Decision for Sukhvinder Singh (OD0260670)
Written decision of the Traffic Commissioner for the West Midlands for Sukhvinder Singh
IN THE WEST MIDLANDS TRAFFIC AREA
IN THE MATTER OF: SUKHVINDER SINGH (Sole Trader)
OPERATOR LICENCE : OD0260670
BEFORE THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER MR M DORRINGTON
PUBLIC INQUIRY ON 05 FEBRUARY 2026
SUMMARY OF THE DECISIONS MADE
The restricted operator’s licence, reference OD0260670, held by sole trader Mr Sukhvinder Singh is revoked. The effective date of revocation is 2345 hours on Sunday 05 April 2026. This order is made under sections 26(1)(e), 26(1)(f) and 26(1)(h) of the Act.
I make, exceptionally, no order under section 28 of the Act but Mr Sukhvinder Singh has come as close as an operator can come to being disqualified from holding any form of operator’s licence again.
If Mr Sukhvinder Singh undertakes the following then I am likely to look positively at any new application for a restricted operator’s licence that authorizes one vehicle and no trailers:
- He completes an operator licence awareness training course (“OLAT” course) from a competent and independent provider and provides proof that the course has been completed as part of the application process; and
- He has read to him, in full, the DVSA publication “A Guide To Maintaining Roadworthiness” and confirms, by binding written promise, that he has had the whole of that publication read to him and that he understands it; and
- If he is planning on operating vehicle E680SVP then it must be subject to a 6 weekly PMI inspection frequency since that vehicle was manufactured and first registered in 1988. Being 38 years old, and in accordance with the DVSA publication “A Guide To Maintaining Roadworthiness”, that is the correct minimum inspection frequency for a vehicle of that age; and
- Mr Sukhvinder Singh offers me an undertaking in writing (a formal and binding promise) that if any new application for a restricted goods vehicle operator’s licence is granted he will, no later than six months after the date of full grant, have a full maintenance compliance audit from an independent and competent provider and a copy of that audit must be received at my office in Birmingham no later than 21 days after Mr Sukhvinder Singh receives his copy of it. My copy must be accompanied by a full written response from Mr Sukhvinder Singh as to how any recommendations made will be implemented and by when.
BACKGROUND
Mr Sukhvinder Singh was granted a restricted operator’s licence in 1995 and that licence, as at the date of the public inquiry, authorized the operation of 2 vehicles and zero trailers. As at the date of the public inquiry Mr Sukhvinder Singh had one vehicle in possession being VRM E680SVP (a 38 year old Mercedes with a plated weight of 6,600kg).
As a result of a failed attempt by the DVSA to undertake a Maintenance Investigation Visit Report (MIVR) a recommendation was made to me that I should issue a propose to revoke letter (“PTR” letter). A PTR letter was issued and Mr Sukhvinder Singh responded to it saying that he wanted a public inquiry.
The first listing of the public inquiry had to be adjourned but a new hearing date, convenient to Mr Sukhvinder Singh, was made available very shortly thereafter.
An interpreter had been requested and an independent interpreter was provided free of charge by my office for Mr Sukhvinder Singh.
PUBLIC INQUIRY 05 FEBRUARY 2026
Mr Sukhvinder Singh attended with his daughter in law. He had not requested the attendance of the vehicle examiner from the DVSA.
At the outset of the inquiry I established if the interpreter and Mr Sukhvinder Singh understood one another. Having satisfied myself that they did I proceeded to explain how the public inquiry would be undertaken.
As part of that inquiry I heard from Mr Sukhvinder Singh and also from his daughter in law.
At the end of the inquiry I invited Mr Sukhvinder Singh to explain to me the effect of each type of regulatory action against his operator’s licence and Mr Sukhvinder Singh was given a final opportunity to address me before I reserved my decision into writing.
EVIDENCE
In reaching my decision I have taken into account all of the evidence in the electronic case bundle and all of the oral evidence I heard from Mr Sukhvinder Singh and his daughter in law.
BURDEN AND STANDARD OF PROOF
The burden of proof is upon the DVSA and/or the Office of the Traffic Commissioner to prove any allegations that were made. The standard of proof is the civil law standard; the balance of probabilities. In other words what is more likely than not to have happened.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND REASONS
All of my findings of fact have been made after applying the correct burden and standard of proof to the evidence before me. For the avoidance of any doubt all of my findings of fact can be taken to start with the words “It is more likely than not that…”
The overriding and principle purpose of this jurisdiction is to protect road and pedestrian safety. A Traffic Commissioner does not have to wait for an accident to happen before considering to take regulatory action. A Traffic Commissioner is required to protect road safety by taking preventative regulatory action, in order to protect road safety, when it is proportionate to do so.
