Decison for HGV Quick Transport Ltd (OF2048005)
Written decision of the Traffic Commissioner for the East of England for HGV Quick Transport Ltd and Sergiu Florin Leho, transport manager
IN THE EASTERN TRAFFIC AREA
HGV QUICK TRANSPORT LTD – OF2048005
AND
SERGIU FLORIN LEHO – TRANSPORT MANAGER
AND
DRIVER: IONUT-AUREL STOIAN
CONFIRMATION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER’S DECISION
Decision
The Transport Manager is found to have lost his repute and is therefore disqualified from relying on his Certificate of Professional Competence and I made that adverse finding pursuant to section 27(1)(b). I referred to the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document No. 10. The minimum period of disqualification is 12 months, but even after that he must demonstrate to a Traffic Commissioner that he is capable of meeting paragraph 14A(1)(d) of Schedule 3.
The operator has had its licence curtailed by 2 vehicles (AV17 CYW and AV17 CYT) for a period of 4 weeks from 23:45, tonight (12 February 2025), with those vehicles subject to a direction under section 26(6) preventing them from being operated under other licences during that period.
[TO BE REDACTED]
Background
HGV Quick Transport Ltd holds a Standard International Goods Vehicle Operator’s Licence authorising 8 vehicles and 8 trailers. The Director is Sergiu Florin Leho, who is also the named Transport Manager. He gained that qualification in March 2015 when resident elsewhere. He “permanently settled in the UK in 2016” and attended refresher training in March 2021. Representations also referred to 2025. The Examiner evidence referred to the operator predominately working for Amazon, with some previous tramping on behalf of The Range.
There is one authorised Operating Centre at Highlands, Kelvedon Road, Tiptree, Colchester CO5 0LY. Preventative Maintenance Inspections are said to be carried out by PRM Commercial and Truck East Ltd at 8-weekly intervals, but see contingency arrangements below.
Mr Leho previously held OF1138998 as a sole trader. That licence was surrendered on 5 January 2022. This licence came into force on 27 October 2021, authorising the operation of 8 vehicles and 8 trailers from Blue Barn Garage, Old Ipswich Road, Ardleigh, CO7 7QL. A variation application to add the current Operating Centre was granted on 14 July 2025. On 03 October 2025 the company requested to remove the operating centre at Blue Barn Garage, Old Ipswich Road, Ardleigh. That application was granted on 6 October 2025.
The public record shows that there is currently an application (OF2088577) to use the same site at Highlands, Kelvedon Road, Tiptree, Colchester, CO5 0LY, made by a Leho and Son’s Haulage Ltd through its Director, Alina Paula Leho, seeking to operate 7 vehicles and 7 trailers. The application was created on 19 January 2026 and submitted on 23 January 2026 and had notable similarities with this licence. Whilst the proposed CPC holder is Eugenia-Cristina Gugu, the proposed Preventative Maintenance Intervals are at 10-weeks (with no vehicle), again by PRM Commercial in Colchester.
Mr Leho was nominated to act as Transport Manager on an application submitted by May & Roy Ltd (OF2039494). That application was refused at a hearing on 5 August 2021 when the applicant (and presumably Mr Leho) failed to appear.
Hearing
The Public Inquiry was listed for today, 12 February 2026, in Tribunal Room 1 of the Office of the Traffic Commissioner in Cambridge. The operator was present in the form of Mr Leho, also called as Transport Manager, represented by Chris Harrington of CE Transport Law, and accompanied by a consultant, Mr Weatherbed.
On 6 February 2026, my office received an email purporting to be sent by Driver Stoian suggesting that for medical reasons he would be unable to attend the Driver Conduct Hearing [REDACTED]. He attached translations of documents purporting to show that condition. My office responded that day and observed that his home address was given as being in Rugeley, WS15 1LA but referring to the suggestion of a diagnosis being given on 12 January 2026, implying that he was well enough to travel prior to the diagnosis. He was advised any requests for an adjournment on medical grounds should be supported by medical evidence which states why he could not attend the hearing. Nothing was heard until 11 February 2026, when Driver Stoian emailed to explain that he had travelled to Romania on 4 December 2025 and shortly afterwards a relative of his partner, sadly passed away. The driver referred to a customary 40-day mourning period, during which there was opportunity to undergo medical examination. It was only on 21 January 2026 that a formal diagnosis was received, and advice given to rest for 30 days. He indicated that participation in the hearing would be contrary to that advice, but I had yet to receive medical evidence to that effect. It appeared that the condition had not been reported to DVLA medical branch at that point, although he indicated that he was still resting. Given the apparent risk, I am obliged to suspend the vocational entitlement pending confirmation that DVLA has been notified and confirmed that he can drive. I then severed that conduct hearing and proceeded with the Public Inquiry.
