’s Good Repute
Whilst the question posed in 2009/225 Priority Freight, “how likely is it that this operator will, in future, operate in compliance with the operator’s licensing regime?” is commonly considered for existing licence holders, I find that the consideration remains relevant for applications. As set out above, I find that this is a business which has continued to put in-scope vehicles on the road for commercial gain without an operator’s licence. As such, it is gaining an advantage and is not subject to the necessary regulatory oversight of the Traffic Commissioner. The issues identified at the DVSA encounter provide further cause for concern and the failure to attend this public inquiry or comply with case management directions are such that I do not find I can trust the applicant. Accordingly, I am not satisfied that the requirement to be of good repute is met.
Section 13A(2)(c) – Financial Standing
In respect of Financial Standing the applicant has failed to satisfy me that the requirement is met. The burden lies with the applicant to demonstrate that adequate finances are available. Despite being specifically directed to provide current financial evidence for the purpose of this inquiry, the applicant failed to do so. I am therefore entitled to come to the reasonable conclusion that the evidence has not been provided because the finances are not available.
Section 13A(3)(c) – Transport Manager
Ms. Thompson’s link with this applicant is long standing. She has been the approved transport manager on its two previous licences, and is again nominated on this application. She was the approved transport manager at the time of the DVSA encounter, and I am satisfied that she remains linked throughout the period of unlawful use of vehicle GL66KFD. She was put on notice of my concerns, has accessed the bundle of papers and has failed to attend this hearing. These are serious matters which I find go against good repute and extinguish any trust I could have of her. Her previous warning by a different traffic commissioner, that good repute was seriously tarnished, is a further and relevant consideration.
I therefore find she is no longer of good repute, and that she be disqualified for an indefinite period.
Subsequent to making that determination I am therefore not satisfied that the applicant has a transport manager who meets the requirement to be of good repute.
Section 13C – Compliance with Undertakings and Conditions
In respect of section 13C of the 1995 Act the applicant has failed to provide me with evidence that the requirements are met. The burden lies with the applicant to satisfy me that it meets all relevant statutory requirements, and it has failed to do so. I note particularly the failure to provide sufficient evidence of facilities, systems or procedures to comply with the requirements of section 13C despite being specifically directed to do so. The applicant has failed to discharge the burden upon it. In the absence of evidence to the contrary and given the concerns raised from the DVSA encounter, I draw the reasonable inference that the required evidence is not provided because the applicant is not capable of demonstrating proper systems.
Conclusion
Section 13(5) of the 1995 Act directs that, if the traffic commissioner determines that any of the requirements that the commissioner has taken into consideration are not satisfied, the commissioner must refuse the application (emphasis added). Accordingly, this application is refused.
David Mullan
Traffic Commissioner for the North West of England
25 August 2026