Mr Sukhvinder Singh is a very experienced operator having held an operator’s licence continuously for over 30 years. He is expected to know, to a sufficient standard, the law, rules, regulations, guidance from the DVSA and statutory documents issued by the Senior Traffic Commissioner in order to fulfill the general undertakings (formal and binding promises) recorded on his operator’s licence. He is also expected to know what those general undertakings are.
The fact that Mr Sukhvinder Singh holds a restricted licence makes no difference compared to an operator who holds a standard licence. The general undertakings recorded on both licences are the same.
Mr Sukhvinder Singh cannot plead ignorance or lack of knowledge. As the Upper Tribunal stated in the appeal case of LA & Z Leonida TA ETS 2014/024 where they held:
“It does not matter whether an operator’s licence is held by an owner operator, a partnership or a limited company because in each case the person or persons responsible for managing the business bear the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that the road transport aspect of the business operates in compliance with the regulatory regime. That means they cannot plead ignorance or put the blame on the transport manager because they are required to have sufficient knowledge of the regulatory regime to ensure compliance in general and the proper performance of the transport manager’s duties in particular.”
That appeal case followed on from the Upper Tribunal case of MGM Haulage and Recycling Ltd 2012/030 where the Upper Tribunal held that all operators are deemed to know the advice and guidance that is in the public domain. Here that would be, for example, the DVSA publication “A Guide To Maintaining Roadworthiness” and the Statutory Documents issued by the Senior Traffic Commissioner. Both have been in the public domain for about 15 years and both are available on the Gov.UK website.
Mr Sukhvinder Singh was able to understand what was being interpreted to him at all material times. The interpreter did not report any concerns to me that Mr Sukhvinder Singh was struggling to understand what was being interpreted.
I carefully watched the body language of Mr Sukhvinder Singh throughout the hearing. I made a contemporary note of my observations immediately after the hearing and that note said; “Mr Singh did not display any signs of being nervous or stressed; relaxed posture, relaxed voice, normal breathing, no flushes, not rubbing hands or fidgeting, no defensive body language, no rocking or other outward signs of stress.”
On several occasions during the hearing Mr Sukhvinder Singh was evasive and he attempted to deflect answering the question he was asked by responding to them rather than answering the question.
It was clear to me that Mr Sukhvinder Singh had a poor understanding of operator licensing and what was actually required of him. He guessed some answers and did not know the answer to quite a number of basic questions saying either “I was not aware of that” or that he forgot.
Mr Sukhvinder Singh did not challenge, or materially challenge the evidence of the DVSA.
The evidence of the DVSA was credible, cogent and highly persuasive and I accepted it as such.
From the lack of material challenge to the DVSA evidence, and from my finding that it was credible and highly persuasive, all of the allegations made by the DVSA were found to be proven.
I repeat all of those proven allegations and adopt them all as my own findings of fact together with the findings of fact I have made from the oral evidence of Mr Sukhvinder Singh and/or his daughter in law.
Principle amongst those findings of fact are:
-
That at some point last year Mr Sukhvinder Singh left the UK to go India. He was wooly and evasive when I tried to pin him down as to when he left the UK – I could not even get a general answer to that, or when he returned. The best I got was that it was a trip of about two months. That meant there was a 6 hour time difference whilst he was there. As a sole trader being outside of the UK for two months, and considering the time difference, there was a clear material change that I should have been notified about as per the general undertakings on the operator’s licence.
-
Looking at the evidence before me I guestimate that Mr Sukhvinder Singh was in India from about the middle of December 2024 to the end of March 2025 because the vehicle examiner could not contact Mr Sukhvinder Singh at the midpoint of December 2024 and when he spoke to Mr Sukhvinder Singh’s wife on 21 March 2025 he was told by her that Mr Sukhvinder Singh was still in India. It therefore seems to me more likely than not that Mr Sukhvinder Singh was in India for quite a lot longer than the two months he stated.
-
The alternative to that, if I am wrong, is a finding that Mr Sukhvinder Singh failed to co-operate with the DVSA whilst he was in the UK before he left for India given the failed attempts made by the Vehicle Examiner to try and contact Mr Sukhvinder Singh as evidenced in the papers before me including failing to respond to important correspondence.
-
Mr Sukhvinder Singh left the management of the whole of the transport side of the business to a driver whilst he was in India. That is exactly what he told me. I am more than satisfied that there was not effective management control by Mr Sukhvinder Singh whilst the driver was running the whole of the transport side of the business.