Issues
The public inquiry was called following notice that I was considering grounds to intervene in respect of this licence and specifically by reference to the following sections of the Goods Vehicle (Licensing of Operators) Act:
- 26(1)(b) – conditions on licence to notify changes, in this case relating to maintenance and to meet the licence requirements.
- 26(c )(iii) – Prohibitions
- 26(1)(ca) – Fixed Penalties
- 26(1)(e) – statements relating to inspection intervals, and to abide by conditions on the licence - 26(1)(f) – undertakings (vehicles to be kept fit and serviceable, effective driver defect reporting, complete maintenance records, drivers’ hours and tachographs) - 26(1)(h) – material change:
- 27(1)(a) – repute, financial standing, Transport Manager meeting Schedule 3. - 28 – Disqualification.
Mr Leho was also called to consider whether he had exercised effective and continuous management and therefore whether I should make a finding under section 27(1)(b) preventing him from relying on his Certificate of Professional Competence.
On 4 August 2025, a variation application was lodged requesting to increase the licence authority by 2 vehicles and 2 trailers to a total of 10 vehicles and 10 trailers. This application remains outstanding and for consideration at the Public Inquiry. Representations confirmed that the application was no longer pursued despite having suggested: “We need this interim authorisation as we need to add a new lorry on the licence to start a new job”.
Driver Ionut-Aurel Stoian was also called to a conjoined Driver Conduct Hearing to consider whether he should be permitted to continue to rely on his vocational driving entitlement, but that was adjourned (as above).
The operator was directed to lodge evidence in support including financial, maintenance and other compliance documentation. Compliance documentation was to be submitted to DVSA by no later than 22 January 2026 with finance and any representations to be sent to my office by 29 January 2026. The evidence eventually received did not meet financial standing, which was accepted in representations with a shortfall [REDACTED.] This was attributed to heavy maintenance costs. The operator chose to update vehicles [REDACTED]. The operator now intends to save money in a separate account and sought a Period of Grace of 3 months. On 9 February 2026 Mr Harrington provided my office with a screenshot of a bank balance [REDACTED]. A closing balance with overdraft facility exceeded the prescribed sum but the required average was not present to show financial standing.
The operator was put on notice that there appeared to be very few payments to drivers. A check of tachograph records and the Public record disclosed the following entities, but no operators’ licences no:
- Ionut-Aurel Stoian - sole director of St Erik Trans Ltd (15381446). The bank statements showed payments to St Erik Trans Ltd.
- Marius-Adrian Moldoveanu - sole director of Bianca Logistics Ltd (15235505) incorporated on 25 October 2023, Nature of business = Freight transport by road. He was also a director of Brianna Trans Ltd (13125351), dissolved on 20 January 2026. He was also a co-director with Ionut-Aurel Stoian of M&I Logistics (UK) Ltd (15894232) dissolved on 12 August 2025. Nature of business for both dissolved companies was Freight transport by road.
- Andrei Vomisescu - sole director of Vias Transport Ltd (16299362) incorporated on 06 March 2025. Nature of business = Freight transport by road. The bank statements showed payments to and from Vias Transport Ltd.
- Drivers Hire Ltd (14605225) - sole director is Lucian Gheorghiu, incorporated on 19 January 2023, Nature of business = Freight transport by road received payments from this operator.
- DS Spedition not found at Companies House but there is a DSZ Spedition Ltd - sole director is Sorin-Cristian Gingioveanu (correspondence address is in Chelmsford.)
- Dori Trans Ltd (07806512) - sole director is Ciprian-Marius Popa. Nature of business = Freight transport by road. Bank statements show payments between the company and this operator.
- Real Milenium Cons / Real Milenium – likely to be Real Milenium Consulting Ltd (16089583) - sole director is Elena Tofan. Nature of business = Freight transport by road with payments from the operator.
- Gabriel-Laurentiu Dragomir was director of DGLA Trans Ltd (13875777) and Akimtransport Ltd (13120131), both dissolved but nature of business = Freight transport by road.
- Nicolae-Daniel Fulgan sole director of DF Spedition Ltd (16256042) incorporated on 17 February 2025. Nature of business = Freight transport by road.
- Sandu Fulgan is found as the sole director of SF Spedition Ltd (16254190) incorporated on 15 February 2025. Nature of business = Freight transport by road.
