Decision for T&C Travel Limited (PK2022048 )
Written decision of the Traffic Commissioner for the South East and Metropolitan area for T&C Travel Limited and Transport Manager Kenny Tye
IN THE SOUTH EASTERN & METROPOLITAN TRAFFIC AREA.
T&C TRAVEL LIMITED PK2022048
&
MR KENNY TYE (Transport Manager)
PUBLIC PASSENGER VEHICLES ACT 1981
PUBLIC SERVICE VEHICLES (OPERATORS LICENCES) REGULATIONS 1995
PUBLIC INQUIRY TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER WRITTEN DECISION
DECISION:
Pursuant to adverse findings under section 17(aa), (b), (c) and (e) and section 17(1)(a) and (b) of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981, the Operator T&C Travel Limited no longer meets the mandatory requirements of good repute and professional competence as provided for by section 14ZA(2)(a) and (d) of the 1981 Act. Accordingly, Licence PK2022048 T&C Travel Limited is revoked with effect from 23:45 on Sunday 12 April 2026.
I make no direction under section 28 Transport Act 1985.
Upon a finding that the Transport Manager Kenny Tye no longer satisfies the requirements of Section 14ZA(3) to be of good repute in accordance with Schedule 3 of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 and a finding that he is unfit to manage the transport activities of an undertaking, Kenny Tye is disqualified and prohibited from being designated as a Transport Manager on any Operator Licence for a period of 24 months with effect from 23:45 on Sunday 12 April 2026.
All page numbers are references to the electronic hearing bundle unless otherwise stated.
Background
This licence was granted on 23 July 2019. The two directors are Mr Kenny Tye and Mrs Yvonne Tye. Mr Tye is the transport manager since grant. On 22 February 2023 the operator and transport manager attended a Public Inquiry to consider the outcome of a DVSA MIVR (Maintenance Investigation Visit Report) which was marked unsatisfactory. Formal warnings were issued with an audit undertaking attached. The reasons I gave for that decision are directly relevant and set out later in this decision.
A follow up MIVR was conducted by a different Vehicle Examiner on 05 December 2024. The report was also graded as Unsatisfactory and Mr Tye sent a detailed reply. The electronic bundle case summary sets the position to that point clearly:
The following were marked on the report:
- · Prohibition Assessment (Report to OTC) / Condition of vehicles examined at fleet check (Prohibition Issued)
- · Previous public inquiry or RFE assurances (Report to OTC)
- · Inspection / Maintenance Records (Unsatisfactory)
- · Driver Defect Reporting (Unsatisfactory)
- · Inspection Facilities & Maintenance Arrangements (Unsatisfactory)
- · Vehicle Emissions (Unsatisfactory)
- · Transport Manager / Responsible Person Assessment (Unsatisfactory)
The operator responded stating the following points:
- Switched to Wadey Commercials; mileage now recorded from the tachograph and inspection dates logged correctly.
- Drivers instructed to check seatbelts, tyre policies clarified, and reporting moved fully to digital unless unavailable.
- VOR records to be kept; past recording issues acknowledged and corrected.
- Hired qualified staff after internal disputes; updated maintenance provider on official records.
- Clarified and challenged defect findings; offered DVSA reinspection and supplied evidence of repairs.
- Now conducts pre-MOT checks and retains emissions test results.
- Defended Mr. Tye’s compliance and challenged the legality of the proposed interview under caution.
The Operator Information and Performance Reports (OIPRs) show the following since the last Public Inquiry on 22 February 2023:
- OCRS reports – Roadworthiness: Red – Traffic: Unknown – Combined: Red – Final Band: Red
- Encounter Summary – Roadworthiness: 13 encounters with 4 immediate prohibitions, 5 delayed prohibitions, 9 mechanical prohibitions and 2 S-Marked prohibitions giving a mechanical prohibition rate of 69.23% (23.40% national). Traffic: 0 encounters
- Test Report – 14 tests with 7 passes, 1 PRS, 7 initial fail, 6 final fail, 1 abandoned giving an initial fail rate of 50% (9.74% national) and a final fail rate of 42.86% (6.61% national)
Considering the previous compliance history, I called the Operator and Transport Manager to a further Public Inquiry.
It is relevant to understanding this decision that Mr Tye was previously a director of A&S Coach and Commercial Repairs Limited (‘A & S’). The other director was Mr Martin Hebert and they were equal shareholders. ‘A&S’ is shown as dissolved on Companies House from 24 December 2024 via compulsory strike-off.