-
There was a clear operation of Mr Sukhvinder Singh’s vehicle during the period he was in India. The ANPR evidence from the DVSA (page 31 of the bundle) shows that from 16 December 2024 to 21 March 2025 his vehicle was captured by ANPR cameras on 257 occasions.
-
The vehicle that Mr Sukhvinder Singh operates is 38 years old. The PMI inspection frequency recorded on the operator’s licence was 12 weeks. Mr Sukhvinder Singh’s vehicle was not being maintained every 12 weeks (84 days). The proven evidence from the DVSA showed that between the PMI on 06 September 2024 and the next one on 02 April 2025 a period of 208 days had elapsed. Therefore the PMI on 02 April 2025 was 124 days late. The next PMI was on 30 June 2025; 89 days later and therefore only 5 days late (but in the same ISO week). The final PMI seen by the Vehicle Examiner was dated 02 October 2025 which was 121 days after the PMI undertaken on 30 June. It was therefore 37 days late.
-
However, those figures need to be put into context; I was calculating them based on the 12 week PMI inspection frequency recorded on the operator’s licence. The DVSA publication “A Guide To Maintaining Roadworthiness” states at paragraph 4.2:
“National statistics show that as vehicles and trailers age, the average annual MOT failure rate increases and they are more likely to experience in-service roadworthiness defects than newer vehicles. Therefore, the guidance has reflected that older vehicles and trailers will need more frequent maintenance and has indicated a minimum safety inspection frequency of six weeks requirement for vehicles and trailers aged 12 years and older. However, depending on usage, i.e., low mileage and light conditions, the frequency may be extended.” [emphasis added]
-
Mr Sukhvinder Singh’s vehicle is 38 year old. The MOT failure rate (that I come onto in due course) was 100% from six successive MOTs. Whilst his mileage may be low, the age of the vehicle and the MOT history says clearly to me that, as per the above quoted section from the DVSA guide, that as a minimum his vehicle should have been on a 6 weekly PMI schedule. Working on that basis, using a six week PMI inspection frequency (42 days), then looking at the four PMIs detailed in the Vehicle Examiner’s supplementary statement the vehicle was overdue for PMI by 166 days between the first PMI and the second, 42 days overdue between the second and third PMI and 79 days overdue between the third and fourth PMI. That is totally unacceptable and whether I use the 12 week PMI frequency or what should have been used i.e. a minimum of a six week PMI frequency, the extremely long periods of time that elapsed between PMIs clearly put road safety at risk.
-
For the avoidance of any doubt there was no, or no persuasive, evidence that the vehicle was VOR at any point or points between PMIs.
-
The only laden brake test that Mr Sukhvinder Singh undertook was at MOT whereas regulation 18 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use Regulations) 1986 requires, by law, that an operator must know that every part of every braking system is working properly. That can only be achieved by having a meaningful metered brake test which simulates the vehicle in service ie that it is laden so that the operator knows that every part of every braking system works properly when the vehicle is used under load. This is all explained at paragraph 5.3 of the current and past iteration of the DVSA publication “A Guide To Maintaining Roadworthiness” that Mr Sukhvinder Singh was, and is, deemed to know.
-
At the PMI on 6 September 2024 no brake test was undertaken. The operator therefore could not have complied with regulation 18. The roadworthiness declaration could not, with any degree of accuracy, have been signed because without checking the brakes in a meaningful way no-one can ever know that they work properly and therefore that the vehicle is roadworthy. Road safety was therefore put at risk.
-
At the PMI on 02 April 2025 no brake test information was filled out and no evidence was provided to the Vehicle Examiner of any first use inspections being completed by Mr Sukhvinder Singh over the previous 208 days since the previous PMI on 6 September 2024. As a result road safety was put at risk.
-
At the PMI on 30 June 2025 no brake test was undertaken. The roadworthiness declaration was therefore somewhat meaningless for the reason given in paragraph “(j)” above and I add here, to stress the point, that brakes are an extremely important safety component of any vehicle that must at all times work properly to ensure that road safety is achieved. Failing to have any meaningful laden brake test at this PMI meant that road safety was put at risk.
-
At this PMI a driver spottable defect was identified namely the offside brake light was inoperative, Not only was this a road safety risk but it was a defect that the driver should have picked up on a first use inspection before the PMI. This defect should have been recorded on a driver defect reporting sheet but no such evidence was provided to the Vehicle Examiner.