- Valentin-Ionut Fulgan is the sole director of VF Transport Ltd (16256053) incorporated on 17 February 2025. Nature of business = Freight transport by road.
- Marius Lucian Lica is the sole director of Dary SRL Ltd (09982196) incorporated on 2 February 2016. Nature of business = Other business, support service activities not elsewhere classified.
- Adrian Sovinschi is the sole director of Luiss & Noriss Trans Ltd (11151593) incorporated on 16 January 2018. Nature of business = Taxi operation, Freight transport by road; and Temporary employment agency activities.
- Ferenc Szantai is the sole director of Doni Parcel Ltd (16349548) incorporated on 28 March 2025. Nature of business = Freight transport by road
This inevitably led me to examine the level of control and management exercised under this licence. The Traffic Examiner, Mr Hawkins, referred to records for Daniel Beres (left the business), Dionis Blajanov (no details of driver received from operator), Andrei Ciani (left the business), Gabriel Dragomir (stood down), Nicolae Fulgan (active), Sandu Fulgan (active), Valentin Ionita (left the business), Marius Lica (active), Liviu Mercioniu (left the business), Marius Moldoveanu (stood down), Adrian Sovinschi (active), Ferenc Szantai (left the business), Andrea Vomisescu (stood down). Tachograph data had not been received for Radu Duma (mechanic), Stelu Mihai (active), Dan Gheorghita (active).
Summary of Evidence
On 23 May 2025 vehicle SV14FOF was encountered by DVSA at Todhills (M6). The vehicle was being driven by Ionut-Aurel Stoian. Analysis of the digital data showed that Mr Stoian’s driver card had not been downloaded for 115 days and had missed the download deadline by 87 days. Analysis also revealed short instances of driving without a card on 19 and 20 May 2025 which interrupted Mr Stoian’s rest periods. Analysis of the vehicle data also suggested sporadic use of an invalid card issued to agency driver, Marius Dorin Andrei. The card was found to have been used in close time proximity to Mr Stoian’s, which suggested a potential impact on driving and duty times. Driver Stoian denied using Mr Andrei’s card.
DVSA attempted telephone contact with Mr Leho, but he was unable to provide details. Information provided to DVSA by the operator’s planner did not correlate with the digital data or vehicle movements. DVSA issued a prohibition enforcing a weekly rest of 24 hours. A fixed penalty notice of £300 was also issued to Mr Stoian for insufficient weekly rest. When the DVSA Examiner explained the enforcement action to Mr Stoian and Mr Leho, they accepted it, and Mr Leho intimated the company would address the Fixed Penalty Notice and immobilisation release fee. Mr Stoian apparently stated that many of the operator’s drivers make use of cards issued to other drivers, suggesting that those people hold Romanian driving licences, and that as a consequence they know they cannot be subject to regulatory action.
The above led to a Traffic Examiner investigation which commenced on 27 August 2025 and a follow up on 2 October 2025. The findings can be summarised as follows:
- No evidence was provided to DVSA in respect of driver training, monitoring of DCPCs or driver licences.
- Journeys were planned, through a portal (Amazon) when applying for work, but that was not documented.
- No evidence was provided in respect of the frequency of digital downloads or of checking the records/data.
- No evidence was provided in respect of managing working time or retention of relevant records or disciplinary procedures.
- No evidence was provided in respect of managing vehicle tests, insurance, excise duty, tachograph and speed limiter functionality and calibration.
- All documentation is said to have been destroyed in a fire at the Operating Centre. That occurred between the two visits.
- Additional data requested by DVSA was not provided.
- One driver was said to be self-employed, and the others are sourced from driver agencies. No evidence was provided in respect of disciplinary procedures in place or systems for managing agency drivers.
- The operator had not attended a New Operator Seminar and, despite holding a CPC and having made declarations to obtain the licence, the Director claimed to be unaware of the requirement to notify changes affecting the operator licence. Since the DVSA visits a transport consultant had been engaged. The follow up visit found no further offences.
DVSA conducted an unannounced maintenance investigation visit on 27 August 2025 and arranged to revisit on 16 September 2025. Two vehicles and trailers were examined, and both were found to be clear of defects. However, there was a number of shortcomings, which can be summarised as follows:
- The Operating Centre at Blue Barn Garage was no longer used.
- At Preventative Maintenance Inspection, there were instances where the method of brake test was not recorded and intervals exceeded. Records for WX16 GXH between 6 September 2024 to 20 April 2025 were found to be water damaged and/or lost, blamed on a flood (in February/March 2025). Representations refer to the onsite cabin having caught fire and a flood at his home. These events were not notified.
