Decision for Suge Ltd (OF2058163)
Written confirmation of the decision of the Traffic Commissioner for the East of England for Suge Ltd and Valda Valionyte, former transport manager
IN THE EASTERN TRAFFIC AREA
SUGE LTD – OF2058163
AND
VALDA VALIONYTE – FORMER TRANSPORT MANAGER
CONFIRMATION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER’S DECISION
Background
Suge Ltd holds a Standard International Goods Vehicle Operator’s Licence authorising 6 vehicles and 12 trailers. The Director is Gediminas Grikis. Tylea-Elice Fulton-Smith has been the Transport Manager since 6 June 2025. She also appears on OF2068921 held by Smooth Vehicle Logistics.
There are two Operating Centres: Plot 25, Aaron Road Industrial Estate, Station Road, Whittlesey, Peterborough PE7 2EX (6 and 10, and Konfas Pallets Ltd, Sandall Road, Wisbech, Cambridgeshire PE13 2FN (6 and 12). Preventative Maintenance Inspections were said to be carried out by G&CA Lombardo Ltd and JAJ Commercial Ltd at 13-week intervals, despite the age of vehicles: FJ65 XRK, AV13 LJJ, WX13 KNA, YN64 LDD, KX15 YUR, KX15 YUS (but see below).
The licence was granted from 28 October 2022, with Steve Mayo as the Transport Manager. Steve Mayo resigned on 6 October 2023, as the business was ‘growing quickly’ and the operator needed someone to ‘show up at random and unpredictable times, checking drivers are carrying out their duties correctly’. I heard something of the history, growing from one vehicle unit and two bulk tippers, undertaking waste disposal work to an AD Plant. A tanker was purchased Spring 2023 from its AD Plant customer. In Autumn 2023, three additional bulk tippers were added to the fleet due to a rapid increase in work. In around March 2024, the operator was approached by a customer involved in the extraction of organic liquid and solid waste, which has resulted in an ongoing contract. It now generally undertakes tanker and minimal bulk tipper haulage.
Formal notice was issued putting the operator on notice from 7 October 2023 that it needed to act. On 8 October 2023, Mr Grikis requested a Period of Grace by reference to the nomination of Ms Valionyte. Mr. Grikis indicated that Ms Valionyte had visited the site to discuss systems and schedule her working week. The application was on the basis of a contractual agreement and that she would dedicate 12 hours to her role. Ms Valionyte was granted from 27 October 2023.
Ms Valionyte was committed to an agreement with Marsons Transport Ltd holding a Standard International Goods Vehicle Licence (OF2005436) authorising 4 vehicles and 4 trailers, to which 7 November 2023, dedicating 10 hours. The licence was surrendered. She was removed on 27 August 2024.
She is currently proposed as the Transport Manager for Cherub Logistics Ltd (application OF2084625) which submitted an application for a Standard International Goods Vehicle Licence on 4 August 2025. She was previously the director of VAV Solutions Ltd holding OF2016217. That Standard National licence was allowed from 25 March 2019, authorising 2 vehicles and 2 trailers. Ms. Valionyte attended a Public Inquiry on 23 February 2023 as it was found that Ms. Valionyte was relying on a Lithuanian CPC qualification, despite being resident in this country at the relevant time. The Deputy Traffic Commissioner was apparently persuaded to suspend the licence to allow her opportunity to gain a UK CPC. She failed to provide the certificate by the deadline, but the Deputy Traffic Commissioner extended the suspension for another month and the certificate was eventually provided on 11 August 2023. Ms Valionyte then notified my office that she was planning to surrender the licence to focus on her career as a Transport Manager. That was actioned on 29 August 2023. At various times, Ms Valionyte has also had involvement with the following licences: OF204597 held by Wynnes D Ltd, OF2050494 held by Carmen-Maria Ltd, OF2080091 held by JRL Trans Ltd, OF2045286 held by Sandhu Motors Ltd, OF204028 held by TMA Trans Ltd, and OF2005436 (as above).
