Decision for Supreme Minibuses Limited (PC2001262)
Written decision for Supreme Minibuses Limited and transport manager Peter Robinson
IN THE NORTH WEST TRAFFIC AREA
SUPREME MINIBUSES LIMITED – PC2001262
WRITTEN DECISION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER
PUBLIC INQUIRY HELD IN GOLBORNE ON 03 FEBRUARY 2026
DECISION:
Under provision of sections 17(2)(b) of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 (“the Act”), this operator’s licence is suspended for one week from 23:45 on Friday 14 February 2026, until 23:45 on Friday 21 February 2026.
Mr. Peter Robinson is removed as transport manager, and a period of grace is granted, expiring 23:45 on 04 May 2026.
The non-environmental undertakings set out below are added to the licence and are to be complied with.
Supreme Minibuses Limited holds a Standard National PSV operator’s licence authorising four vehicles. The licence was granted on 27 February 2017, and the sole director is Mr. Nayem Mallu, with the approved transport manager being Mr. Peter John Robinson.
The licence-holder has a single operating centre, recorded as Memory Lane, Bolton, BL5 3EL, and preventative maintenance inspections are said to be carried out at eight-week intervals by (i) Brownlow Way Garage; (ii) Campbell St MOT Centre; and (iii) ZSM Autos Ltd.
Background
The licence holder came to the attention of this office following a DVSA desk-based assessment (“DBA”), which resulted with a rating of “Unsatisfactory”. That assessment was undertaken following the issue of an immediate prohibition at annual test where the fuel tank filler cap was found to be missing.
The DBA demonstrated significant shortcomings across several areas. Most notably, brake performance testing was absent from all 14 inspection reports reviewed, inspection intervals were found to be excessive at 70 days for vehicles over 12 years old, and maintenance records lacked critical information such as tyre age, chassis numbers, and tachograph calibration dates, there was no evidence of systems for vehicle off-road (VOR) tracking or safety recall management, indicating reactive rather than proactive maintenance practices. Additionally, the driver defect reporting process was inadequate, with missed defects and no clear documentation of rectification.
A report on the annual test history for the operator shows the failure rate at test to be above the national average.
Written responses to the DVSA had addressed some, but not all, concerns identified. The public inquiry was therefore convened to consider whether the licence holder has failed to comply with the undertakings and conditions of the operator’s licence and whether it continued to be of the required good repute and professional competence.
Transport Manager Peter Robinson was also called to this inquiry to consider whether he has failed to ensure effective and continuous management of transport operations as required in law, and whether the continues to be of the necessary good repute.
Pre-Hearing
Calling in letters were sent to both the operator and the transport manager on 16 December 2025. This set out a number of case management directions, including the requirement to provide this office with evidence for assessment ahead of the hearing, and with a list of attendees.
The licence holder complied with the case management directions, evidence was received in good time for assessment ahead of the inquiry and, on 10 January this office received confirmation from the licence holder that the following people would be in attendance – Mr, Nayem Mallu (Director), Mr Adnan Ali (proposed Transport Manager); and Mr. Graham Robinson (Transport Consultant).
Absent from that list was the current transport manager, Mr Peter Robinson (Transport Manager). It was also interesting to note the planned attendance of Mr. Ali as a ‘proposed transport manager’. The current transport manager is Mr. Peter Robinson, and there is no application nominating a new transport manager, additional or alternative.
The case management directions on the transport manager call-up letter were not complied with. On 27 January 2026 this office wrote to Mr. P. Robinson as his access to the case bundle had been provided as per his request, but the evidence and confirmation of attendance had not yet been received. That letter was not responded to, and this office was unaware as to whether Mr. P Robinson was planning to attend.
On the day of the inquiry Mr. P Robinson emailed to state that he would not be in attendance. It further set out that he had recently been unable to assist Mr. Mallu due to health issues. It accepted that, as transport manager, he had provided incorrect advice which resulted in this public inquiry being necessary. Mr. P Robinson concluded that – with a TM CPC Refresher – he felt he would be able to carry on as a competent transport manager.
