Decision for Team Pro Scaffolding (SW) Ltd (OH2082770)
Written decision of the Traffic Commissioner for the West of England for Team Pro Scaffolding (SW) Ltd
WESTERN TRAFFIC AREA
TEAM PRO SCAFFOLDING (SW) LTD OH2082770
AT A PUBLIC INQUIRY IN BRISTOL 8 JANUARY 2026
DECISION
BACKGROUND
This is an application for a restricted goods vehicle operator’s licence for three vehicles for a scaffolding company. The director is Heather Sullivan, the shareholders are Heather and Daniel Sullivan, wife and husband. Terry Sullivan, Daniel’s father, was director and sole shareholder before seemingly passing the business to his son and daughter-in-law in November 2023.
The operator’s extensive adverse history is set out in the case summary and I do not repeat it in full here. This is a family business and variously three members of the family have been directors and shareholders of two businesses (that are relevant here). The first is the applicant “Team Pro”. The second is Pro Services Group Ltd “Services”, previously called Pro Scaffolding (South West) Ltd. Heather was a director of that business from January 2013 to March 2015 and Daniel from January 2013 until the company entered insolvency in February 2024. The only notified persons of significant control at Companies House are Daniel and Heather Sullivan, both still appointed at date of insolvency.
The adverse history can be summarised as follows:
- Services had its restricted licence at public inquiry in 2015 for gross non-compliance across maintenance, traffic matters and unlawful use of an operating centre.
- A second restricted licence was granted in June 2017. I revoked it in November 2019 and invited an application for a standard licence to provide the comfort of a statutory transport manager. That strategy didn’t work and the licence was curtailed at public inquiry in 2021 and revoked on loss of professional competence and entry to insolvency in February 2024.
- On entry to insolvency, Services had an estimated deficiency of £954,205. The company’s assets were sold to Team Pro for £75,000. It is not clear whether that money has been paid.
- Team Pro has had three previous applications refused, one for failing to supply an advert and two at public inquiry where the applicant has been unable to establish its fitness to hold a licence.
- One of those refusals followed a public inquiry on 6 November 2024. ANPR evidence indicated illegal operation and the presiding DTC requested submissions following the hearing. Somewhat unbelievably, on 7 November 2024 whilst awaiting the DTC decision, vehicle NK15OEE, a 26 tonne Merecedes laden with scaffolding, was directed into a DVSA check-site at Llantrisant. The driver declared he had been working for Team Pro taking his instructions from “Heather or Dan” for around 14 months. There were multiple occasions of driving without a card, the driver on the day admitted to having two cards and the MOT had expired seven months earlier.
- On 18 March 2025, NK15OED, another 26-tonne Mercedes, was directed into the DVSA check-site again at Llantrisant. It was being operated by Team Pro and was impounded. On 28 March 2025, a new application for a licence was made but refused due to the lack of an advert.
- This application was submitted on 23 June and the adverse history was not declared. Following correspondence, I directed that it be determined at public inquiry. I asked that the operator be put on notice in the following terms: “The Traffic Commissioner does wish to stress that any evidence at all, of any further illegal operation will make a positive outcome almost impossible to achieve.” That was sent to the operator on 29 October 2025.
On 12 November 2025, vehicle HN65PDV, an 18-tonne DAF, was encountered by DVSA laden with scaffolding. The operator was Team Pro. The vehicle was impounded.
The applicant has sought to withdraw the application on two occasions, most recently yesterday. The applicant’s history is in the public domain. The impoundings are in the public domain. This application is in the public domain.
However, it acknowledges that there are circumstances which mean it is the public interest for an application to be determined. An example is given of “manipulation of the licensing system”. I find that the current applicant’s approach to continued illegal operation despite revocations and refusals falls in that category. That is why withdrawal was refused on 30 December 2025 and why it is refused again today. The public interest requires that this application be determined.
THE PUBLIC INQUIRY
No-one has attended for the applicant. Heather Sullivan had helpfully communicated that in advance. I proceed to make a decision.
I note late evidence from DVSA dated 7 January in the form of a witness statement from Ms Helen Ewart. Ms Ewart’s statement tells me that vehicle FJ15UNL, a 16-tonne DAF truck understood to belong to Team Pro, was sighted on ANPR cameras seventy-eight times between 3 December 2025 and 23 December 2025.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The insolvency of Pro Services Group Ltd shows a shortfall of £954,000 which appears high for a modest scaffolding business giving rise to a question of whether the company had traded when knowing it was insolvent. The assets were sold to the applicant for £75,000. Tangible assets on the last published accounts were valued at £1,100,000. That needs explanation.
There has been continuous and continuing illegal operation of heavy goods vehicles. That shows an absolute disregard for the licensing regime.
The company has been convicted for that illegal operation and two vehicles have been impounded. A driver who had been driving illegal HGVs for the company for 14 months told DVSA that he had been given his directions by Dan and Heather, indicating that both are controlling minds of the business and both have been positively involved in the criminality of illegal operation of heavy goods vehicles. That needs explanation.
In “Aspey Trucks Ltd 2010 – 49”, the Upper Tribunal comments on the difference between finding a loss of repute in an existing haulier and whether or not a new applicant to the industry met the standard to be of good repute:
“In a case such as this, the Deputy Traffic Commissioner was not looking at putting someone out of business. Rather, he was deciding whether or not to give his official seal of approval to a person seeking to join an industry where those licensed to operate on a Standard National or Standard International basis must, by virtue of S.13(3), prove upon entry to it that they are of good repute. In this respect, Traffic Commissioners are the gatekeepers to the industry - and the public, other operators, and customers and competitors alike, all expect that those permitted to join the industry will not blemish or undermine its good name, or abuse the privileges that it bestows. What does “Repute” mean if it does not refer to the reasonable opinions of other properly interested right-thinking people, be they members of the public or law-abiding participants in the industry?”
The same principle clearly applies to fitness in relation to an application for a restricted licence. The questions around the conduct during the insolvency and the ongoing criminality mean that the operator has failed to establish its fitness.
DECISION
Section 13B, fitness, fails to be satisfied. The application is refused.
A copy of this decision is to be sent to the operator’s primary customer.
Kevin Rooney
Traffic Commissioner
8 January 2026