Hearing
The Public Inquiry was originally listed in October 2025 but was adjourned to 22 January 2026 and then again to 14 May 2026, in Tribunal Room 1 of the Office of the Traffic Commissioner in Cambridge. That was as a result of omissions from the tribunal bundle. Whilst Ms Valionyte had advised that she would not be attending, it was necessary to ensure that she was served with all the relevant evidence provided by the operator. On confirmation, the hearing proceeded in her absence. The operator was present in the form of Gediminas Grikis, Director, accompanied by Tyrea-Elice Fulton-Smith, current Transport Manager, and Emma Barnett, Operations Manager, represented by Jonathan Backhouse of Backhouse Jones solicitors.
Issues
The public inquiry was called at the request of the operators and following notice (page 135) that I was considering grounds to intervene in respect of this licence and specifically by reference to the following sections of the Goods Vehicle (Licensing of Operators) Act:
- · 26(1)(b) – conditions on licence to notify changes relating to the mandatory requirements.
- · 26(1)(c)(iii) – Prohibition Notices
- · 26(1)(ca) – Fixed Penalty Notices.
- · 26(1)(e) – statements relating to inspection intervals, and to abide by conditions on the licence.
- · 26(1)(f) – undertakings (vehicles to be kept fit and serviceable, effective driver defect reporting, complete maintenance records, drivers’ hours and tachographs).
- · 26(1)(h) – material change:
- · 27(1)(a) – repute, financial standing, Transport Manager meeting Schedule 3 (not proceeded with).
- · 28 – Disqualification.
Ms Valionyte was also called to consider whether she had exercised effective and continuous management and therefore whether I should make a finding under section 27(1)(b) preventing her from relying on her Certificate of Professional Competence.
The operator was directed to lodge evidence in support including financial, maintenance and other compliance documentation. Compliance documentation was to be submitted to DVSA initially by 13 October 2025 with finance and any representations to be sent to my office by 20 October 2025. However, representations and an accompanying bundle (183 pages) were only received on 20 January 2026. The representative was advised that there may be consequences as a result of the failure to comply with Directions. The representative sought to rely on secondary legislation, namely paragraph 5 of Schedule 4 of the Goods Vehicle (Licensing of Operators) Regulations 1995, suggesting that a party may submit and evidence or other matter before the case of the Public Inquiry. That is to ignore the wide-ranging discretion given by Parliament in primary legislation, namely section 35 of the Act to determine the nature of any Public Inquiry, including the relevance of any evidence and its admissibility. It is for the Traffic Commissioner to ensure the fairness of tribunal proceedings. It was for those purposes that I adjourned the last hearing in order to ensure disclosure to the operator. It’s failure to comply with Case Management Directions, to even challenge the power of Traffic Commissioners to manage their own proceedings, directly led to the adjournment of the second listing, as I was unable to ensure the service of potentially relevant evidence on the former Transport Manager.
That approach is entirely consistent with paragraph 37 of the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document No. 9, to which I am legally required to have regard, which refers to the Upper Tribunal in cases such as 2006/313 David Lloyd.
The operator gained a further advantage as it had failed to update the evidence so as to provide evidence of the availability of funds to the prescribed sum. As the Senior Traffic Commissioner warns operators, failure to comply with Directions in support of a fair hearing, may impact on that operator’s repute. I made additional Directions that 14 days prior to the new date, the operator should supply admissible evidence of financial standing; and that, should Ms Valionyte wish to attend or make additional representations, they should be received by the tribunal on that date. Despite having been given the opportunity of the adjournment and having been reminded via the solicitors, no original or verified statements were produced. The operator ignored the Case Management Directions, again, and sought to rely on a self-serving summary produced by Gediminas Grikis. Given those circumstances I could attach little weight to those documents. However, there was sufficient evidence upon which to grant a Period of Grace, allowing 4 months to show a 3-month average from certified bank statement, to meet the prescribed sum. The operator was warned of the consequences of failure to produce.
Summary of Evidence
On 25 April 2025, a Mercedes tractor unit, KX15 YUR, was subject to a DVSA roadside encounter. Following that inspection, the operate was issued with three immediate ‘S’ marked Prohibition Notices relating to three defective tyres (two tyres showing deep cuts and exposing cord and one tyre was worn below the legal limit of 1 mm). The Driver, Vytautas Miglinas, was also issued with a Fixed Penalty Notice.
