Decision for TAAS TRANSPORT LIMITED (OF2025480)
Written decision of the Traffic Commissioner in the East of England for TAAS TRANSPORT LIMITED
IN THE EASTERN TRAFFIC AREA
TAAS TRANSPORT LIMITED OF2025480
GOODS VEHICLES (LICENSING OF OPERATORS) ACT 1995
GOODS VEHICLES (LICENSING OF OPERATORS) REGULATIONS 1995
PUBLIC INQUIRY: 17 February 2026
TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER’S WRITTEN DECISION
DECISION
Pursuant to adverse findings under Section 26(1)(c)(iii), (ca), (f) and (h) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 Licence OF2025480 TAAS TRANSPORT LTD is revoked from 23:45 on Thursday 19 February 2026.
I do not make a disqualification direction as provided for by section 28 of the 1995 Act, but if Mr Victor Henry Wood (current director) and/or Mr Karl Richard Bicknell (former director) apply to be involved in the management, administration or control of any entity that holds or applies to obtain an operator Licence in GB, it must be referred to a TC/DTC – no delegated authority.
Reasons
The Public Inquiry commenced and concluded on 17 February 2026. The Operator through its sole director Mr Victor Wood and former director Mr Karl Richard Bicknell failed to attend. Mr Bicknell wrote in advance and despite my office reminding him it was in his interest to attend; he declined to do so (pages 133 – 147 of the electronic bundle). Mr Wood has failed to engage with my office since the call-in letter dated 30 December 2025 sent by Recorded Delivery to the notified VOL correspondence address (also registered office) and email -taastransport@gmail.com. This has been the designated e mail on VOL from the date of Licence grant. Casecentre record confirm that Mr Wood accessed the case papers on 8 January 2026. I am satisfied that there has been good service. I determined to proceed in absence as there was no evidence before me to suggest Mr Wood or Mr Bicknell would co-operate and attend any reconvened hearing. I also took note that Mr Wood used his VOL self-service access to remove 2 vehicles from the Licence at 15:31 on 15 January 2026, leaving 5 vehicles specified. They remained specified as of 10am on 17 February 2026.
The full history is set out in the PI electronic bundle, and I do not repeat it here, save where material to my findings. The Operator and its drivers have had numerous negative encounters with DVSA and the Police resulting in roadworthiness prohibitions, inspection notices and fixed penalties regularly since 2023 (pages 69 – 79 of the bundle). This includes Immediate and Delayed Prohibitions, with two “S” marked in October 2025 (indicating significant failures in the maintenance system). Accordingly, I make adverse findings under section 26(1)(c)(iii), (ca) and (f) of the 1995 Act.
Similarly, the Operator and its drivers have also had negative roadside encounters with DVSA Traffic Examiners and the Police in terms of load security, excess weight, drivers’ hours and tachographs and no vehicle excise duty paid (pages 69 – 79 of the bundle) Accordingly, I make adverse findings under section 26(1)(c)(iii), (ca) and (f) of the 1995 Act.
The Operator has failed to submit any of the records and evidence required in the case management directions (pages 11 and 12 of the electronic bundle). Such an approach has been unacceptable long before this Licence was granted. By way of example the Upper Tribunal in 2010/043 Stephen McVinnie made a clear statement of what is expected, which has been supported in numerous appellate decisions since (underlining is my emphasis):
- The overall sense we have of this case is of an operator failing to adhere to the process and timescales as determined by the Traffic Commissioner and seeking, instead, to determine for himself the timeframe for the submission of evidence and the determination of matters. The public inquiry process cannot function in this way. In this day and age, and especially in the essentially inquisitorial framework of the public inquiry system, there is in our view a clear duty on operators to help the Traffic Commissioner deal with cases fairly and justly – and to avoid delay, so far as compatible with the proper consideration of the material issues. The modern trend is to expect parties to tribunal proceedings (and, by analogy, operators) to co-operate generally. This will be especially important, and in the interests of the compliant operator, if it emerges that their operation is under scrutiny by VOSA or the Traffic Commissioner. A wise operator will take whatever steps are required to ensure that he takes advantage of every opportunity to submit relevant and helpful evidence before, and not after, matters come to a head, and well before a Traffic Commissioner sits down to make his or her final decisions.
The case management directions are designed to assist Traffic Commissioners make fair decisions after undertaking a balancing exercise and assessment of the operator as at the date of the Inquiry. This Operator has failed to avail itself of that opportunity and I am left to question why. If an adjournment was desirable (or believed necessary for any of a plethora of reasons no matter how uncompelling) then how to do so is in the call in paperwork and STC Statutory Document No. 9. In terms of driver management, there was a mainly positive TEVR back on 6 March 2025, which indicated some lessons were learned by then from the adverse roadside encounters with the Police and Traffic Examiners. However, by failing to produce more recent records I cannot say if it was sustained and that evidence is nearly a year old. Since then, there have been 4 adverse roadside traffic encounters, including Karl Bicknell on 23 April 2025 driving AF14BOY with no vehicle excise duty paid. The vehicle was specified on the TAAS Licence on 11 April 2025. Mr Bicknell was the sole statutory director from 11 February 2025 until 24 April 2025.
