Decision for Transport Manager Louise Froggatt
Written decision of the Traffic Commissioner for the East of England for Transport Manager Louise Frogatt
IN THE EASTERN TRAFFIC AREA
LOUISE FROGGATT – TRANSPORT MANAGER
TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER’S WRITTEN DECISION
Decision
Louise Froggatt has lost her good repute and is disqualified for a period of eight years.
Background
In February 2023, a Joanne Louise Hewison submitted a Transport Manager’s Certificate of Professional Competence in support of her nomination to act as an external Transport Manager on OB2017589, held by Vision Logistical Solutions Ltd. Those processing the application had cause to question the veracity of that certificate. The face of the certificate suggested that it had been issued by the Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport. A DVSA investigation subsequently obtained a statement from Darrell Mark McGivern, Director of Awarding Services, Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport in the UK, confirming that the institute had not issued that certificate. Further inquiries were requested.
Wynwood Logistics Ltd holds a Standard National Goods Vehicle Operator’s Licence (OF2020752) authorising 15 vehicles and 10 trailers from 15 March 2019. Ms Froggatt was nominated as an internal Transport Manager and acted in that capacity from 7 August 2023. The application to add her was made in June/July 2023.
Hearing
The Public Inquiry was listed for today, 9 September 2025, in Tribunal Room 1 of the Office of the Traffic Commissioner in Cambridge. Ms Froggat was present. [REDACTED]
Issues
The public inquiry was called to consider whether I should make a direction in respect of Ms Froggatt’s repute under section 27(1)(b) and Schedule 3.
Determination
Ms Froggatt is said to have worked in logistics for several previous companies including Kuehne and Nagel, together with Ms Hewison. In 2021 they were looking at setting up their own business. Ms Froggatt claimed to have supported her both financially and academically (home study). Ms Froggatt qualified with a Certificate of Professional Competence with OCR.
I referred to the evidence supplied by the DVSA Casework Specialist, Pamela McGee, which set out the background to her inquiries into Ms Hewison’s attempts to obtain a Certificate of Professional Competence. This was organised through Ms Froggatt, who was described as former colleague and friend. Ms Froggatt apparently organised and paid for the training and acted as a tutor. Ms Hewison passed paper 1 in May 2022, having failed on 2 previous attempts. She then failed paper 2 on 3 occasions in November and December 2021 and May 2022. She did not attempt to resit that paper (2) in July 2022 but was persuaded by Ms Froggatt to appeal the marking. She was apparently told that a friend of Ms Froggatt’s then partner would arrange this.
In interview under caution on 7 June 2024 at Ashfield Driving Test Centre, Ms Froggatt claimed that she had discussed Ms Hewison’s situation with her then partner, Paul Marshall. He was said to have advised her to arrange to appeal and that he knew “a friend who will set the appeals in motion”. Ms Hewison agreed and Mr Marshall then provided contact details for a Janusz Janusz, known as ‘John’ and/or ‘Johno Jano’. Ms Froggatt was contacted by ‘John’ on Mr Marshall’s mobile phone. She described it as an android phone she found it in a bag with wrap ties and a Stanley knife. It was later seized by the police. Ms Froggatt claimed that John informed her that he successfully appealed the marking through CILT (UK). She claimed to have paid ‘John’ £195 in cash for his assistance, but there was no other evidence of this exchange and DVSA investigators were unable to make contact with him. It was only during the hearing that I learned that Paul Marshall was apparently present on day release from HMP North Sea Camp, having declined to provide those details during interview under caution.
Ms Hewitson produced text messages relating to receipt of the document on 23/24 February 2023. Apparently, Louise Froggatt supplied the certificate to Ms Hewison on 7 March 2023. In interview, Ms Froggatt claimed that it had been delivered to her home, by John, who put it through the door. She then copied and emailed it to Ms Hewison. At the hearing Ms Froggatt claimed that she commented to Ms Hewison on how “posh” the certificate looked.