- Trailers C229728 and C268143 should have been inspected at 6 weekly intervals due to their age. The 2024 and 2025 planners were not retained by the operator. An electronic planner was only created in September 2025 and then backdated to January 2025. VOR records were only introduced in September 2025 but there was no defect and recall system in operation.
- Inspections were being carried out by a mobile mechanic, Hun Services Ltd, outside at the Operating Centre. The operator claimed that roller brake tests were being completed by the contractor, but the contractor advised that he did not have access to brake testing equipment and that roller brake tests were not conducted. PRM Commercials had only conducted the Preventative Maintenance Inspections. The listed contactors on VOL (Ovidiu Baicu and RS-Recovery) were not being used.
- An Immediate S marked Prohibition Notice was issued at annual test for low service brake efficiency.
- The DVSA had cause to question the veracity of Preventative Maintenance Inspection records because the vehicles were not sighted via ANPR cameras within the Essex area when the operator claimed the vehicles will have been given over to the maintenance contractors. Representations offered a strong denial, suggesting they were provided to DVSA in good faith, to which I return, below.
- No driver defect reports were produced for any trailers with no gate checks or other corroboration. Rectification work was not recorded on the defect reports. Training records were produced in September 2025.
- New systems for wheel and tyre management were only introduced in September 2025 and following the initial DVSA visit. Wheel nut indicators had been fitted to some vehicles.
- Again, new training on load security was only introduced in September 2025, prior to which there was no evidence of training.
- The undated responses offered no explanation as to why the Director/Transport Manager was not aware of the shortcomings.
Despite being given additional time at the request of its representatives, the operator still failed to comply with Directions within the extended deadline. Representations from Mr Leho dated 4 February 2026 suggested that drivers are sourced through agencies, as “historically” there were fluctuations in workflow. That was not reflected in the time some of the driving services had been engaged. Work is also sourced through the Amazon haulage exchange. Articulated 44-tonne tractor and trailer units tramp during the week and return to the operating centre on the weekend.
Representations accepted that compliance has fallen short of the basic requirements. It was suggested that there had been tangible progress but there was still room for improvement. Until recently, Mr Leho had managed the operation alone without any input from outside sources. He had relied on his own CPC training and hearsay on how to run the licence. Mr Leho accepted that this approach failed and that it was his responsibility to ensure he is kept up to date with the requirements. A consultant, Scott Weatherbed, has now been engaged under a12-month contract to assist. Mr Weatherbed attends weekly to review the transport operation. A white board and a forward planner are maintained to ensure that vehicle status, retorque, Preventative Maintenance Inspections, annual tests, VED, insurance and tachograph recalibration are monitored.
The operator accepted that there was a lack of evidence provided to the Traffic Examiner. This was blamed on the fire to which the Examiner referred. It was claimed that driver training and assessments were carried out prior to the DVSA investigation, but the system was not robust. Contracts were not produced. Drivers were responsible for their own DCPC. The operator has now reviewed its systems and procedures and introduced a driver handbook. Training is forward planned and delivered by Mr Leho and Mr Weatherbed via one-point lessons (toolbox talks) in both English and Romanian. There are plans to further strengthen this system with the use of short quizzes for the drivers to complete with sign-off and the use of YouTube videos to broaden the scope of the training. Driver CPCs are monitored when the driver assessment is conducted. The prospect of scrutiny of the drivers’ knowledge has already prompted one of the drivers to ‘quit’. A record of the modules will be retained and a CPC spreadsheet maintained.
Mr Hawkins’s update report concluded that the operator has introduced additional compliance systems, for example the introduction of Convey, but those systems are only as effective as the accuracy and completeness of the information entered into them. He confirmed the high turnover of drivers, and the influence of market demands. The tachograph data supplied showed driving activity for various other operators. He noted some improvement since the introduction of Convey, but referred to the recent encounter with Driver Valentin Ionut Fulgan, who was issued a Fixed Penalty Notice of £300 for exceeding 4.5 hours’ driving time.
Given the allegations made by Driver Stoian, which the operator did not have opportunity to cross-examine, I was interested to understand how drivers were retained. Mr Leho indicated that he would take details from new drivers including licence, Driver CPC, passport and the share code to check their work permit but acknowledged that he was unable to check the Romanian or Italian driver licences. I asked about insurance checks in those circumstances. There is now training in place with eyesight checks and Mr Leho would take the driver through the driver handbook if they do not speak English. He described obtaining National Insurance details (although that was paid by another entity) and asking about health issues but was less clear about how he was entitled to access that without an employment contract. ‘Agency’ and ‘self-employed’ drivers have been subject to driving checks in the yard, but none of this was recorded prior to the involvement of Mr Weatherbed.