Public Inquiry
The public inquiry took place on Tuesday 03 January 2026 at the Golborne Hearing Centre. The operator was in attendance through sole director Mr. Mallu and was represented by Mr. Grahame Robinson, Transport Consultant. Mr. Ali was not in attendance due to a work commitment, and Mr. P. Robinson had confirmed his non-attendance immediately before the commencement. I briefly considered whether the hearing should proceed. Mr. G. Robinson was content, as the representative for the licence holder, to proceed; but confirmed he was not instructed to represent Transport Manager Robinson.
In consideration as to 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.”
Mr. P Robinson has set out his reasons for non-attendance, and I am advised that until the email was received the licence-holder had expected his attendance. This is somewhat contradicted by the notice of attendance which did not include Mr. P Robinson’s name. It is however, clear, that Mr. P Robinson was aware of the hearing, had been put on notice and, as the other party was in attendance, I concluded that it was in the interest of justice to proceed. My hearing room is currently booked until April 2026 therefore any adjournment would not be brief.
Summary of Evidence
I commenced the inquiry by revisiting the key concerns which were set out within the call up letter:
- the prohibition at annual test
- the unsatisfactory MIVR
- professional competence
It was explained to me that the prohibition at annual test was as a result of Mr. Mallu himself refuelling enroute to the test centre and forgetting to replace the fuel tank cap. The subsequent findings within the DBA were accepted in full, and without issue. In mitigation I was advised that Mr. Mallu relied upon those he deemed better qualified than himself – Mr. P. Robinson, a CPC qualified transport manager, and the maintenance provider. As it turned out, both had let him down.
It was disappointing, therefore, that Mr. Mallu had not sought to obtain any training of his own beyond his drivers CPC. One would be forgiven to have expected operator licence specific training, if not before the DVSA assessment, certainly during the four months that have passed since. Whilst Mr. Mallu accepted this, and was keen to obtain that training going forward, I reminded him of the upper tribunal’s position within NT/2013/82 Arnold Transport & Sons Ltd that actions speak louder than words.
“The attitude of an operator when something goes wrong can be very instructive. Some recognise the problem at once and take immediate and effective steps to put matters right. Others only recognise the problem when it is set out in a call-up letter and begin to put matters right in the period before the Public Inquiry takes place. A third group leave it even later and come to the Public Inquiry with promises of action in the future. A fourth group bury their heads in the sand and wait to be told what to do during the Public Inquiry”
The DVSA assessment highlighted issues across road safety critical areas including (i) Inspection Reports and Maintenance Records; (ii) Driver Defect Reporting; (iii) Maintenance Facilities; (iv) Emissions; (v) Wheel & Tyre Management; and (vi) Transport Manager. Brake testing, or the absence of effective brake testing and record keeping, also came in for criticism.
In these areas the licence holder does appear to have taken some immediate steps. An updated DVSA report for the public inquiry, assessing a smaller volume of more recent records, does provide evidence of progress. Maintenance records are improved, with some minor omissions remaining, driver defect reporting was evidenced, a new maintenance provider was contracted, with emission testing, brake testing and wheel retorquing all put in place. Additionally, the decision had been made to engage the services of a new transport manager.
With regard to Mr. P Robinson, I was provided with an outline of his health issues and advised that whilst he remained engaged as a transport manager, it was accepted that the advice and guidance was antiquated and no longer in keeping with the current practices and expectations. The records within the bundle show that Mr. P Robinson obtained his transport manager’s CPC in December 1991, with no evidence of continuous professional development since. Within the email received immediately before the inquiry Mr. Robinson infers that has “tried to keep up to date with changes to the law and actions of a transport manager by using the government website and various media outlets”. He accepts that more needs to be done, and I agree.
Decision
In consideration of the facts, I make the following adverse findings:
-
Section 17(3)(aa) – that an undertaking of the licence has not been fulfilled, namely the requirement to ensure that vehicles, including hired vehicles, are kept in a fit and serviceable condition as evidenced by the findings of the DVSA assessment, the MOT fail rate, and the prohibition.