Shortly after the roadside encounter, Ms Valionyte removed herself as the Transport Manager on the licence on 19 May 2025. Formal notice in respect of the mandatory requirement was issued on the same day. That led to a request for a Period of Grace of the same date based on efforts to identify a new Transport Manager (see above).
The S marked Prohibition Notices prompted DVSA to commence inquiries with Vehicle Examiner David Birkby undertaking a visit on 21 May 2025. He completed a Maintenance Investigation Vehicle Report, which highlighted a number of concerns, which have been summarised as follows:
- Inspection and Maintenance Records, whilst the pro-forma accorded with the Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness, Preventative Maintenance Inspection records were not being fully completed. Brake test details and results were not always completed, as with as tyre ages and reports of repairs. There were also missing inspection records, and some records were incorrectly completed. The number of defects identified showed that the permitted intervals were too long. The forward planning system was used inconsistently and found to be ineffective.
- The approach to driver defect reporting was inconsistent. Preventative Maintenance Inspection records regularly referred to driver detectable defects but there was no evidence of a corresponding driver defect reports or effective system.
- The Examiner referred to the poor annual test history; of 14 tests there had been 2 initial fails resulting in a 14.29% failure rate.
- Wheel and tyre security management required improvement, with in-service tyre-monitoring system and management systems found to be ineffective. The Examiner was required to advise of the need for drivers to be fully aware of the requirement to carry out meaningful checks on the tyre condition.
- The cause of the Prohibitions and subsequent analysis.
Mr Birkby had contacted Ms Valionyte on 13 May 2025 to arrange a meeting in order to carry out the visit. Ms Valionyte informed him that she had resigned as the Transport Manager. Mr Birkby explained that he still required to see her due to her involvement. She cooperated with his inquiries but noted that she appeared to be only partially aware of the transport operation. He found the monitoring and driver defect reporting to be poor. Some braking defects were not followed up, and some vehicles exceeded even the 13-week intervals between inspections with no explanation recorded, and despite the vehicles continuing in service. The failure to complete the Preventative Maintenance Inspection records properly had not been challenged and the brake performance results had not been scrutinised. The Director appeared to have allowed maintenance contractors to dictate the inspection of vehicles. In evidence he told me that this was a mixture of the contractors and him not knowing better.
Ms Valionyte responded to the findings in a letter dated 16 June 2025. She suggested that ‘she had long-standing concerns about the operator’s non-compliance with maintenance requirements’ and that she had actively cooperated with the operator and despite ongoing challenges with the operator she had made ‘continuous efforts to manage compliance’. In respect of the encounter, she had conducted an investigation into the circumstances and had personally spoken to Driver Miglinas, who claimed that he had not noticed the tyres because the cuts were on the inner side. It was suggested that an independent tyre audit would be conducted, and each driver was spoken to regarding the daily walk around checks and they were reminded of its importance.
The operator was also subject to a Traffic Examiner visit on 20 June 2026 following a suggestion from Driver Vytautas Miglinas that he was not employed by this operator. Traffic Examiner James Buckley identified the following issues:
- Driver control – only 1 driver employed by the operator and five engaged permanently via an agency.
- The current Transport Manager downloads the driver cards every two weeks, and the Vehicle Units are downloaded once a month. Tachomaster is used for analysis of the digital data and the calculation of Working Time. However not all data had been captured on Tachomaster and some of the calculations were incorrect.
Mr Buckley observed that the agency drivers were being paid for between 60 and 80 hours per week. On receipt of the digital data for vehicles and drivers covering the previous six months, he ascertained that the drivers were paid for their full working day (including driving time, other work and rest periods). He concluded that all other systems and procedures were in place and were shown to be working under the new Transport Manager. The agency drivers were used regularly, and all driver records (both employed and agency) were kept by the operator, meaning that this was not a temporary arrangement. The operator pays the agency, Iron Trip Ltd. The Director of Iron Trip Ltd, Deividas Ruibys, is also one of the Drivers. Mr Grikis suggested that ‘the driver’s are used this way because they cannot have zero-hour contracts’ reflecting advice from Boston Commercial accountants. He has now been advised to take professional advice. I was told that he continues to be engaged part-time but has another job. That did not appear to prevent his engagement on a contract, whilst temporary drivers are engaged through Peterborough Reliant Resources.