-
At the PMI on 02 October 2025 only an unladen brake test was undertaken. That does not meet the requirement set out in regulation 18 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 because the operator cannot know from an unladen brake test whether the brakes will still work properly if the vehicle was laden i.e. as it would or could be in service. Since the brake test was unladen road safety was again placed at risk.
-
The MOT track record of this operator is absolutely appalling. Six successive MOTs were undertaken (see the MOT history at page 53 of the bundle) resulting in six fails including one test being abandoned. The MOT is the one day of the year, known about in advance, when a vehicle must meet the bare minimum standard of roadworthiness. If a vehicle fails an MOT it means the vehicle is not roadworthy. It also means that the same, unroadworthy, vehicle was being operated in that unroadworthy condition before the MOT test. Mr Sukhvinder Singh’s appalling MOT history says volumes to me about his attitude to ensuring road safety. No single vehicle operator can ever say from an MOT track record like this that they were taking road safety seriously. I find that Mr Sukhvinder Singh was not taking road safety seriously.
-
Both Mr Sukhvinder Singh and his daughter in law told me about a matter relating to her. Whilst I have sympathy I also explained in the hearing why that issue was not relevant to me. If something like this happens, which means the operator cannot properly concentrate on ensuring road safety by ensuring the fulfillment of the general undertakings recorded on the operator’s licence at all times, then the operator should stop operating because by being so distracted they are putting innocent people on the roads at a real risk. The overriding and principle function of operator licensing is to ensure road safety and that takes precedence over everything else.
-
As at the date of the public inquiry Mr Sukhvinder Singh had not completed any continuous professional development training as an operator and he clearly had not had read, or had read to him, sufficiently into the subject of operator licensing given his lack of knowledge and non-compliant history. The only training Mr Sukhvinder Singh had undertaken was his driver CPC which is completely separate and different to operator licensing and does not teach someone how to run a compliant transport operation.
-
Pulling all of my findings together the following general undertakings recorded on Mr Sukhvinder Singh’s operator’s licence were breached:
- Vehicles and trailers, including hired vehicles and trailers, are kept in a fit and serviceable condition; and
- Drivers report promptly any defects or symptoms of defects that could prevent the safe operation of vehicles and/or trailers, and that any defects are recorded in writing; and
-
Records are kept (for at least 15 months) of all driver reports that record defects, and all safety inspection, routine maintenance and vehicle repair reports, and that these are made available on request.
- There were very few meaningful positives but I have given credit for the following; that Mr Sukhvinder Singh presented his vehicle for MOT and it passed on the last occasion that he took full responsibility for what had happened, that he promised to co-operate fully with the DVSA and my office in the future, that he would undertake continuous professional development training and that he promised to ensure compliance if given the chance to do so.
BALANCING EXERCISE
Giving Mr Sukhvinder Singh as much credit as I can for the positives, and looking at him as he appeared before me as at the date of the public inquiry, I have carefully weighed in the balance the evidential weight I have given for the positives against the evidential weight I have given for the negatives. I have to say that the weight attributed to the negatives is substantial as road safety had been put at real risk for a long time. The substantial weight for the negative findings I have made significantly outweighs the weight given to Mr Sukhvinder Singh for the positives in this case. The balance tips firmly on the side of the negatives.
CONSIDERATION OF STATUTORY DOCUMENT 10 (“SD10”), ANNEX 4, ISSUED BY THE SENIOR TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER.
I repeat all of my findings in this case including the credit I have given to Mr Sukhvinder Singh for the positives as I found them to be. I have also taken into account what Mr Sukhvinder Singh told me about the effect of action against his operator’s licence. Having done so I have then considered Annex 4 of SD10.
The starting point for “severe” regulatory action is defined in Annex 4 of SD10 as “Deliberate or reckless act(s) that compromised road safety” and the starting point for “severe to serious” regulatory action is defined as “Persistent operator licence failures with inadequate response or previous public inquiry.” On any view of this case from the findings I have made Mr Sukhvinder Singh falls within both starting point definitions. He was clearly reckless by his acts and/or omissions which put road safety at a real risk and there have clearly been persistent operator licence failures with an inadequate response by Mr Sukhvinder Singh as at the date of the public inquiry.
In light of the credit I have given to Mr Sukhvinder Singh I have decided to place him at the very top end of the “severe to serious” starting point for consideration of regulatory action. That means I can consider revocation of the licence and disqualification of Mr Sukhvinder Singh, revocation, suspension of up to 28 days or a significant time limited curtailment that may materially affect the transport operation.