The operator accepted that there was an unused Operating Centre listed, described as an administrative oversight. Historically, vehicle files were kept at Mr Leho home address, but there was a flood at that property. That aside, intervals were exceeded. This is blamed on the maintenance providers. What became clear is that Mr Leho exercised very little oversight of the contractor and failed to scrutinise the documentation in even a cursory way. It was accepted that brake testing was not robust or conducted regularly due to Mr Leho’s lack of understanding. He failed to keep up to date. Vehicles now receive a brake performance test with each Preventative Maintenance Inspection. There was also no VOR procedure until Mr Weatherbed arrived. VOR is noted on the vehicle file and forward planner, a sign is placed in the vehicle, and keys are locked away securely to prevent use. The operator previously relied upon maintenance providers and the vehicle manufacturers to notify him of vehicle recalls. The operator now checks for vehicle recalls using the GOV website.
Drivers were said to record their walk round checks using industry standard carbon booklets, but this proved to be less than effective with the vehicles tramping during the week. An electronic driver app now provides an instant record of defects and a method to record defect rectification. Previously drivers would call Mr Leho for him to assess the defect and send a mechanic if required. No record was created. It was accepted that drivers failed to record their own repairs. A fitter’s sheet was yet to be implemented to record repairs. Gate checks have only followed Mr Weatherbed’s involvement. Mr Leho claimed to have conducted his own fleet checks at weekends but he failed to provide any documentation. The driver app and tachograph data monitors the driver lead in time. Convey software has been purchased and implemented to monitor and manage tachograph and driver hours. A one-point lesson was to be conducted to reinforce what is expected. The vehicles have recently been fitted with auto downloaders.
It was accepted that the use of a mobile fitter did not equate to basic facilities. Mr Leho chose him even after attending refresher training. It did not occur to him that he might employ a driver(s) to take the vehicles to a maintenance facility. The operator accepted that the Prohibition received on 22 January 2024 indicated unacceptable standards, but continued with that maintenance arrangement. A Prohibitions policy has been implemented requiring a fully documented investigation. Vehicles are now presented for pre-annual test inspections. Truck East Ltd and MC Truck and Bus were described as contingency arrangement with improvements to brake testing and maintenance facilities. The two most recent presentations resulted in passes. Any further failures will be reviewed to determine the underlying cause. These actions follow the arrival of Mr Weatherbed.
The operator accepted that its wheel security and tyre management was not robust. The operator was said to keep a stock of made-up wheels and tyres, to be fitted with tools and a calibrated torque wrench. A new torque wrench is purchased yearly to ensure calibration. All vehicles are fitted with wheel nut indicators, and a tyre policy has now been introduced. Each vehicle has been issued with a tyre depth gauge to assist the drivers with their checks.
The majority (if not all) of the loads taken are for Amazon and sealed prior to the driver taking possession of the trailers. Mr Leho now instructs drivers to obtain paperwork to demonstrate the load has been appropriately secured prior to accepting the load.The operator accepted that prior to Mr Weatherbed’s involvement load security training was “informal”, relying on the driver’s own training and CPC. Mr Weatherbed has introduced new training documents.
Mr Leho accepted that he failed to exercise effective and continuous control over the transport operation. This was attributed to a lack of depth in knowledge and a reliance on other operators as to what is required. It was suggested that he had often engaged checks but failed to document this, but then it was suggested that many of the issues could be attributed to a flood at his home address and a fire at the commercial premises. That does not really survive scrutiny. The failure to download was down to Mr Leho. He was committed to driver card downloads every 28 days and vehicle units at the maximum of 90 days, but I also noted that auto downloaders were fitted to the vehicles. Mr Leho tries to plan jobs in advance so that infringements can be avoided. It was accepted that there was previously a lack of systems and procedures. I was told that he has now recognised his shortcomings, taken onboard the DVSA advice and recognised the need to update his knowledge, with outside assistance.
I was assisted by Mr Lockwood’s update report of 30 January 2026. He identified that no Preventative Maintenance Inspection records were produced for trailers. 8 vehicle Preventative Maintenance Inspection records were produced with 5 intervals between the inspection dates. 2 Preventative Maintenance Inspection intervals were exceeded: DK67 VXL - 7 November 2025 to 9 January 2026 = 9 weeks and WX16 GXH – 10 September to 18 November 2025 = 11 weeks. An explanation letter failed to record the vehicle registration mark. Mr Leho suggested that the inspection was exceeded by 6 days when it was actually 13 days. Laden roller brake tests were conducted on every Preventative Maintenance Inspection except for WX16 GXH on 10 September 2025 when no brake assessment was conducted. DK67 VXL was presented for annual test on 31 October 2025, but no pre annual test inspection record was provided.
