Decison for Kamlesh Kumar t/a Mazza Coaches (PK1071374)
Written decision of the Traffic Commissioner for London and the South East for Kamlesh Kumar t/a Mazza Coaches and Kamlesh Kumar as transport manager
IN THE SOUTH EASTERN & METROPOLITAN TRAFFIC AREA
KAMLESH KUMAR T/A MAZZA COACHES PK1071374(1)
KAMLESH KUMAR TRANSPORT MANAGER (2)
PUBLIC PASSENGER VEHICLES ACT 1981
PUBLIC SERVICE VEHICLES (OPERATORS’ LICENCES) REGULATIONS 1995
TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER’S WRITTEN DECISION
TC DECISION
Pursuant to adverse findings under section 17(3)(a), (aa), (b) and (e) and section 17(1)(a) and (b) of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981, the Operator 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 PK1071374 Kamlesh Kumar t/a Mazza Coaches is revoked with effect from 23:45 on 30 April 2026.
Kamlesh Kumar and Services Transport Limited are disqualified from holding or obtaining an Operator Licence in any GB Traffic Area as a sole trader, partner or director or being engaged in the management, administration and/or control of an entity that holds or obtains such a Licence in Great Britain for a period of 10 years from 23:45 on 30 April 2026 pursuant to section 28(1) and (4) of the Transport Act 1985.
Upon a finding that the Transport Manager Kamlesh Kumar 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, Kamlesh Kumar is disqualified and prohibited from being designated as a Transport Manager on any Operator Licence for a period of 10 years with effect from 23:45 on 30 April 2026.
The application to nominate Desmond McNulty as Transport Manager is refused.
BACKGROUND
The Licence was granted on 25 July 2007 for 3 vehicles. Mr Kumar was called to a Public Inquiry on 29 June 2012 where upon adverse findings under section 17 the Licence authorisation was reduced to 2 vehicles. Several undertakings were offered to include Mr Kumar resigning as a transport manager, with a new transport manager to be put in place by no later than 31 August 2012 (pages 129-130). Subsequently, the undertakings were fulfilled and a variation to increase to 5 vehicles was granted on 08 August 2019. During this period Mr Kumar for some reason was not removed as an additional transport manager. A further variation was applied for on 08 June 2021 to authorise 8 vehicles. This was subsequently withdrawn. On 15 June 2021 there was a variation application granted to change the operating centre.
Mr Kumar is also the sole director of Services Transport Limited (company number 08366888). When asked about this company previously Mr Kumar told the Licensing team that the limited company only holds the vehicles documents such as leases but that it does not operate any vehicles. This subsequently was challenged by DVSA (see below).
The Operator Information Report (pages 106-114) shows several encounters with DVSA Traffic Examiners with Offense Rectification Notices in 2021 and 2022. DVSA commenced an investigation into the operator after a roadside encounter on 17 May 2024 with MA22ZZA. As part of that encounter DVSA noted that ‘the vehicle tachograph unit was showing RV22DNF and there was not sitting and/standing capacity sticker on display on the vehicle. There were some missing mileage on 09 May 2024 and no operator Licence disc being displayed’. Traffic Examiner Jacqueline D’Cruze was tasked to conduct follow up investigation which commenced on 11 October 2024. The Examiner’s report raised significant concerns over the entity operating the vehicles, the lack of effective management of drivers hours, tachographs, and working time directive and doubted whether Mr Kumar as transport manager was exercising continuous and effective management of the transport operations.
As a result, I determined that a Propose to Revoke letter should be issued and this was done on 20 May 2025. The operator responded after the deadline requesting a Public Inquiry and I agreed. At the same time there was an open application to increase the authorisation from 5 vehicles to 15 vehicles, and I determined that application should be considered at the same Public Inquiry. On 30 June 2025 call-in letters were issued to the Operator and to Mr Kumar as transport manager.