Hearings
The Public Inquiry was listed for 9 September 2025. Mr Tye represented the Operator as well as being called as TM. Both were represented by Mr Darren Finnegan of Counsel. A witness was also present for the Operator. Two DVSA Examiners attended. However, on that day I adjourned the case to 1 October 2025 (it also went into 2 October 2025) with further directions, because of (a) late service of evidence even after an extension, which included serious allegations around DVSA Examiners conduct; and (b) representations from Mr Finnegan citing concerns that Mr Herbert was in the tribunal room as an observer due to an ongoing police investigation. In relation to (b) DVSA did not seek to be joined as a party or to be legally represented.
My directions included only the parties and witnesses were permitted in the Tribunal Room; all others were to be given a link to observe via Microsoft Teams. During the October hearing, I directed that Mr Herbert’s link to Teams be removed. There was prima facie evidence that whilst Mr Tye was in the witness box, Mr Herbert sent a text saying, ‘lying cunt’, which was read by Mr Tye and shown to his Counsel during a break. It was shown to me when we reconvened. Mr Tye is not blocking texts from Mr Herbert upon informed advice and therefore removal of Mr Herbert’s virtual attendance was necessary for the fairness of proceedings.
At the conclusion of the hearing, I gave Counsel time to submit closing submissions in writing. I received those from my office on 6 October 2025. I apologise unreservedly for the time taken in making this decision. It is not straightforward and care is needed with the allegations amounting to bad faith or similar towards the enforcement agency.
Issues
The issues for this operator relate to its maintenance systems. There is no criticism of drivers’ hours or driver management. As per the OIPR at page 158, there have been no Traffic Examiner encounters with this Operator since the last PI. The call-in letter and case summary cite the previous Public Inquiry and the outcome of the latest MIVR, with consideration of regulatory action across the spectrum of my powers. Mr Tye is separately called as the Transport Manager to determine if he remains of good repute for the same reasons.
Counsel set out in some detail in advance of the hearing (through written questions to DVSA), during cross-examination and in closing concern with a lack of objectivity and transparency in the investigation. This included inappropriate contact with Mr Martin Herbert and unacceptable comments to T&C Travel’s staff. At the same time, Counsel acknowledges in his written closing that most of the DVSA evidence is accepted. Counsel puts the position for the parties in this way: “I ask that this case is located within serious to severe according to Annex four on the basis that there have been persistent compliance failures and that the operator has previously been to a public inquiry”. This is direct reference to STC Statutory Document No. 10 Annex 4 category SEVERE TO SERIOUS which amounts to “Persistent operator licence failures with inadequate response or previous public inquiry history”.
The DVSA Examiner in question pushes back on any challenge to his integrity. He has been with DVSA for over 30 years and is a mechanical expert. He was also concerned at suggestions he was less than helpful, because he tries to help where he can. His mantra has always been of the need for Operators to have a clear audit trail of who did what and when and to produce that evidence. Mr Tye acknowledged at one point he went ‘above and beyond’. Even in May 2025 he told Mr Tye that his door was open, but the offer was not taken up. As of 2 October 2025, the Examiner remained concerned around the lack of quality management because of repeated issues MIVR to MIVR.
Consideration and findings
Counsel acknowledges that little turns of the alleged comments made by DVSA to the Operator’s staff. I am asked to give consideration and weight to the inappropriate contact with Mr Herbert during this investigation. Counsel refers to ‘questionable bona fides’ in his closing. At the same time Counsel acknowledges there are many facts in this case which are not affected by the DVSA’s questionable conduct. The MOT fail rate is still high, there are roadside prohibitions and vehicles are moved on the road with the signature of roadworthiness not being signed. It is not suggested that the DVSA are the epicentre of the compliance failings at T&C. All that can be said is that they inadvertently exacerbated them to some extent. I am asked to therefore find that this is significant mitigation. I return to this submission later.
I have carefully reviewed the MIVR, the Operator’s original response together with the evidence from DVSA and Mr Tye on the more recent records. I repeat that Counsel acknowledges on behalf of the Operator and Mr Tye that the majority of the DVSA’s evidence is accepted. In relation to the MIVR, the only exception is the reference to vehicle G18TNC being operated without MOT. I accept Mr Tye’s evidence before me that the vehicle was not operated without an MOT. However, T&C does bear all the responsibility for the confusion considering the submission of the driver defect report which purported to be for that vehicle.