Mr Lockwood noted that driver defect reporting was a combination of electronic reports recorded on an App and paper defect books. Only two defects had been reported on the records provided. The electronic summary referred to two defects but did not detail the nature of the defects or if they were rectified. The only reference to driver defect reports for trailers were on reports for vehicle MV17 VJC when driven by Adrian Sovinschi (see above), who had included the trailer identification. Unreported driver detectable defects were still being found at Preventative Maintenance Inspection including lamps inoperative, EML lamps illuminated, ABS lamps illuminated, windscreen washers inoperative and ABS/EBS leads missing. The Preventative Maintenance Inspection check list suggested that the windscreen washer defect on MV17 VJC dated 22 September 2025 was reported by Whatsapp.
The Vehicle Examiner confirmed the introduction of a wheel nut torque/retorque record, which indicates ‘Wheels not removed’ at every Preventative Maintenance Inspection. However, on 19 November 2025, MV17 VJC had the brake pads replaced on the offside axle 3 and on 13 January 2026, WX16 GXH had the axle 1 and axle 3 brake pads replaced. Those brake repairs would require the wheels to be removed, suggesting that the record produced was not accurate. It was accepted that the wheel removal was recorded on the invoice but there was no proper log of torque and retorque.
As the representations acknowledged, there has been a further roadside incident. On 8 January 2026, AV17 CYU attracted an Immediate Prohibition for an inoperative offside side repeater indicator lamp. This was found to be a wiring fault and was removed after rectification. The operator suggested that this could have occurred during operation and pointed to a clear driver walk round (recorded as 15+ minutes). A £300 Fixed Penalty Notice was issued for a driver’s hours offence. Representations referred to the 2 vehicle annual tests but omitted the trailer annual tests where one passed after rectification to roadwheels/hubs and spray suppression/ wings/ wheel arches.
When I questioned the absence of trailer records, Mr Leho was clear that these were not required, as the trailers belonged to Amazon. On his own evidence, these are inspected at 10-week intervals, not as declared on the licence record. Despite having attended refresher training in December 2025 he appeared oblivious to the content of DVSA’s Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness, and specifically:
What the traction operator is responsible for
The traction operator is responsible for:
- Carrying out a walkaround check
- Recording any defects and how they were repaired before use
Also have access to:
- The safety inspection interval
- A copy of / or access to the current safety inspection reports, including brake tests.
- A copy of / or access to current MOT certificate
- electronic braking performance management system (EBPMS) report if applicable
The operator should have in place a contract or written agreement with the trailer owner detailing the safety inspection details, frequency and defect rectification that satisfies an acceptable level of roadworthiness is maintained. See annex 5 for an example of a maintenance contract.
I noted the absence of driver references to trailers. It took an adjournment and Mr Weatherbed for me to learn that Mr Leho had permitted drivers to resort to a Whatsapp group rather than completing proper driver defect reports. Once again, there was no record retained. Apparently, the Amazon app allows drivers to record any defects, and to access the date of the last Preventative Maintenance Inspection, brake test, and annual test. There is also a water-proof document wallet on the curtain sided trailers, although not on container trailers. As a result of this Public Inquiry, it is intended that drivers will now take photographs of the relevant records as part of their walk round checks to allow the operator to retain the documents required under this licence. That of course will require effective management and the ability to control and discipline drivers, to which I return below. This licence record will also need to be updated to reflect the inspection intervals on the Amazon trailers of 10 weeks.
Determination
Based on the evidence summarised above, I was satisfied that I should record adverse findings under the following sections of the Act: 26(1)(b) – conditions on licence to notify changes, in this case relating to maintenance and to meet the licence requirements including the ability of the Transport Manager; 26(c)(iii) – Prohibitions, 26(1)(ca) – Fixed Penalties, 26(1)(e) – statements relating to inspection intervals, and to abide by conditions on the licence, 26(1)(f) – undertakings (vehicles to be kept fit and serviceable, effective driver defect reporting, complete maintenance records, drivers’ hours and tachographs). 26(1)(h) – material change in the availability of finance and the ability of the Transport Manager.