HEARINGS
The Public Inquiry was listed for 12 August 2025. Shortly before, it came to my attention that the Case Management directions have not been complied with. I decided the case should proceed on that date as a Case Management hearing instead. A series of directions were issued (pages 397-398) and on the same day copies of bankruptcy orders dated 2004 and 2015 became additional matters. The Public Inquiry was relisted for 30 October 2025. By that time Mr Kumar had parted ways with his solicitors and attended with an “associate”, Mr Brealey, who he sought to represent him. The approach barely paid no heed to Senior Traffic Commissioner Statutory Document No. 9 on Case Management for non-legally qualified advocates. After careful consideration, I adjourned the case one final time to 4th December 2025, making it clear to Mr Kumar that cases are meant to have a timely through put and that valuable tribunal resources were being wasted. A further adjournment request was received as Mr Kumar appointed new solicitor. The solicitor Mr Talal Malik wrote a detailed case in support of a further short adjournment to enable him to properly prepare. I granted that adjournment to 23 December 2025 but upon the basis that the case must proceed on that date.
The hearing did proceed and conclude on 23 December 2025. DVSA Traffic Examiner Jacqueline D’Cruze attended via Microsoft Teams and gave oral evidence. Mr Kumar was represented by Mr Malik, solicitor. As well as Mr Kumar, his proposed transport manager Mr Desmond McNulty and proposed transport consultant Mr John Garvey also gave evidence. After hearing closing submissions from Mr Malik, I confirmed that I would issue a written decision by no later than the end of January 2026. I apologise unreservedly for the delay which is due to the seriousness and complexity of the case alongside other pressing work commitments.
ISSUES
The original issues were as set out in paragraph 7 above. However, during my case management, additional issues came to light. On 12 August 2025 these were Mr Kumar’s apparent failure to notify his 2004 bankruptcy on the 2007 new licence application; and failure to notify a 2015 bankruptcy as a Licence-holder (page 397). As part of the disclosure, it was noted that Mr Kumar remained the sole director of Services Transport LTD whilst an undischarged bankrupt. It subsequently came to OTC’s attention that Mr Kumar apparently failed to notify a relevant conviction for a serious offence (VAT fraud) in April 2011, and this was added as an additional matter by email notification to Mr Kumar on 27 October 2025 (page 469). The Inquiry also considered Mr Kumar’s failure to comply with various case management directions on time and in some cases not at all.
ADMISSIONS (and associated findings of fact)
In terms of admissions, I have limited them in terms of the written decision to those made in the written representations submitted by Mr Malik and given during the evidence when he had the benefit of Mr Maliks representation. I do so to ensure that I am satisfied Mr Kumar was fully aware of the admissions he was making and the basis for them. As a result, I make the following adverse findings:
-
Pursuant to section 17(3)(a) Mr Kumar obtained the Licence in July 2007 having made a false statement. Mr Kumar failed to declare that on 08 October 2004 he was made bankrupt (page 401), being a date within 3 years of signing the application form PSV421 (see version July 2006 wording at Annex A)
-
Pursuant to section 17(3)(aa) Mr Kumar failed over a sustained period to fulfil the undertakings on the licence regarding to the laws relating to the driving and operation of vehicles used under the licence and the rules on drivers’ hours and tachographs to be observed and proper records kept.
-
Pursuant to section 17(3)(b) and (e) Mr Kumar contravened a condition on the licence to notify material changes in 28 days on two occasions –
Mr Kumar failed to notify a relevant conviction of dishonestly submitting a false VAT claim in contravention of section 2 Fraud Act 2006. He was sentenced to 12 months custody, suspended for 2 years and ordered to undertake 150 hours community service – a serious offence notifiable under paragraph 1(4) of schedule 3 of the 1981 Act (page 469/page 470a-d/Annex C)
Mr Kumar failed to notify a personal bankruptcy which commenced on 15 September 2015 (page 402).
- Pursuant to section 17(3)(e) for an unspecified period there was a change of entity, and an Operator is not transferable – Mr Kumar caused or permitted Services Transport Limited to be the “de facto” operator even though it did not hold an Operator Licence as required.
These admissions and findings are serious in terms of the good repute of Mr Kumar as an operator and transport manager but must be placed in context with the full balancing exercise before determining their outcome. In advance Mr Malik provided helpful written representations and witness statements for Mr Kumar and Mr McNulty for which I am grateful.
