Decision for SUPA Scaffold Construction Limited (OC2085352)
Written decision of the Traffic Commissioner for the North West for SUPA Scaffold Construction Limited
IN THE NORTH WEST TRAFFIC AREA
SUPA SCAFFOLD CONSTRUCTION LIMITED – APPLICATION OC2085352
WRITTEN DECISION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER
PUBLIC INQUIRY HELD IN GOLBORNE ON 18 FEBRUARY 2026
DECISION:
This application for a goods vehicle operator’s licence is refused under provision of section 13(5) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (“the Act”), as the applicant has failed to satisfy the requirements of section 13B, 13C and 13D of the Act.
This is an application for a Restricted Goods Vehicle Operator’s licence by SUPA Scaffold Construction Limited seeking authorisation for 2 vehicles. The listed directors are Mr. Matthew Oldrieve and Mr. Alan Tyson. 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.
Background
The applicant company was incorporated on 10 May 2024, and it is noted that both directors, Mr. Oldrieve and Mr. Tyson, were previously directors for Supa Scaffold Ltd (Co Number 07705416), which held licence OC1107267. That licence was subject to regulatory action following a public inquiry in September 2020. That resulted in a temporary curtailment, with undertakings added to the licence.
Due to concerns raised within an audit, a further public inquiry was convened. A formal warning was issued, with an undertaking for a further audit by April 2023. The audit undertaking was not complied with and the directors both resigned from the business in April 2023.
This new application was created in September 2025, but the sole user on VOL, and all communication received, appears to be from transport consultant Mr. Dave Harrison.
Mr. Harrison is also the sole user on the account of licence OC2065712, held in the name SUPA CONTRACTORS LIMITED. That business appears to have further links with this applicant company, sharing similar Director surnames, operating centre, and maintenance provider.
Due to challenges with the management of the previously held licence (OC1107267), links to licence OC2065712 and the apparent absence of any specific communication from the directors within the application process, it was considered appropriate that this application is determined at a public inquiry.
On application the applicant is required to satisfy me that it meets the relevant requirements of (i) s13B - to be not-unfit to hold an operator’s licence; (ii) s13C - to have proper arrangements to comply with the laws relating to drivers hours, roadworthiness, overloading, records and record-keeping; and (iii) s13D - to have sufficient financial resources to ensure authorised vehicles can be maintained.
Pre-Public Inquiry
Notices calling the applicant to the inquiry were issued on 22 December 2025, by both post and email, to the given addresses. That letter sets out the date, time and location of the hearing and included case management directions to be complied with ahead of the inquiry. Those case management directions were not complied with.
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 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;
On 19 January 2026 the applicant provided the list of attendees – notified as being Director Matthew Oldrieve, and Transport Consultant Dave Harrison. No other evidence or records were provided ahead of the deadline of 04 February 2026.
On the morning of 04 February 2026 this office emailed the operator to provide a reminder that the records for the public inquiry were due. Mr. Oldrieve responded on 06 February 2026 stating, “I would like to withdraw my application with immediate effect”. The office replied that the request “has been placed before the Traffic Commissioner for consideration”. Mr. Oldrieve responded, “I am withdrawing my application with immediate effect so nothing to consider”.
On 06 February 2026, at 14:43, this office wrote to Mr. Oldrieve to communicate my direction as follows:
“It’s very late in the day and the hearing has been convened and planned at the expense of the public purse. I note that no reason has been provided for the request to withdraw the application. Please advise the applicant that the hearing shall proceed, and they are welcome to make a request to withdraw the application to the presiding commissioner on the day”.
The email continued to state that the public inquiry would go ahead to consider the application as set out in the calling up letter reminding them that a decision will be made in their absence should they fail to attend.
Public Inquiry
I have regard to the Upper Tribunal guidance within 2002/08 Alcaline & 2008/688 D Pritchard which sets out that withdrawal of an application does not prevent a traffic commissioner from making a determination so long as the traffic commissioner makes the operator aware of the decision to continue. This approach was agreed in T/2017/018 Davis Haulage Group Ltd where the upper Tribunal added (para 8)
“The rules of natural justice and fair procedure require that if the Commissioner is minded not to accept the withdrawal, he should give some intimation of that to the parties and invite the parties to make representations before finally deciding whether to accept the withdrawal. Any decision not to accept the withdrawal must be explained.”
The public inquiry took place on Wednesday 18 February at the Golborne Hearing Centre. The operator was not in attendance. In advance I 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.