Considering the admissions on material facts agreed by the parties, I find the parties failed to make proper arrangements so that the following breaches occurred:
- Maintenance contractor (Schultz) not notified – section 17(3)(b) of the 1981 Act.
- the laws relating to the operation of vehicles used under the licence are observed – section 17(3)(aa) of the 1981 Act.
- vehicles, including hired vehicles, are kept in a fit and serviceable condition - section 17(3)(aa) of the 1981 Act.
- drivers report promptly any defects that could prevent the safe operation of vehicles, and that any defects are promptly recorded in writing - section 17(3)(aa) of the 1981 Act.
- records are kept (for 15 months) of all safety inspections, routine maintenance and repairs to vehicles, and made available on request - section 17(3)(c) of the 1981 Act.
I am a Safety Regulator. It is for me to determine if an Operator has safe systems in place which are sufficiently robust to ensure the conditions and undertakings on the Operator Licence are met. Every director has a statutory duty under sections 173 and 174 of Companies Act 2006 to exercise independent judgement, reasonable skill, care, and diligence. Where an Operator Licence is held the duty extends to ensuring quality monitoring and control of the transport operations. A transport manager must exercise continuous and effective management of the transport operations. Where a director is also the transport manager there must be no merging of those responsibilities. Operators and Transport Managers have deemed knowledge of all the advice and guidance in the public domain, as per the Upper Tribunal in 2012/030 MGM Haulage & Recycling Limited.
In this case the Operator and Transport Manager already had a shot across the bows in 2023. I arranged for the closing submissions submitted by a different Counsel for the 2023 PI to be produced to ensure we were all familiar with the assurances provided. It is directly relevant to the issues before me in 2025. My reasons for the decision in 2023 are set out below (and found at pages184 – 186):
I heard oral evidence from Mr Kenny Tye, director on behalf of the operator, who was represented by Counsel. The outcome of the original DVSA desk-based assessment is wholly unacceptable for what is an established licence. Steps have been taken to remedy the situation. At the same time. Mr Tye acknowledged that it had not been done quickly enough. Mr Tye assures me that extant issues such as vehicle technician refresher training will happen imminently. Further, he now has the benefit of a transport consultant to guide him in the areas of expertise required. This is recorded on the licence as a statement of intent and if it is not followed through, then that will be a breach of trust.
This is not a formal warning case. As a starting point it is a suspension case. However, I have accepted Mr Tye’s heartfelt plea that any reduction in vehicles for no matter how long may be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. This is not because of any mismanagement by the directors but because of a laboured insurance claim arising from the burglary in October 2022, which for some inexplicable reason, has been linked with today. Apart from the funding of any PI there is no correlation whatsoever. I hope now that this decision has been issued. The insurance company will expedite matters. These are challenging times for all bus and coach operators and any delay is unhelpful. Operators cannot wait for an insurance payout before getting things fixed save for a very short period. This is a time critical business in terms of meeting customer demand. If contracts are not fulfilled, then they are lost.
On balance, I accept that if I were to make an order for suspension or reduction in vehicle authorisation, it would have the unintended outcome of being equivalent to a revocation. The law is clear that should not happen. I am putting my trust in Mr Tye to fulfil his promises, and it is very much in this operator’s interests not to be back at a further public inquiry for any reason.
It is disappointing that the 2024 investigation and 2025 Pre-PI DVSA addendum report identified ongoing safety concerns. There are positives in this case. At the MIVR in December 2024: (a) Satisfactory systems for tyres and wheel security; (b) Evidence of gate checks being conducted; and (c) positive comments from the DVSA about Mr Tye’s attitude. Similarly, in the addendum report, the following improvements are noted: (a) Forward planning; (b) PMI sheets; and (c) MOT pass rate. There may be a rectification process when the vehicles are returned from PMI, but this system is still in need of improvement. Such basic safety arrangements should not need to still need this.
In addressing the Arnold Transport question, Mr Finnegan suggests T&C do not fit neatly into any one of the three categories. Some issues have been rectified quickly “and in the face of considerable headwinds” - such as the changing of maintenance provider. It is averred as a positive that this had been done long before there was any suggestion of a public inquiry. I am asked to accept that Mr Tye had begun to use Mr Shultz to try and turn things around and make the best of what was a deteriorating situation at A&S. The reality is that I can give this limited weight when taken in the context of the 2023 admissions and assurances. The true chronology is important here. In my judgement the Arnold Transport test must be read in that context.