CONSIDERATION & FINDINGS
In short, Mr Kumar asks me to accept he finds himself in his current position through innocent mistake, lack of knowledge and/or negligence rather than through dishonesty or a lack of integrity. He simply took his eye off the ball regarding drivers’ hours and driver management. Mr Kumar acknowledges that he should have ensure formality around vehicle hire; he has not read forms properly and he did not realise the significance for his Operator Licence by his use of Services Transport Limited. He assures me he will do better in future with a Licence in the correct name, a different transport manager and a transport consultant. Mr Malik’s closing submissions at para 9.11 invite me “….to conclude that, notwithstanding the seriousness of these historic matters, confidence can now be restored in the operation of the licence”. After observing Mr Kumar and listening to his evidence across several hearings, I did not find him a credible or compelling witness. Across his oral evidence and written communications Mr Kumar is fluid and contradictory. Mr Kumar’s evidence does not stand up to scrutiny across several areas, as will be seen below.
Failure to notify two bankruptcies and a fraud conviction.
The Licence physically sent to Mr Kumar in 2007, and every copy issued since includes the conditions (including changes to be notified) and undertakings attached to the Licence. They are also included on every 5-year checklist. The Traffic Commissioner archive confirms STC Statutory Document No.1 on good repute & fitness was first consulted upon in 2011 and version one published 9 July 2012. Regrettably amended/withdrawn versions published before 2019 are no longer available on the internet, but a copy is available to the parties from the TC archive upon request. The definition of ‘serious offence’ and the duty to notify in terms of good repute for Operators and Transport Managers ongoing good repute is found in paragraphs 16 – 19. Mr Kumar passed his Standard National CPC exam in 1995 and Standard International in 2014. As per 2012/030 MGM Haulage & Recycling Limited, Mr Kumar has deemed knowledge of advice and guidance in the public domain. Further Mr Kumar gave an undertaking at the PI in 2012 that he would attend a PSV Refresher course, and the undertaking is marked as fulfilled. Any refresher covers the Licence conditions and undertakings.
On 28 October 2025 (page 468) Mr Kumar wrote: “I simply failed to appreciate the full scope of what needed to be disclosed, and I now recognise the importance of complete transparency in all regulatory matters.” Page 567 Written representations Para 1.9 “The [Operator] approaches this Public Inquiry on a cooperative and candid basis… the inquiry is recognised as an opportunity to explain how certain failings arose…..”. This was the opportunity for Mr Kumar to expand upon previous written explanations, the evidence set out in the transcript from 30 October 2025 and address previous contradictory statements.
Mr Kumar’s failure to disclose 2004 Bankruptcy
The 2007 application wording is set out in Annex A. In his ‘Opening Statement’ submitted 16 October 2025 (page 386) Mr Kumar states: When completing my 2007 application for a Standard International Licence, I misunderstood the question regarding prior bankruptcies. I believed that events more than six years old were considered spent and did not require disclosure. By e mail dated 29 October 2025 (page 468) Mr Kumar says that: The failure to disclose the 2004 bankruptcy was a genuine oversight. At the hearing on 30 October 2025 (page 524 - 526 transcript), I pointed out that if this was his belief the relevant period was 6 years in 2007 then he knew it was disclosable. A 2004 bankruptcy would be well within the last 6 years. Mr Kumar said: “I don’t know, ma’am, why I did not. I didn’t deliberately not answer it”. Regrettably, the approach to the final hearing did not bring ‘candour’ or ‘transparency’. In paragraph 14 of his witness statement dated 17 December 2025 (page 601) I simply get yet another version and now it is his recollection that 2007 application form related to bankruptcy “within the last 12 months”. No basis is given for yet another differing recollection. I asked OTC to track down the 2007 form.