The adjournment request dated 3 November 2025 put me on notice that assertions made by Ms Valionyte were at issue, for instance the suggestion that she regularly checked the driver defect reporting app. I was warned that the operator did not consider that to be an accurate or fair statement and intended to approach the software supplier to obtain a report. I was alerted to the fact that this was just one example. A commentary was subsequently produced by Mr Grikis and received on 18 November 2025. He appended some 18 documents in support of those representations. I do not need to list all those documents which were disclosed to the former Transport Manager, as part of the bundle.
The operator stated that it was provided with Ms Valionyte’s contact details on 11 September 2023 through Leafe’s Logistics. Emma Barnett then arranged for her to attend the Wisbech office on 6 October 2023. In fact, she originally attended to complete an audit but subsequently agreed to be nominated as an external Transport Manager in October 2023.
In that role, she was part of a number of WhatsApp groups, one with the drivers, one with Ms Barnett and Mr Grikis. Ms Valionyte would also send messages independently to both Ms Barnett and Mr Girkis. She also emailed several documents and forms over, asking the operator, primarily Ms Barnett, to set up various folders for information to be filed. She also supplied a spreadsheet containing most of the vehicle information and asked Ms Barnett to complete it for the year and return it to her.
She visited again on 31 October 2023, in the role as Transport Manager. She checked, amended, and ran reports for the folders and gave the impression that she would be keeping these updated during her visits, which were initially expected to be weekly or bi-weekly until she was satisfied that standards were met. The TM1 form referred to 6 hours on Mondays and Tuesdays. I can find no reference to there being a minimum of once-a-month visits. She apparently explained to the operator that due to childcare arrangements, she would need assistance scanning vehicles documents as she would not be able to attend site before 8am or after 5pm, leaving those administrative responsibilities to Ms Barnett. Ms Valionyte was given access to Pre-Drive on 31 October 2023 so she could remotely monitor daily walkaround checks and defects reported by the drivers. The operator produced a Pre-Drive user report showing that Ms Valionyte logged in only irregularly. In some cases, a defect remained unresolved for 194 days after being reported, which could be seen on the report.
The operator stated that, whilst “various audits” were carried out by Ms Valionyte in late 2024, there were no actions in 2025. The operator refuted her suggestion that she had long-standing concerns over the operation. She only raised one issue, regarding a low tread depth at Preventative Maintenance Inspection. The operator suggested that it was encountering issues with “false reporting” of some defects by a contractor. That was not reflected in the maintenance reports supplied to the Examiner as part of his inquiries. In any event, the tyre was changed, and the Preventative Maintenance Inspection was signed off roadworthy. Following this, Ms Valionyte instructed drivers via WhatsApp to upload photographs of the tyres as part of their walkaround checks on the Pre-Drive, which had to be translated for me:
“In example, you can see how it should be written in blue if you’re unsure about something – call. 1.5mm tyres are still acceptable on the road but no less. Don’t mark that tyre if it still has 2-3mm.”
Ms Valionyte was apparently aware of ingoing issues with contractors at the time and raised by Ms Barnett. I was assured that this is not the operator’s current policy.
A management system had been put in place, prior to the arrival of Ms Valionyte. Ms Valionyte claimed that she requested for a trailer to be placed on VOR. A formal VOR system was only implemented following Ms Fulton-Smith’s appointment and not by Ms Valionyte. However, the operator was of the opinion that she performed her role effectively throughout 2023 and early 2024. Had she asked for a trailer not to be used due to being outside its inspection frequency, it would not have been used. Correspondence had suggested that, prior to her departure, the operator was confident in her abilities as Transport Manager. In evidence Mr Grikis explained that this was because he did not know any better, but I contrasted that with the evidence at paragraph 28, below.