DECISIONS
I next turn to the Priority Freight question; “How likely is it that this operator will, in future, operate in compliance with the operator’s licensing regime?” After repeating all of my findings, including the credit I have given to Mr Sukhvinder Singh, I answer that firmly in the negative because of how he was when he appeared before me at the public inquiry – still non compliant and still without sufficient knowledge and understanding of core operator licensing requirements.
Looking at all of my findings in the rounds, and after giving Mr Sukhvinder Singh as much credit as I can, I am without hesitation when I determine that as a result of his acts and omissions he is no longer fit to hold an operator’s licence. He is unfit.
Since it is a statutory requirement that the holder of a restricted operator licence must not be unfit, and since Mr Sukhvinder Singh is now unfit, I now determine that it is proportionate to revoke this operator’s licence which I do under section 26(1)(h) of the Act.
Repeating all of my findings again, including the credit that I have given to Mr Sukhvinder Singh, I have also determined that it is proportionate to revoke this operator’s licence under sections 26(1)(e) [failure to use the correct PMI frequency and significantly stretched PMI intervals], 26(1)(f) [breach of the general undertakings detailed at paragraph 28(s) above] and 26(1)(h) [the clear material changes since the licence was granted] of the Act.
All orders of revocation will take effect at 2345 hours on Sunday 05 April 2026. That balances the risk Mr Sukhvinder Singh still poses to road safety against allowing him sufficient time to either shut down the transport aspect of his business or to apply for a new operator’s licence (see below).
For the avoidance of any doubt, from the facts as I have found them to be, this case was far too serious for me to consider imposing a suspension or curtailment of Mr Sukhvinder Singh’s operator’s licence.
WARNING TO MR SUKHVINDER SINGH ABOUT OPERATING AFTER 2345 HOURS ON 05 APRIL 2026
After 2345 hours on Sunday 05 April 2026 Mr Sukhvinder Singh has no operator’s licence and he cannot lawfully use any vehicle with a plated weight exceeding 3.5 tonnes for any commercial purpose. I now give him actual knowledge that if he does the DVSA can, and will, impound his vehicle because it will have been operated without an operator’s licence. I further give Mr Sukhvinder Singh actual knowledge that this written decision, and the revocation decision letter from my office, are deemed by the DVSA to be a pre-impounding letter.
CONSIDERATION OF DISQUALIFICATION
I now turn to section 28 of the Act. After very careful consideration of all of the evidence that was before me and also from the facts in this case, as I found them to be I have, exceptionally, stepped back from disqualifying Mr Sukhvinder Singh under section 28 of the Act. That is because of two reasons. First, that I do not think Mr Sukhvinder Singh deliberately set out to breach the law. I think he was set in his (non compliant) ways and was unwilling to change. Second, I can understand that with what happened to his daughter in law his attention was elsewhere and not firmly on the job of being compliant and ensuring road safety was not put at risk. What happened to his daughter in law is not in any way an excuse for his failings, as I have already explained in this written decision, but it is an explanation that goes towards some of his failings for some of the time.
Mr Sukhvinder Singh has come as close as anyone can ever come to being disqualified as an operator. No order is therefore made under section 28 of the Act.
WHAT MR SUKHVINDER SINGH MUST DO IF HE WANTS TO HAVE A REALISTIC PROSPECT OF BEING GRANTED A NEW OPERATOR LICENCE.
Only if all of the following things are done can any application for a new restricted operator licence that authorizes no more than one vehicle have a realistic chance of being looked at favorably:
- He completes an operator licence awareness training course (“OLAT” course) from a competent and independent provider and provides proof that the course has been completed as part of the application process; and
- He has read to him, in full, the DVSA publication “A Guide To Maintaining Roadworthiness” and confirms, by binding written promise, that he has had the whole of that publication read to him and that he understands it; and
- If he is planning on operating vehicle E680SVP then it must be subject to a 6 weekly PMI inspection frequency since that vehicle was manufactured and first registered in 1988. Being 38 years old, and in accordance with the DVSA publication “A Guide To Maintaining Roadworthiness”, that is the correct minimum inspection frequency for a vehicle of that age; and
- Mr Sukhvinder Singh offers me an undertaking in writing (a formal and binding promise) that if any new application for a restricted goods vehicle operator’s licence is granted he will, no later than six months after the date of full grant, have a full maintenance compliance audit from an independent and competent provider and a copy of that audit must be received at my office in Birmingham no later than 21 days after Mr Sukhvinder Singh receives his copy of it. My copy must be accompanied by a full written response from Mr Sukhvinder Singh as to how any recommendations made will be implemented and by when.
Traffic Commissioner Mr M Dorrington
27 February 2026