What emerged during the hearing was that Mr Leho did not understand the implications of the lack of control over drivers. Some of the entities listed supplied not only the listed director but others. This facilitated a situation where there has been a high turnover of drivers, whilst some have continued to drive far longer than might be described as temporary. Mr Leho thought that he might have written contracts with some of the entities, but from his responses, there appeared to be nothing like the formal documentation required of a reputable agency arrangement. Since Mr Weatherbed’s arrival, there has been an effort to try and formalise driver engagement so that there is effective control going forward. Predictably, there has been push-back. I was told that drivers such as Nicolae-Daniel Fulgan, Sandu Fulgan, Valentin-Ionut Fulgan, and Adrian Sovinschi had refused those efforts, indicating the weakness in Mr Leho’s position and the lack of control. This public decision will expose those arrangements, but it is for other authorities to resolve the financial implications.
For the avoidance of doubt, the publicly available guidance on the GOV.UK website advises that a person is an agency worker if they have a contract with an agency but work temporarily for a hirer. I quote: “You’re not an agency worker if you use an agency to find permanent or fixed-term employment.” Even where there is a legitimate agency arrangement, the 2010 Agency Regulations provided that, after a qualifying period of 12 weeks, the basic working and employment conditions (working time, overtime, breaks, rest periods for night work, holidays and pay) of temporary agency workers must be at least as beneficial as those that would apply if they had been recruited directly. Agencies also have a legal obligation to gather certain information before offering work to an agency worker. When the agency offers a worker an assignment, they must, at the same time give that worker details which include: the name of the hiring organisation and the nature of its business, the start date, how long the assignment is likely to be for, details of the position and type of work. Regulation 13A of the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003 requires all agency workers, who sign up to an employment business after 6 April 2020, to be given a ‘Key Information Document’.
Beyond that, HMRC guidance helps operators to determine where a contract of employment is appropriate. This reflects the legal position as adopted by the First-Tier Tribunal (Tax) considered the employment status of drivers in TC/2015/03681 RS Dhillon and GP Dhillon Partnership v The Commissioners for her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs. HMRC is aware that some operators wrongly believe that anti-avoidance legislation does not apply and that HMRC cannot pursue workers, agents, and the operator. Whilst the flexibility of temporary drivers allows operators to deal with sudden or seasonal increases in work or a shortage of staff due to turnover or resulting from absences, HMRC defines temporary employees as people that are contracted to a job for a limited period, and they are hired straight from the company or through a third-party agency that staffs for other companies. Even workers doing occasional work for a specific business (where the worker has to agree to terms and conditions to obtain the work, where the business provides the materials, tools, or equipment) can be subject to the deduction of tax and National Insurance contributions from their wages.
The relevance here and to many operators and Transport Managers, is whether the operator is able to exercise sufficient control of activities under the operator’s licence, so as to achieve compliance with the licence standards. That has not proved to be the case for this operator, putting the future of this business at risk. The circumstances described resulted in road safety critical defects not being identified on vehicles and trailers and poor maintenance standards which should have been clearly evident and through the annual test history. Basic systems such as driver training and control were lacking.
I was told that the operator fully accepted that it failed to meet even the basic standards of the operator’s licence. That is evident from the number of paragraphs in the representations admitting that the standards were not present. I was directed to the absence of previous history. The operator was credited with identifying areas which required improvement. It was said that tangible steps had been taken, with the assistance of Mr Weatherbed, and on that basis, I could trust the operator to ensure future compliance. The attempt to blame an “unfortunate turn of events” for the missing records belies how ineffective Mr Leho proved to be on his own. It could not explain the total lack of trailer management.
It was suggested that there had been full co-operation with the DVSA during the investigations, and that the operator had been open and honest. It was further suggested that repute as Transport Manager might only be tarnished by his failures. The operator refuted that “any of the records he has provided are fraudulent” but then suggested that they were provided in good faith. In 2023/144 Leafy Designs Ltd, the Upper Tribunal indicated that there may be degrees of dishonesty and generally there has to be an evaluation as to the substance, nature and degree of any dishonesty before a properly informed decision as to regulatory action may be taken. However, where matters are straightforward there need not be a lengthy evaluation and a lengthy written explanation. Here, whilst there is no evidence that the Director/Transport Manager was the creator of the relevant records, the fact that they were produced just goes to illustrate Mr Leho’s inability to exercise effective management. It was suggested that it might have been possible on some of the occasions for the vehicles to be in other locations. Simply put, Mr Leho blamed Hun Services for any inaccurate records, without fully recognising that it was his responsibility to check them. He admitted that again this did not equate to effective management, even after he attended refresher training in 2021. I therefore accepted that Mr Leho had been open in the face of the shortcomings put to him.