Ms Valionyte claimed that she “followed up immediately” on extended inspection intervals. The operator stated that had she done so, the number of exceeded inspection intervals would not have arisen, nor would Ms Barnett have been the one organising rectification and chasing overdue documentation, which I saw. The operator pointed to an absence of written escalations, warnings, or instructions from Ms Valionyte. It was Ms Barnett who implemented the auditing of Preventative Maintenance inspection records in November 2023, but it was not taken forward by Ms Valionyte . Ms Fulton-Smith has since reviewed and amended that audit report and continues to use it to audit Preventative Maintenance Inspection records.
In around March 2024 (when she was also named on OF2005436), Ms Valionyte had to leave the country due to a family emergency in Lithuania. She provided assurances that she would be coming back visiting the Operating Centre monthly. I was not notified of this. Whilst she was in Lithuania, she exchanged text messages and vehicle files and card downloads were available. I saw messaging and accepted that she relied on the operator to give access to records. It was then that Ms Valionyte explored remote tachograph downloading but it was not considered to be cost effective. As Ms Barnett’s became the Planning and Operations Manager, it relied on Ms Valionyte to discharge her duties and advise on inspections and compliance requirements.
I was referred to a series of communications in 2024. It was suggested that Ms Valionyte initially performed the basic tasks expected of her, but her visits became increasingly infrequent, and her oversight of defects diminished significantly. She relied too heavily on Ms Barnett to fulfil the role. The operator confirmed that in or around September – October 2024, it concluded that Ms Valionyte was not fulfilling her role and that was she not visiting the Operating Centre regularly. This was allowed to continue, and she was chased twice with messages dated 22 April 2025 and 3 May 2025, which again had to be translated for me:
“Good morning. You know, you should fly back and review all the files so that no doubts arise about anything. The sooner, the better.
We also still need to move the operating centre at the same time, but I don’t think the address is different. If not, maybe we don’t even need to. I will check the exact address.”
She responded on the 3 May 2025:
“Hi, of course, will be with you on the 12th”
I am quite satisfied that the operator had enough knowledge at this stage that it should have notified me of a material change. Mr Grikis told me that he found her very persuasive and that he wanted to giver her a last chance, given her situation. It did not occur to him to allow a leave of absence and seek a Period of Grace.
Following her departure for Lithuania, Ms Valionyte only attended the Operating Centre on:
- 28 May 2024 to scan vehicle files as per her text message.
- 17 September 2024.
- 27 January 2025.
- 11 May 2025 visited the UK and attended the Operating Centre 12 –15 May 2025.
She offered her resignation 20 minutes after Traffic Examiner attended the Operating Centre on 13 May 2025. I was told that she then verbally advised that the resignation should be held in abeyance, pending conclusion of the DVSA investigation. She indicated that the resignation should be ignored for the time being in order “to get this sorted.” Ms Valionyte also suggested that the operator should consider an internal transport manager and also to change inspection intervals to every six weeks. This was never mentioned previously.
She apparently attended without notice on 17 May 2025 and spent six hours in the office, which was not open at that time. It subsequently came to the attention of the operator that she had been backdating documents. I was directed to examples showing that Ms Valionyte signed to confirm that she had reviewed the Preventative Maintenance Inspection and invoice on 10 April 2025. However, the email containing attaching the Preventative Maintenance Inspection and invoice from the maintenance provider was actually sent on 11 April 2025, which is when the vehicle was released. I was also referred to entries made on the Pre-Drive record. That Pre-Drive app had been in place for several years before Ms Valionyte’s appointment. The operator was of the opinion that Ms Valionyte had backdated a driver induction, as the form purporting to be signed in November 2023 and April 2024, was not created until December 2024.
At the time, the operator relied on both English and Polish drivers so operational guidance or training would need to be in clear, accessible written formats. The operator had been unable to locate any such materials produced by Ms Valionyte. Further, in response to Ms Valionyte’s representations, the operator stated that whilst she claimed to have trained drivers and carried out toolbox talks, toolbox talks were only ever introduced and conducted by the current Transport Manager, Ms Fulton-Smith. The operator had no record of Ms Valionyte delivering toolbox talks, and no supporting documentation in any driver file dating back to early 2023. In addition, there were no training logs, induction records, briefing notes, multilingual driver guidance, or signed acknowledgements to support her claim that she regularly trained drivers or delivered any structured programme. Driver induction training was always delivered by the Director or Ms Barnett.