On 23/12/25 as a preliminary matter I advised Mr Kumar and Mr Malik that the 2007 version of PSV 421 required disclosure of any bankruptcy in the previous 3 years. Mr Kumar completed his form in June 2007 and the bankruptcy October 2004. Not only is the exact wording included at Annex A, but the paper form which required Mr Kumar to ring yes or no is immediately underneath the reference to 3 years. Mr Kumar’s oral evidence failed to explain his varying accounts or how he could make any mistake when the question was so clear. Mr Kumar’s oral evidence in essence is that he thought what he did at time was accurate. The chronology above does support this statement, and I do not believe him. The question was clear, his explanations since August 2025 have been fluid and each not credible. Taking the evidence together, I find that it was more likely than not an attempt to mislead – Mr Kumar’s suggestion of a genuine approach to the 2007 application when tested shows obfuscation. In 2007, if the prior bankruptcy was disclosed, he may not have got a Licence – it would certainly have led to scrutiny of good repute and financial standing. It is more likely than not that he failed to make the material disclosure purposefully.
Mr Kumar’s failure to disclose the April 2011 Fraud Conviction
On 28 October 2025 (page 468) Mr Kumar acknowledged that he failed to notify the conviction, a serious offence which the 1981 Act required him to disclose. Whilst the conviction is now spent, the failure to notify it at the time and the impact remains relevant. Justice requires it to be considered for fair competition and trust principles. By way of explanation, Mr Kumar states that at that time he was focusing on rebuilding his business and ‘did not appreciate the long-term regulatory implications of the conviction’. Mr Kumar suggested at that time he did not realise it was a requirement but at the same time apologises for the “oversight”. Without wider explanation, this is contradictory. For there to be an “oversight”, it indicates that you know something you should do something but fail to. In his ‘Opening Statement’ document submitted for 30 October 2025 (p.386), Mr Kumar makes no reference to the conviction at all.
The Representations state throughout that Mr Kumar does not seek to underplay the seriousness of his various failings – but he does. In his witness statement dated 17 December 2025, Mr Kumar does his best to diminish the seriousness of the fraud conviction. His account became even less compelling when he gave oral evidence. Is his witness statement (paragraphs 15-18) Mr Kumar refers to invoices for vehicles which he was in the process of purchasing but then decided not to proceed with and blamed his Accountant for filing the invoices to reclaim the VAT. I asked Mr Kumar at the hearing if it was only the two vehicles that he had referred to that made up the fraud. I asked because there was an apparent disconnect with the HMRC account. Mr Kumar told me that he had looked to purchase two vehicles and sent invoices to his Accountant but then decided not to purchase them - after two or three months he pulled out. By then his Accountant had already submitted the invoices. HMRC gave him the opportunity to pay back the refund received but he had already invested the money. This account is contradicted by the HMRC published case outcome. I therefore read it out to Mr Kumar in full (Annex C). I pointed out the discrepancy of his evidence of genuine invoices with a change of mind, against the facts upon which he was sentenced - he created fake invoices and were four vehicles and not two. Mr Kumar had on his own account committed the fraud with the view to raising funds to expand his business. This is the very same business which requires an Operator Licence based on trust. The irony is lost on Mr Kumar but not me.
At paragraph 17 of his witness statement Mr Kumar states “what I learned from this experience is that I must personally double check key paperwork and not assume that third parties have done things correctly”. Even in December 2025, Mr Kumar was saying on the one hand that he accepts the offending is serious but still made statements trying to mislead me as to just how serious it was. At paragraph 18 of his statement, Mr Kumar refers to the advice he received from the solicitors at the time of the 2012 Public Inquiry which did not lead him to disclose the conviction. I pointed out to Mr Kumar that Backhouse Jones are renowned transport lawyers and was he saying that they had advised him not to disclose a serious offence. Mr Kumar said no. I asked Mr Kumar if he had told his solicitors that he had that recent conviction and he confirmed that he did not.
Mr Kumar asks me to accept the “oversight” in the context of the then VOSA investigation and Public Inquiry. I do so but not in a way that he seeks. In 2011 Mr Kumar attend Crown Court on a case where the custody threshold was met, and he faced potentially an immediate custodial sentence. The Court decided to suspend it but for two years and with a significant period of community service. Mr Kumar will have received cogent advice from his legal representatives in the criminal case at that point on what the conviction meant in terms of disclosure generally.