It was accepted that regulatory action was inevitable. I was assured that the recent connected application would be entirely separate from Mr Leho and that it was seeking authority to operate volumetric mixers only. It was not to be viewed as a contingency application to continue operations. Nevertheless, I found it difficult to see how the case fell within the MODERATE starting point for intervention. This conduct appeared to fall squarely within the definition of SEROUS, for the purposes of regulatory intervention.
However, I followed the suggestion of the Upper Tribunal and started with the question posed in 2009/225 Priority Freight Ltd: how likely is it that this operator will, in future, operate in compliance with the operator’s licensing regime? The failure to meet some of the very basic requirements of the operator’s licence clearly undermined the trust which I could place in the operator as a whole, and which was the foundation of the licence grant.
It was suggested that decisive action had been taken by the director/transport manager to resolve issues, with tangible steps taken to address issues such as maintenance provider. I did note that the operator had engaged an outside transport professional to provide additional professional competence within the business. It is only since then that there has been evidence of effective management and appropriate systems and procedures, although I also noted Mr Lockwood’s update report. Representations anticipated my view that there should be no need to bring in an external consultant to cover deficiencies of the Transport Manager. It was suggested that I should allow circumstances to continue to allow Mr Leho “to grow into the transport manager role with renewed confidence”. I did not find that at all persuasive and other responsible operators would be entitled to look at this operator and Transport Manager and question why it did not warrant robust intervention.
There can be little doubt that Mr Leho failed to exercise continuous and effective management in his role as Transport Manager. He allowed others, be that drivers or contractors, to dictate the operator’s approach to compliance and in doing so placed the whole business at risk. I accepted the following undertaking, in order that there might be effective control going forward and in support of the Transport Manager:
- that all permanent drivers (i.e,. not temporary, as defined by GOV.UK guidance) will, within 8 weeks of the date of the Public Inquiry, be properly employed, as per current HMRC guidance (and evidenced by PAYE and NI deductions).
I also accepted the following by way of undertaking:
- The operator to identify an independent body to carry out an audit of transport safety and compliance systems. The audit will assess the systems for complying with licence 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 is to be retained and be available to be submitted upon request within 6 months of this date
However, that was not sufficient to mitigate my conclusion that Mr Leho had been shown to have neither the level of knowledge nor the management aptitude to continue in the post of Transport Manager. Accordingly, I concluded that he should be disqualified from relying on his Certificate of Professional Competence and I made that adverse finding pursuant to section 27(1)(b). I referred to the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document No. 10. The minimum period of disqualification is 12 months, but even after that he must demonstrate to a Traffic Commissioner that he is capable of meeting paragraph 14A(1)(d) of Schedule 3. He will now have opportunity to work with an experienced CPC holder to see if he can gain those skills and knowledge.
On the loss of the Transport Manager, I recorded an adverse finding under section 27(1)(a). Given Mr Weatherbed’s existing relationship with the operation, I was persuaded that I could grant a short Period of Grace in order to lodge the formal application upon which basis I might then extend to allow processing. I allowed an initial period of 4 weeks to lodge the forms nominating Mr Weatherbed.
For the reasons set out above, I was persuaded to allow a Period of Grace of 3 months in which to satisfy me that the mandatory and continuing requirement for financial standing is now met by way of average, against the prescribed sum. That should be possible, given the declared turnover. Accordingly, I recorded an adverse finding under section 27(1)(a).
Whilst the operator was warned as to the consequences for this licence were either Period of Grace to expire without the relevant mandatory requirement being met, I also needed to convey a deterrent message, that there could be no repeat of the failings identified above. The operator’s repute has been severely tarnished by these events. I have attempted to describe the positive elements and actions, but it was still not close to achieving basic compliance in some areas (for the reasons explained above). It was the last-minute description of what was available through the Amazon app, which persuade me to pull back from more drastic action. As the Upper Tribunal identified in 2019/025 John Stuart Strachan t/a Strachan Haulage: “one of the aims of the regime is deterrence, both for the appellant and for operators as a whole, who might be tempted to flout the system”. Having taken evidence on the potential impact of regulatory intervention and to understand the allocation of “lanes” i.e. particular routes allocated by Amazon, I determined that the licence would also be curtailed by 2 vehicles (AV17 CYW and AV17 CYT) for a period of 4 weeks from 23:45, tonight (12 February 2025), with those vehicles subject to a direction under section 26(6) preventing them from being operated under other licences during that period.
R Turfitt
Traffic Commissioner
12 February 2026