In response to Ms Valionyte’s claim that she had undertaken drug and alcohol tests; the operator identified documentation confirming that she had undertaken a limited number. However, these are signed and dated 29 January 2025 and 18 September 2025, but Ms Valionyte was not employed in September 2025. The operator also pointed to discrepancies between the signatures on those records and the recent toolbox talk attendance sheet dated October 2025, which I noted.
Most Preventative Maintenance Inspections, roller brake tests, and infringement reports were printed and filed by the Director or administrative team. I saw limited examples (only three) for the period of 2023 to 2025. It was accepted that these had not been dealt with appropriately. The operator referred to a marked improvement in the management following the commencement of Ms Fulton-Smith, who then delivering structured training and management. The operator refuted Ms Valionyte’s claim that she managed Working Time compliance. The Director stated they were required to stand drivers down on several occasions due to exceeding permitted working hours. Since then, Ms Fulton-Smith has implemented a 4 on, 4 off shift patterns, which has proven effective and has not presented any issues.
By email of 1 May 2026, Ms Valionyte referred to her previous “full response together with supporting documentation in relation to this matter. At this stage, I do not have anything further to add. As previously advised, I am currently outside the UK due to family circumstances and will not be attending the Public Inquiry.” I therefore proceeded on that basis.
Representations from the operator sought to emphasise the five ‘satisfactory’, one ‘mostly satisfactory’ areas in addition to the four areas of ‘unsatisfactory’ and two areas of ‘report to OTC’. Concentrating on the unsatisfactory areas of Inspection/ maintenance records, Driver defect reporting, Inspection facilities/maintenance arrangements, and Wheel & tyre management, I was referred to the response dated 17 June 2025, which was not in my bundle. It was acknowledged that whilst 13-weeks was suitable for minimal mileage it is not for increased operations, so the operator has been working to 8-week intervals. Vehicles are now inspected at 6-week intervals. I Representations queried the Examiner’s findings in respect of C300483, which I accepted. FX65 XRK remained with the provider and was not in operation. The Preventative Maintenance Inspection record had been chased but had still not been received. I noted the text messages. The DVSA report appears to confuse 31 with the inspection date of 13 January 2025. C221566 was VOR from 14 February 2025 until 12 April 2025 and kept at the contractor’s premises, awaiting parts. It was inspected on 12 April 2025, but representations suggested it was signed off on 10 April 2025. KX15 YUR was VOR from 25 April 2025 following the roadside stop. This was then sent for inspection on 7 May 2025, but the roller brake test was on 21 May 2025.
It was acknowledged that inspection records had not been complete properly. The operator has strengthened processes by auditing Preventative Maintenance Inspection records. Vehicles are used at premises where the risks to wheels and tyres are increased. Ipswich Tyres attends the premises on alternate weekends, for a fleet check and undertake any work that needs doing to the tyres. A relevant toolbox talk was conducted with all drivers on 4 July 2025, focusing on walk round checks. All drivers have signed the relevant policy. However, agency drivers are used regularly. It was suggested that a completed induction checklist had been provided for each driver, with multiple training records for bulk tippers, tankers, and daily walkaround audit training. The operator plans to conduct further regular toolbox talks to reinforce the systems. All drivers had received introductions to Checked Safe software. There were regular audits of the driver checks. Mr Simon-Michael has incorporated tyre-age monitoring into the Tyre Management Policy. A dedicated tyre-age register has yet to be introduced alongside each maintenance file and the contractor now records the age and DOT codes and any tyre identified as 10 years old or close, is flagged for immediate replacement. I noted the July 2025 Tyre Safety Management toolbox talk. I was told that drivers must now attach a photograph to their first use report.
I was referred to contact with Mr Birkby after the bundle had been submitted, including an invoice for tyre management of KX15 YUR from Ipswich Tyre Group. I was referred to an administrative error providing KX15 YUR instead of KX15 YUS. Mr Daniel from Ipswich Tyre Group had attended to replace the tyre on 20 August 2025. He offered the opinion that it had only recently split (with bright sliver cords visible). The Transport Manager provided Mr Birkby with a commentary of the incident including the driver defect report for 20 August 2025 timed at around 5:00am. The driver also uploaded a photograph of the tyres and did not report any issues. He completed his journey to North London without reported issues but, approximately 12 miles from the Operating Centre, whilst at customer site, he identified a tyre defect. He failed to report but drove back, arriving at 14:56. Mr. Grikis was notified when the driver returned. The tyre provider was contacted soon after, attending at around 18:00. This was addressed with the driver at the time by a verbal written warning.