In terms of non-disclosure, it is plain on the face of the Operator Licence, each Licence continuation checklists, the legislation and the advice and guidance in the public domain that this conviction had to be notified. Even as a matter of common-sense fraud is relevant to good repute, particularly where committed in the context of the licensed business. Even if I am wrong on that, which I find unlikely in the circumstances, the refresher attended by Mr Kumar a couple of months after the 2012 Public Inquiry will have made it very clear to him that a conviction of this nature was relevant and notifiable.
Financial standing is an ongoing mandatory requirement for the funds to be available on average over three months. Mr Kumar perpetrated the fraud by faking invoices for vehicles purportedly for the business that holds an operator licence. Mr Kumar said that could not repay HMRC because he had already used the funds. The Public Inquiry found that financial standing was not met (adverse finding made see page 129) but it accepted an undertaking for further finances to be submitted within 6 months to demonstrate that financial standing was regained. Having already used the £51,000 to which he was not entitled, the financial picture before the Deputy Traffic Commissioner in June 2012 should have been far bleaker still and the Licence may have been revoked, even without knowledge of the fraud.
If the Deputy Traffic Commissioner had known in June 2012 about the conviction and the circumstances of it, then that taken together with the other adverse findings, would have moved this from a curtailment case to a revocation case with the potential for disqualification. Mr Kumar had every reason to try and hide this conviction and on balance, it is more likely than not, that he went to some lengths not to disclose it either to his solicitors or to OTC. It was one part of his focus in rebuilding his business. On balance I find it more likely than not that Mr Kumar deliberately failed to notify this conviction.
Mr Kumar’s failure to disclose the 2015 Bankruptcy.
In his ‘Opening Statement’ submitted for 30 October 2025 (page 387) Mr Kumar fails to specifically deal with the 2015 bankruptcy despite acknowledging he was meant to address bankruptcy events (my emphasis). He simply states: ‘Upon further review, I now understand that I should have declared them’. In the e mail of 29 October 2025 Mr Kumar states:
‘I acknowledge that I failed to disclose two previous bankruptcies (2004 and 2015)’….. The 2015 bankruptcy raises an additional concern, as I did not resign as director of Services Transport Limited during the period of undischarged bankruptcy. At the time, I believed that the directorship had been spent and that I did not need to apply for court permission to continue in that role.
Mr Kumar’s evidence on 30 October 2025 is difficult to summarise, especially as he was erroneously relying on events in 2023 listed on Companies House (pages 526 - 532 Transcript). At first, Mr Kumar said that he was not bankrupt in 2015 at all as he settled the monies due with Lloyds. When shown the Gazette notification Mr Kumar said he was unaware of that bankruptcy but had no explanation as to why he did not say this on 16/10 or 29/10. Mr Kumar then suggested that it was HMRC who made him bankrupt linked to the fraud but again that does not tie in with the Gazette. After significant patience explaining the sequence of events and taking Mr Kumar to each of the documents, Mr Kumar acknowledged that he was made bankrupt in 2015, whether it was HMRC or Lloyds. He said that when he referred to his directorship as ‘spent’ he meant ‘finished’. There is no basis for that to be plausible in any way. From 1 February 2014 Mr Kumar is the sole director of Services Transport Limited, he has never resigned or been removed at Companies House. The accounts filed at Companies House for year end 31 January 2015, 2016, and 2017 show the company at varying levels of trading and the accounts approved by Mr Kumar.
A charge was created in May 2014, referring to an all-Assets Debenture between Services Transport Limited and Lloyds entered the previous month. It is available on Companies House, and I have read it to see if it assists my understanding. It does not. The security is the finance house and the limited company not Mr Kumar personally. Further there is no reference to any personal guarantee from Mr Kumar in addition to the asset security. Without wider explanation, the 2015 bankruptcy may be linked to an earlier agreement with Mr Kumar as a sole trader but in reality, the debenture contradicts Mr Kumar’s oral evidence as much as confirms. Furthermore, Mr Kumar did not correlate this explanation with his previous assertion that he was made bankrupt in 2015 but by HMRC, linked to the fraud.