The ‘certificate’ itself purported to be issued on 15 August 2022 (CPCA0811000028) but the text inserted on the certificate was in a different font to usual stating that the learner had successfully passed the tests for the examination in 2022, dated 15 August 2022. The evidence referred to the formatting and obvious visual inconsistencies. Ms Froggatt claimed to believe it was genuine certificate, not having seen other certificates issued by CILT(UK). A hard copy of the certificate was not provided to DVSA. Ms Froggatt denied paying for a fraudulent certificate.
She suggested that, whilst having issues with Paul Marshall, she nevertheless decided to discuss Ms Hewison’s failure of her CPC papers. This was on an occasion when Paul Marshall was on release from prison either in July but most likely on 2 August 2022. It was suggested in her statement that she was scared of Mr Marshall and that he was controlling so I attempted to understand the exact timings. On her own evidence their discussion occurred during a period when she found Mr Marshall to be convincing and thought that he had legitimate feelings for her. 4 or 5 weeks after their conversation, she switched on “Paul’s old mobile that was still in our house” and “a guy called her called “John” to put appeal in place”. She was told he worked as an examiner or reviewer for CILT (UK) Ltd. In evidence she admitted that this was unlikely.
She referred to being in a relationship until November 2022 when she broke it off after an alleged assault whilst he was again on release. The reports suggested that he had been taken into custody in April 2022 but absconded from HMP North Sea Camp November 2022 to April 2023. Emails dated 17 June 2024 refer to his imprisonment. She made reference to Paul Marshall’s history and conviction for serious offences. He was apparently on licence during the pandemic period and then recalled to prison. She had answered calls from Mr Marshall using a mobile telephone from prison. That did not apparently alert Ms Froggatt. Mr Marshall was described as highly manipulative. Ms Froggatt also alerted me to events after November 2022, but this information appeared unconnected to her decision making regarding the ‘certificate’.
I considered Ms Froggatt’s evidence very carefully and had read her written representations of 17 August 2025 in which she apologised for making the mistake of trusting a person who she believed loved and cared for her. She claimed to have been fooled as she was not fully aware of the complete situation involving Paul Marshall and his family members. She claimed that she only became aware of his true nature after he absconded in November 2022, and when he put threatening graffiti on her back gate. The representations claim that at no point was she aware that the above actions were not genuine. She claimed to have been shocked as she was sure that all was correct and above board. Prior to that she was “in the mindset of he had disclosed everything then there could be no relationship as my career is one of, if not in the view of my very close family, the very most important part of being Louise Froggatt”. I was told that she never saw herself as a weak person and still believes herself to be good person. She hoped to be the person that everyone can trust.
It did not help Ms Froggatt that the investigation also found her to have published misleading and inaccurate information on her LinkedIn account, claiming to have been employed as an auditor by DVSA for 11 months. Ms Froggatt claimed that she had added it to her profile to prevent her ex-partner having people check up on her whereabouts and activities. In evidence she told me it was intended to mislead Mr Marshall’s family as to whereabouts, even though it did not refer to any location. I do not follow that reasoning as other strategies would have been far more effective in that regard. Her application to be added as a Transport Manager would have been published. The statement on LinkedIn was clearly false and clearly gave her an added authority and status in her professional dealings.
I was told that contact with Ms Hewison continued even after the above events and until December 2024 when there was a disagreement, apparently connected to pet insurance. They no longer speak now
The potential impact of controlling and coercive behaviour is now recognised by the courts and the subject of extensive judicial training. It is not to be under-estimated. Similarly, I do not doubt the upset which was communicated during the hearing. Mr Marshall was resident at HMP North Sea Camp at the relevant time, although he was permitted occasional visits. In this case, Ms Froggatt did not suggest that she had acted out of fear but maintained that she had supplied the certificate in good faith. There was a clear benefit to Ms Hewison, but both Ms Froggatt and Ms Hewison denied any intention to deceive. As she communicated to the investigator, she was aware that she and Ms Hewison should have done it the right way and gone to CILT (UK) Ltd to remark its papers, rather than some acquaintance of her now ex-partner. On her own evidence, I found Ms Froggatt’s suggestion that she genuinely believed the certificate to be legitimate, to lack credibility.