The applicant was clearly on notice that the hearing would proceed and that any application for withdrawal would be considered at the hearing. The failure to attend has denied me an opportunity to understand if the withdrawal was an attempt to avoid scrutiny of the application. Additionally, the failure to attend also prevented the applicant itself from having an opportunity to present valid reasons for the withdrawal of the application. I considered that an unexplained withdrawal on the day the evidence was due raised legitimate concerns about whether the application was being withdrawn to avoid scrutiny. I am satisfied that the applicant had proper notice and a fair opportunity to be heard. Accordingly, I refuse to accept the withdrawal and determine that the inquiry would continue.
Consideration
Section 13B - Fitness
Both named directors were previously directors of Supa Scaffold Ltd (Company Number 07705416) which was called to public inquiry on two previous occasions. On 22 September 2020 its operator’s licence was curtailed by 50% for a period of five weeks. On 06 June 2022 it was subject to a formal warning following the offer of undertakings which included the requirement for an independent audit in April 2023. That undertaking was not complied with. Whilst it is noted that the two directors resigned as directors on 20 April 2023, this was just before the deadline for the audit and no evidence is available to suggest that the audit was planned ahead of their departure. A failure to comply with undertakings on a previous licence, followed by resignation immediately prior to the audit deadline, is a serious fitness concern.
It is also relevant that the applicant failed to comply with the case management directions for this inquiry. The withdrawal request was submitted on the date those records were due. This appears consistent with the previous resignation before the audit deadline.
Finally, the applicant was made aware that this inquiry had been convened at the expense of the public purse and would be continuing. It has failed to attend this hearing regardless.
Section 13C – Compliance with Undertakings and Conditions
The calling-in letter set out my case management directions which included the requirement 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 on account of the concerns regarding the directors’ previous company which ultimately resulted in regulatory action. Most recently, the absence of evidence provided ahead of the inquiry, as set out in the call-up letter, invites me to conclude that the evidence has not been made available because the proper arrangements are not in place. I have regard to the fact that this is not a business where the directors are new to operator licensing. Each has held an operator’s licence before.
Section 13D – Financial Resources
Section 13D is a discretionary provision, however, given the directors’ previous licensing history and the failures identified during that licence, it was appropriate to consider financial resources to ensure that adequate maintenance would be maintained if the licence were granted. The failure to provide evidence of finances ahead of the inquiry, as set out in the call-up letter, invites me – in accordance with normal evidential principles – to draw the reasonable inference that finances have not been made available because the required resources are not available.
Decision
This application for a Restricted Goods Vehicle Operator’s licence is refused under provision of Section 13(5) as the applicant has failed to satisfy the following requirements:
- Section 13B – The traffic commissioner must be satisfied that the applicant is not unfit to hold an operator’s licence.
-
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.
- Section 13D – The traffic commissioner must be satisfied that the provision of the facilities and arrangements for maintaining the vehicles in a fit and serviceable condition is not prejudiced by reason of the applicant’s having insufficient financial resources for that purpose.
Section 13B - Fitness
I give the direction in respect of Section 13B in consideration of 2013/007 Redsky Wholesalers Ltd which sets out that Fitness is not a significantly lower hurdle than good repute and links fitness to trust. That decision invites a Traffic Commissioner to consider the ‘Priority Freight Question’ in cases relating to Restricted licences. The question, posed in 2009/225 Priority Freight is, “how likely is it that this operator will, in future, operate in compliance with the operator’s licensing regime?”. In this case I answer in the negative. As set out above, this is an applicant with relevant history, and the failure to comply with directions from this office is such that I have few positive features against which to balance.
I do note, in the positive, that Mr. Oldrieve has sought to withdraw the application - perhaps a realisation that the relevant criteria are not satisfied - but it does not outweigh the negative features or satisfy the concerns set out above. I therefore do not consider the applicant has satisfied me that it is fit to hold an operator’s licence.
Section 13C – Compliance with Undertakings and Conditions
In respect of Section 13C I make adverse findings as the applicant has failed to provide me with evidence that the requirements are met. The burden lies with it to satisfy me that it meets the 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 put on notice of the requirement to do so. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, and given the directors’ experience in operator licensing, I draw the reasonable inference that the required evidence is not provided because it is not available.
Section 13D – Financial Resources
In respect of Section 13D I make adverse findings as the applicant has failed to provide me with evidence that the requirements are met. The burden lies with it to satisfy me that it meets the relevant statutory requirements, and it has failed to do so. I note particularly the failure to provide sufficient evidence of finances despite being put on notice of the requirement to do so. As above, I draw the reasonable inference that the required finances were not supplied because they are not available.
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
18 February 2025