The maintenance records should have demonstrated that systems had been reviewed and made more robust to prevent the previous failings at roadside. If instead I held reservations, I might have adjourned for a DVSA urgent follow up report, potentially with interim regulatory action. However, I have not a single record to assist me. The most recent encounter on 31 October 2025 found the vehicle and trailer unroadworthy including the ‘S’ marking. The MOT pass rate is worse than the national average albeit an improving picture.
I remind myself that this PI came about at the Operator’s request after its response to the propose to revoke letter in April 2025. It has continued to operate vehicles and trailers, including undertaking STGO work, but then failed to co-operate. Whilst this may be the first Public Inquiry, that is not a barrier to revocation in serious cases. This is such a case due to the sustained failures to comply with the Licence undertakings and the prohibitions and similar. There is then in the mix the period where Mr Wood resigned as director and Mr Bicknell was added. I have been unable to test at a hearing the accounts previously provided by Mr Wood and Mr Bicknell. Mr Wood says he was unaware of Mr Bicknell’s adverse history when asking him to look after the business for a while due to personal circumstances. Mr Bicknell says in his pre-PI note that he was essentially doing a favour and was a volunteer. Both miss the point. Every director has a statutory duty under sections 173 and 174 of Companies Act 2006 (as amended) to exercise independent judgement, reasonable skill, care, and diligence. Mr Wood left safety in the hands of an individual who DTC Baker previously found unsuitable as a transport manager. Mr Wood did no due diligence. The DTC formal finding in 2023 was: “The repute of the transport manager, Karl Bicknell, is lost and order of indefinite disqualification is made. If he applies to remove the disqualification he will have to have requalified as a transport manager and demonstrate that he is fully committed to the role”. The disqualification was published in As & Ds on 13/9/23.
Mr Bicknell indicates that he was working to some lesser obligation acceptable in the circumstances of his nomination. This operator is effectively responsible for multi-axle killing machines and without meaningful evidence to the contrary, Mr Bicknell’s approach remains as flawed as in 2023. Mr Wood cites in his favour the fact that once he was aware of Mr Bicknell’s background, Mr Bicknell was removed as a director. I accept that is a positive feature save that the intention was in a letter dated 8 April 2025 but it was over two weeks later before the change and Mr Bicknell was driving after 8 April 2025 too. Further the weight given is also diminished because Mr Wood did not say how he would thereafter manage to exercise quality monitoring and control of the transport operations, yet the personal circumstances still existed. Based on the roadside encounters, and the failure to engage with this public inquiry process, I find that he has not managed in the common sense meaning of the term.
When I asked myself if this an operator that I can trust moving forward, then the evidence (and lack thereof) leads me to conclude that I cannot. Safety remains at a significant risk which undermines the underpinning principles of operator licensing, namely road safety and fair competition. Accordingly, I have reached the decisions set out in paragraphs 1 and 2 above.
Addendum
Vehicle Examiner Joseph Quargraine gave oral evidence. He submitted a report the morning of the hearing. I allowed this because it is directly relevant to the Licence but I make it clear that it does not come into my decision making above. Revocation is the only appropriate and proportionate outcome based on matters set out in paragraphs 3 – 11. If Mr Wood had been present, I would have allowed the evidence rather than adjourn as the vast majority is already within his knowledge.
The report at pages 148/9 sets out the DVSA unsuccessful attempts to undertake a maintenance investigation. There is reference to Mr Wood being in hospital before Christmas, and a fire at the operating centre on 28 December 2025. The appointment thereafter on 13 February 2026 was not kept and attempts to contact Mr Wood unsuccessful. The VOL access by Mr Wood on 15 January 2026 referred to in paragraph 3 above is relevant in this chronology. I direct that if Mr Wood applies again in any guise then the Vehicle Examiner’s report dated 16 February 2026 is included for the determining TC/DTC.
DECISION
Pursuant to adverse findings under Section 26(1)(c)(iii), (ca), (f) and (h) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 Licence OF2025480 TAAS TRANSPORT LTD is revoked from 23:45 on Thursday 19 February 2026.
I do not make a disqualification direction as provided for by section 28 of the 1995 Act. However, if Mr Victor Henry Wood (current director) and/or Mr Karl Richard Bicknell (former director) apply to be involved in the management, administration or control of any entity that holds or applies to obtain an operator Licence in GB, it must be referred to a TC/DTC – no delegated authority.
MISS SARAH BELL
TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER FOR GREAT BRITAIN
Issued: 18 February 2026