In 2022/3 there were concerns with A & S and one of the assurances in Counsel’s representations dated 17 February 2023 (page 494) was: ‘T&C will send [REDACTED] randomly selected vehicles to perform “audit PMIs” on, after A&S have completed their PMI, to provide additional oversight in respect of the quality of the company’s maintenance work’. Mr Tye produced evidence that whilst the relationship with Mr Herbert deteriorated in 2022, this escalated through 2023 including derogatory media posts in 2023 (examples exhibited). By March 2024 access to A&S was interrupted for a few days and arguments and withholding paperwork led to Mr Tye stepping away from ‘A&S’ in terms of management but Mr Tye acknowledged that during this period and beyond ‘A&S’ continued to do the maintenance. The vehicles were not moved to [REDACTED] until December 2024 (not May 2024 as said in his first witness statement). At a point later in 2024 Mr Schulz (a former Stagecoach engineer) assisted Mr Tye – Mr Schultz was an employed driver from May 2024. On 11 December 2024, Mr Tye told DVSA that Mr Shultz had also done some of the ‘recent’ PMIs but he was a self-employed contractor for maintenance. For the PI, I am told Mr Schultz had also helped audit the paperwork. DVSA accept that more defects appeared to be picked up by Mr Schultz, but VOL was not updated and a maintenance contract with Mr Schultz was not produced. As per the MIVR (page 83) Mr Tye told DVSA he had agreed terms with [REDACTED] & there was a pre-arranged call for 13/12/24 to agree a future PMI schedule. Whilst that move to [REDACTED] may have concluded ‘long’ before the 2025 PI, it was also ‘long’ into the problems with ‘A&S’ and when Mr Tye knew that DVSA had ongoing concerns likely to be reported to OTC - he had the prior knowledge from 2022/3 of this. Mr Tye cites challenges, in part down to Mr Herbert, in finding others to do PMIs. The undertakings are clear and no matter the distance, effective PMIs and other support systems are mandatory. The alternative is parking the vehicles up; not simply do your best.
The MIVR for the 2025 Public Inquiry is based on an investigation that started on 5 December 2024 with 10 days’ notice (page 113/4). The appointment letter required vehicles and records for 4 stated vehicles including their PMI records from 5 February 2024 and other maintenance documents for the same period, such as driver defect reports. Whilst there have been frank exchanges of views on the vehicle condition at that fleet inspection, the Operator has stepped back from its early position. Regardless of the external distractions, it was for the Operator and Transport Manager to ensure that standards were raised and then sustained from February 2023. The Operator was fortunate it was an investigation ‘by appointment’. Often where there has already been a PI, DVSA turn up with no warning. Further DVSA continued to engage all the way through to May 2025 before signing off the MIVR giving Mr Tye far longer than many Operators before a final sign off. This Operator and its transport manager failed to take advantage of these opportunities. It had still not done so by September 2025
In answering the Priority Freight question, it is submitted that Mr Tye and T&C can be trusted to be compliant. I am asked to consider that Mr Tye gave open and candid evidence at the inquiry and acknowledged that things were not as they should be. That is no different to 2023. If Mr Tye was “…. a man who has been beset by difficulties beyond his control” then why did he remain the sole transport manager? When his transport consultant (whose ongoing engagement was relied on in February 2023) became unavailable for several months, why was a different consultant not engaged? Mr Tye as the main director and sole transport manager permitted himself to be a single point of failure despite being “beset by difficulties” over a long period.
It is suggested that the answer to the Priority Freight question would be substantially different if all of the compliance issues were entirely and exclusively due to him. He has tried his best in very difficult conditions. The observation that he was unusually reliant on the DVSA is important evidence here. An untrustworthy operator who cared little about compliance would have no need or desire to contact the DVSA at all. I do not agree on many levels. In 2022/3 Mr Tye relied in part on events outside his control to explain (but not condone) the failings. Part of the assurance was that distractions would not get in the way again. It is of little comfort to the travelling public and other road users that 2023 and 2024 was a ‘different’ type of distraction. It is Mr Tye’s judgement that is flawed. As the transport manager it was for him to ensure that ‘distractions’ did not impact the operational fleet. As the director, if looking at the position objectively it should also have been obvious to Mr Tye as a director. Both parts of the system failed and a system that does not work is no system at all.