Ms Valionyte had removed the vehicle from the VOLS system on 14 May 2025 due to two vehicles being VOR and the addition of two rented vehicles. KX15 YUR had been VOR until the beginning of June 2025 and was subsequently used between June and August 2025 without being specified on the licence. Once this was discovered, the vehicle was added to the record on 27 August 2025. It was maintained and kept roadworthy during that period condition. To prevent this recurring, there will be a more thorough monthly check of the VOL record to ensure that the vehicle list remains fully up to date. Ms Fulton-Smith will report directly to Mr Grikis.
Representations confirmed that Ms Barnett is the Operations Manager and does not hold a Transport Manager CPC qualification but has acquired knowledge over time. The operator acknowledged that too much reliance was placed on Ms Valionyte, and yet was aware that she was in Lithuania, and needed Ms Barnett to forward documents to her for review. There was no clear indication when she would return. The text messages showed that Mr Grikis was fully aware. It was left to Ms Barnett to raise issues with the maintenance contractor.
Ms Fulton-Smith is an external Transport Manager who joined on 2 June 2025, following the resignation of Ms Valionyte. She then conducted an internal audit of the existing systems and a plan for “corrective action” was implemented, outlining timescales for both critical and non-critical changes. All points have now been fully addressed. The action plan covered all driver infringements dated between 1 May and 23 June 2025, including the Driver Algirdas’ infringements up to 21 June 2025, to which Mr Birkby referred. These had been reviewed and addressed by the Transport Manager Ms Fulton-Smith, with corrective action forms issued accordingly. She works with the consultant, Ralph Simon-Michael, to implement suitable compliance systems. I was directed to the report from Traffic Examiner Mr Buckley. Mr Simon-Michael was formally engaged on 6 October 2025 to provide external compliance consultancy support and in response to the DVSA findings. The initial focus had been on bringing all systems to a demonstrably compliant standard ahead of this Public Inquiry. He has worked with the Transport Manager to embed those systems long-term. He will then revert to a periodic consultancy.
The progress under the current Transport Manager has been noticeable. DVSA recorded the progress by last November. The operator has had the benefit of a further delay to confirm full compliance, which was confirmed by the Examiners in their respective reports.
Determination
Based on the evidence summarised above, I was satisfied that I should record adverse findings under the following sections of the Act: 26(1)(b) – conditions on licence to notify changes relating to the mandatory requirements, notably the involvement of the Transport Manager, 26(1)(c)(iii) – Prohibition Notices, including S markings, 26(1)(ca) – Fixed Penalty Notice, 26(1)(e) – statements relating to inspection intervals, and to abide by conditions on the licence, 26(1)(f) – undertakings (vehicles to be kept fit and serviceable, effective driver defect reporting, complete maintenance records, drivers’ hours and tachographs), 26(1)(h) – material change in the engagement of the Transport Manager. That had been addressed with the appointment of the current Transport Manager.
The Representations on behalf of the operator claimed it had been very unfortunate with the former Transport Manager, both of which the Director and management thought were fulfilling the role as a transport manager. It is clear that they had cause to challenge the position far earlier than the DVSA intervention. They were aware of Ms Valionyte’s personal circumstances, but I was not. The operator simply assumed that Ms Valionyte was continuing her duties as Transport Manager without proper reporting against Key Performance Indicators. She provided assurances that she would continue to fulfil the role whilst in Lithuania, when she was absent from the company for an extended period. This was not checked. There was regular communication between Ms Valionyte and Ms Barnett but that simply illustrates how reliant they were on Ms Barnett. It did not amount to effective and continuous management or meet the mandatory requirement for a Transport Manager who meets Schedule 3. It should not have been necessary for DVSA to identify the issues when effective oversight was expected from the Director. What occurred afterwards was an attempt to gloss that over. I am satisfied that Ms Valionyte went further and sought to manufacture documentation to support her claims that she had been meeting the statutory responsibilities.