In all the circumstances, I could attach only limited weight to the short reference from family friends: Dorothy Hinchley and Joanne Taylor, and from a former trunk driver: Martin Cook. I noted that there was no reference from her current employer, although I was told that the Director was aware of her attendance at this hearing. I saw numerous training certificates relating to Ms Froggatt’s attendance at training, some dating back to the relevant period described above.
I did take account of the procedures employed by Ms Froggatt’s current employer (from page 176 onwards), but this case is fundamentally about the trust which can be placed in Ms Froggatt going forward. I can do no better than refer to the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s guidance based on the appellate case law in Statutory Document No. 1: Dishonesty and illegal operation are very serious matters which need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine the substance, nature and degree….Any attempt to deceive a traffic commissioner is serious conduct which cannot be condoned, particularly where an operator and/or applicant relies on a document that has been altered so that it might mislead a traffic commissioner.
The Supreme Court formulated a new test for criminal dishonesty in Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd [2017] UKSC 67 effectively removing the second (subjective) limb of the test established in R V Ghosh [1982] EWCA Crim 2 but it also emphasises a subjective aspect to the circumstances that fall to be considered. The Court of Appeal summarised this as a two-part test in R v Barton and Booth [2020] EWCA Crim 575 as applied in 2023/144 Leafy Designs Ltd. In that case, the Upper Tribunal declined to categorise different classes of dishonesty. Here, Ms Froggatt knew that Ms Hewison had failed the relevant paper. They intended to obtain a certificate of Professional Competence so that she could obtain employment and remuneration. Rather than turn to the examining body CILT she claims to have turned to an unknown contact of her partner, who she knew to have a criminal past. She states that she thought he worked for CILT, but how likely is it that Paul Marshall would have maintained a legitimate contact and from prison? She then paid that man (not the examining body), £195 in cash. I find her claim, that she thought this to be legitimate, to be incredible. I am satisfied that she turned her mind from what was obvious and that these actions were both deliberate and represented part of arrangement to mislead a Traffic Commissioner. I therefore recorded a loss of repute, pursuant to section 27(1)(b) of the 1995 Act.
As the Upper Tribunal identified in 2013/082 Arnold Transport, operator licensing is based on trust. Since it is impossible to police every operator and every vehicle at all times the … Traffic Commissioners in GB must feel able to trust operators to comply with all relevant parts of the operator’s licensing regime. In addition other operators must be able to trust their competitors to comply, otherwise they will no longer compete on a level playing field. In our view this reflects the general public interest in ensuring that Heavy Goods Vehicles are properly maintained and safely driven. Unfair competition is against the public interest because it encourages operators to cut corners in order to remain in business. Cutting corners all too easily leads to compromising safe operation. As part of this, operators and Traffic Commissioners have to rely on the veracity of documentation provided to them. It is a testament to the professionalism of the caseworkers reviewing the document produced by Ms Hewison that this misleading documentation was identified. It is yet further illustration of the need for adequate gatekeeping, which allowed DVSA and CILT to then work together to identify the extent of the attempted fraud.
Again, I turn to the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document, in this case his Directions on Decision making and specifically the approach to be taken in respect of disqualification. I returned to the question of trust. Even after consideration, I found it difficult to conceive of a specific rehabilitative action, which might restore that trust. In the circumstances, only a period of time away from the industry is appropriate. The amendments to paragraph 17 of Schedule 3 of the 1995 Act provide for a minimum period of one year disqualification of a transport manager after ceasing to be of good repute, beginning with the day on which the order was made, before any disqualification order may be cancelled. Beyond that, I looked at this case on its merits. There is no tariff system, but the Senior Traffic Commissioner has helpfully identified starting points. As stated, I was mindful of the deterrent principle and the need to reassure others of the effectiveness of the certification process. This case involved the use of a falsified record, which could be categorised as a severe case (5 to 10 years, or more). I have taken account of the absence of other adverse information from the intervening period. I therefore drew back from an indefinite period but found it appropriate to disqualify Ms Froggatt from relying on her Certificate of Professional Competence for a period of 8 years.
R Turfitt
Traffic Commissioner
9 September 2025