Conclusion
It is suggested that I can step back from revocation or significant regulatory action when adding into the balance the offered undertakings: a. Mr Tye to step aside as TM for a period of 12 months. b. Audit to be conducted within six months. c. Reduction of PMI intervals. d. Any other undertakings which the traffic commissioner deems appropriate. Again, undertakings were relied on in 2022/3. On the written and oral evidence before me, the undertakings now on offer are entirely self-serving in the context of “there have been persistent compliance failures and that the operator has previously been to a public inquiry” (see para 12 above). It is suggested that by Mr Tye not being the transport manager, the Licence can continue. I disagree. It is Mr Tye’s judgement and competence in the common sense meaning of the term across both roles that cause me grave concern. The sustained and systemic failures despite my decision in 2023 are such that I cannot trust this Operator moving forward and if the Operator is put out of business it would not be an unintended consequence. Revocation of this Licence and loss of good repute of an Operator, is not disproportionate where safety has been compromised in this way. The regime exists to ensure not only road safety, but also fair competition and robust action is required where there is a risk of undermining those principles by allowing ongoing operations.
All the failings above reflect what happens when the transport manager role is not treated with the degree of separation, seriousness and respect it requires. I cannot trust Mr Tye as a transport manager and there needs to be clear blue water, with an evidenced based period of trust (in whatever walk of life he chooses next) before he seeks to find his good repute regained. A period of 2 years is appropriate where he has failed over a sustained period to properly manage safety.
I have stepped back from disqualification of T&C and its directors from applying again in the future. However, both my 2023 and this decision will be considered on any future application.
Addendum
I bring to this my prior experience as a defence solicitor for operators and transport managers as well as being a TC in post for 19 years. As with any enforcement agency DVSA has its own systems for managing and triaging intelligence received and whether it is retained as intelligence or acted upon. It is not for me to adjudicate on the appropriateness of that system. Robust exchanges will happen between Operators, Transport Managers, their staff and Examiners conducting an investigation on occasion. I explained this to Mr Tye at the hearing, pointing out that DVSA conducted the 2023 investigation, gave significant advice and even on Mr Tye’s own evidence were faced with unsafe systems again. In those circumstances, Examiners may be blunt for genuine and well-intentioned reasons. Further it is unrealistic to expect Examiners in the same enforcement area not to share experience of operators they may both have dealings with. Many Examiners have years of service and may see the same Operator at different times on several occasions. The information shared may be positive as well as negative. What is important is that investigations and reports follow all relevant lines of inquiry and are evidence based. I am satisfied that test is met for the evidence before me.
I remind myself of the House of Lords in Re: H&R (1996)(1)FLR80, that the more serious the allegation the more cogent evidence is required. Traffic commissioners are a creature of statute with no inherent jurisdiction. Our decision-making is evidence based. On the Operator’s own case it agrees with DVSA. Further as a Specialist Tribunal it is important that I stay within my jurisdiction. Complaints about DVSA Examiners ‘leaking’ investigation details to Mr Herbert, unless it impacts the factual accuracy, are not for me. DVSA has a complaints protocol. Findings of conduct bordering on (even if falling short of) abuse of power or bad faith are for the appellate courts. For the purposes of this case, the material facts I have relied on are based on sound evidence and any suggestions that DVSA’s conduct potentially exacerbating the situation, no matter how inadvertent, remains a serious allegation and the evidence such as it is does not meet the Re H&R test.
Out of fairness to Mr Tye, I have discounted in its entirety the evidence produced or made available to DVSA by Mr Herbert, including the workshop photos and the calibration certificate. In doing so I remain neutral on DVSA’s approach other than to say there is a regrettable absence of recording in notebooks or similar on areas that may have assisted me. I discount the evidence because the previous business relationship between Mr Herbert and Mr Tye turned sour and the police remain involved. Mr Herbert knowingly contacting a party to proceedings before me whilst giving evidence in a way that is designed to distract and upset is unconscionable. I have reported the matter to the Senior Traffic commissioner to canvas whether Mr Herbert should be put on notice that he may not be permitted to observe PSV Public Inquiries in this traffic area.
MISS SARAH BELL
TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER FOR GREAT BRITAIN
Issued: 26 February 2026