-
Section 17 (3)(aa) - that an undertaking of the licence has not been fulfilled, namely the requirement to ensure that drivers report promptly any defects that could prevent the safe operation of vehicles, and that any defects are promptly recorded in writing – as evidenced in the DVSA assessment
-
Section 17(1)(b) – that the transport manager designated no longer satisfies the requirements of Article 4 of the 2009 Regulation, in that Mr. P Robinson has failed to effectively and continuously manager the transport activities of the undertaking.
Mr. Peter Robinson is to be removed from the operator’s licence with immediate effect. The operator has requested a period of grace to allow the new application to nominate Mr. Ali to be submitted and approved. That application is not before me today, but I grant the period of grace as there are reasonable prospects, beyond mere hope and aspiration, that the period will allow the professional competence shortcoming to be remedied. The period of grace will expire at 23:45 on 04 May 2026, and the onus is now on the operator to ensure professional competence is satisfied before then otherwise the licence may be subject to revocation without further notice.
On consideration of the guidance provided by the Senior Traffic Commissioner on starting points for regulatory action, as set out at Annex 4 of Statutory Document 10, I place this case within the category of “Serious to Moderate” in that there have been a range of negative features with some recent positive features.
I consider this case to be such that a one-week period of suspension is a justified action to deter this operator, and others, from complacency, whilst having no detrimental impact on the school contracts being serviced by this operation. The suspension shall take effect at 23:45 on 14 February 2026, ending at 23:45 on 21 February 2026
This decision is taken on my acceptance of the following undertakings agreed, which will be added to the licence and are to be complied with:
a. “By 04 May 2026, Mr. Nayem Mallu will attend a one-day operator licence management course, run by either:
· a trade association (e.g. Logistics UK/ RHA/ BAR/ CPT);
· a professional body (e.g. IoTA/ CILT/ SOE/ IRTE);
· an approved examination centre offering the relevant transport manager CPC qualification for the type of licence held; or
· a firm of solicitors (or their associated training organisation) with significant experience with road transport regulatory and compliance issues (defined as having represented road transport operators and/or transport managers in at least 20 public inquiries over the past two years).
A copy of the certificate of attendance will be uploaded to the licence record via the Vehicle Operator Licensing self-service account within seven days of the course taking place. If the attendee does not have a self-service account, the certificate will be emailed to notifications@vehicle-operator-licensing.service.gov.uk within seven days of the course taking place.
This course may be completed in person, or online, but a self-paced course is not acceptable to fulfil this undertaking
b. The licence holder will identify an independent body to carry out an audit of transport safety and compliance systems within the following six months. The audit will assess the systems for complying with maintenance and drivers’ hours requirements, and the effectiveness with which those systems are implemented. The audit should cover at least the applicable elements detailed in the guidance on Operator Compliance Audits available at: www.gov.uk/government/publications/operator-compliance-audits.
A copy of the report together with the operator’s detailed proposals for implementing the report’s recommendations is to be uploaded to the licence record via the Vehicle Operator Licensing self-service account, or, if the operator does not have a self-service account, emailed to NorthWestHC@otc.gov.uk within 21 days of the audit being completed.
c. By 04 May 2026 the operator will provide the Traffic Commissioner with Mr. Mallu’s confirmation of attendance at the training courses relating to (i) Effective Management of Vehicle Maintenance, and (ii) Brake Testing (Certificates or independent confirmation should be provided).”
Transport Manager, Mr. P. Robinson
I have stopped short of an adverse finding on Mr. P Robinson’s good repute. He communicated with this office to explain his absence and has accepted his shortcomings. He has been removed from this licence and I note that he remains a transport manager on another, unrelated, licence. I will bring this decision to the attention of DVSA as ask that they consider a review of that operator’s compliance systems on the basis of shortcomings identified here. It may be the case that Mr. P. Robinson may yet be required to explain himself to a traffic commissioner and any decision can be taken in consideration of the wider facts.
David Mullan
Traffic Commissioner for the North West of England
04 February 2026