The conclusion of this case has been significantly delayed by my efforts to ensure that all parties had access to the evidence disclosed. I have exercised caution recognising that a former Transport Manager may not have full access to records. However, the documentation provided by the operator corroborates the allegations made against Ms Valionyte. I found the operator’s evidence to be credible, and the Director did not seek to avoid his responsibility for not notifying me sooner and of the more serious failure in not coming clean when inquiries began. The evidence shows that systems employed were not strong from the point of appointment but there came a time where Ms Valionyte departed for Lithuania and there was little basis for the pretext that she was continuing to manage this transport operation. If, as she attempted to suggest, issues had been so serious, then she should have attempted to remove her name from the licence. The documentary evidence directly contradicts her claims, indeed shows efforts after the event to try and manufacture records suggesting greater involvement than was actually the case. She has chosen not to challenge that evidence either in person or in writing. Regardless of the personal circumstances, those are not the actions of a reputable Transport Manager and undermine the trust which I can place in her. I was forced to conclude that she should be prevented from relying on her Certificate of Professional Competence and recorded a loss of repute under section 27(1)(b). In her absence it was not possible to set a rehabilitation measure. She is currently in Lithuania and states that she is not relying on her CPC. I do not set a time limit on that disqualification. I also directed that the disqualification takes immediate effect. It is open to her to make an application to vary after the minimum period, but that will need to be considered by a Traffic Commissioner and in person, given the very serious matters set out above.
As I identified above, the operator has made very significant gains towards compliance with the assistance of the new Transport Manager. However, I retain concerns as to the ability to control drivers. The majority are now employed under contract. I directed the operator to the publicly available guidance on the GOV.UK website which advises that a person is an agency worker if they have a contract with an agency but work temporarily for a hirer. I quote: “You’re not an agency worker if you use an agency to find permanent or fixed-term employment.” The guidance offers a series of bullets to assist in identifying an employee. Even where there is a legitimate agency arrangement, the 2010 Agency Regulations provided that, after a qualifying period of 12 weeks, the basic working and employment conditions (working time, overtime, breaks, rest periods for night work, holidays and pay) of temporary agency workers must be at least as beneficial as those that would apply if they had been recruited directly. Agencies also have a legal obligation to gather certain information before offering work to an agency worker. When the agency offers a worker an assignment, they must, at the same time give that worker details which include: the name of the hiring organisation and the nature of its business, the start date, how long the assignment is likely to be for, details of the position and type of work. The Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003 require a ‘Key Information Document’. The operator recognised the need to act and provided the following undertaking:
- within 4 months of the date of Public Inquiry, all permanent drivers (regardless of hours) will be employed, in line with HMRC guidance.
I have attempted to describe the extensive remedial action taken following the DVSA findings. Mr Grikis has attended an OLAT and I was told that he accepts that more stringent oversight of the Transport Manager position should have been in place. I would extend that to compliance as a whole. The operator considered whether an internal Transport Manager might work but combining both planning and Transport Manager responsibilities was deemed too much for one person and not enough Transport Manager duties to justify a full-time internal role. Ms Barnett and Mr Grikis will continue managing operations and planning, while Ms Fulton-Smith ensures compliance. When I posed the question posed by the appellate tribunal in 2009/225 Priority Freight namely: how likely is it that the operator will comply in future, the response was entirely positive, based on the Examiners’ updates. The repute of the operator was undoubtedly tarnished by the events and poor judgement shown by Mr Grikis, but the operator has used the delays to full benefit and is therefore in the unusual position where only a warning was required. That said, there can be no repeat.
This case helps to further reinforce the words of advice from the Upper Tribunal in 2013/082 Arnold Transport Ltd that “actions speak louder than words”….prompt and effective action is likely to be given greater weight than untested promises to put matters right in the future. I might add that where things have been found to be deficient, the best course is to concentrate on correcting those shortcomings and not waste efforts in trying to cover them up.
R Turfitt
Traffic Commissioner
14 May 2026