In his December 2025 witness statement at paragraph 19 (page 604) Mr Kumar seeks to join up his evidence from October 2025. Mr Kumar states that he was unaware of the 2015 bankruptcy until 2023 when his bank HSBC raised it. Steps were then taken to have the linked ‘charge’ satisfied without payment of monies. Mr Kumar says ‘on oath’ that his account set out in paragraphs 19 – 21 is the truth. I have asked myself if this is credible. I found his accounts relating to 2004/2007 and 2011 are not credible. If Mr Kumar only found out in 2023 about the 2015 bankruptcy, I would expect it to be fresh in his mind, rather than the convoluted evidence at the hearing just two months previously. Further, Mr Kumar has failed to produce any evidence of these 2023 events but if the bank was involved, he should have all the correspondence immediately to hand.
I have to weigh the October 2025 account in the balance of credibility of Mr Kumar’s statements in December 2025 that he was unaware until 2023. In 2015 Mr Kumar was not difficult to find for any Trustee as he carried on a sole trader and limited company business including agreements with the said financial institution. I set out for Mr Kumar at the hearing the duties of the Trustee in Bankruptcy/ Receiver in 2015 in preserving and selling assets and the consequences of any failure to co-operate. It is highly unlikely a Trustee did not pursue Mr Kumar. If Mr Kumar was perceived as failing to co-operate the Trustee in bankruptcy is more likely to make an application to suspend the automatic discharge until they do co-operate.
Mr Kumar had a compelling reason to hide the 2015 bankruptcy from OTC – section 57(2) of the 1981 Act makes it clear that if a sole trader is made bankrupt then the Licence terminates. The duty to disclose is based on trust and Mr Kumar failed to do so. On balance, I do not find the final – or indeed any – of Mr Kumar’s explanations credible both in terms of the procedures around personal bankruptcy and the context of contradictory accounts. In my judgement, he is more likely to have acted in self-interest (yet again) in 2015 to avoid the Licence terminating or at least having to make an application under section 57(4) - which may not succeed and where his conduct would come under further scrutiny.
Mr Kumar’s compliance with the licence undertakings in the lead up to 2025 PI hearings.
[For the purposes of the next section vehicles underlined are those Mr Kumar says were on ‘dry hire’ for the period referenced to paras 32-34 of his witness statement (page 606/7) and the unpaid invoice (page 672)]
Introduction
What was meant to be a straightforward check for improvements since DVSA’s original investigation was turned into a farce by Mr Kumar’s conduct. Late service to OTC and incomplete service to DVSA meant the original Public Inquiry was amended to a case management directions hearing on 12/8/25 to bring order and clarity. Instead, there is further late, piecemeal and incomplete evidence production. By way of example see the DVSA Traffic Examiner addendum report dated 21 October 2025 ready for what was meant to be the final hearing on 30 October 2025 (see pages 476-477). Mr Kumar’s failings on disclosure leave facts obscured by contradiction, no meaningful ability to assess the extent of the non-compliance and an inability to assess to what extent Mr Kumar was operating more vehicles than authorised. In re-reading case before writing this decision, I have taken time to try and cut through the grey and conflicting evidence. I did so during the hearing, but I must also be given time and space to regulate and ensure late and incomplete service does not prevent thorough analysis.
Failure to co-operate producing data and records.
Mr Kumar admits that he failed to send all the data and records to DVSA. However, it is important to set out the extent and impact of the failing for any balancing exercise. In October 2025 Mr Kumar blamed his former solicitor for failing to forward the data (p.502). Mr Kumar was positively stating the data was available and with the solicitor. As Mr Kumar thereafter still failed to send complete data for the various case management directions, I do not believe him. On 23 December 2025 Mr Kumar’s final position was that the failing was down to the way the Trutac system had been set up back in circa 2024. That does not explain his previous contrary statements. The Traffic Examiner addendum report dated 9 December 2025 (p.1019) confirms that the requested period for the data was 1st April - 30th June 2025. The addendum report confirms incomplete or no data produced for several vehicles, including those Mr Kumar acknowledges were operated by him during required data periods.
Vehicle - Data produced
- AY23 DKL - 19/4/25-18/9/25
- BF23 CLO - 18/4/25-15/8/25
- BV69 LNM - 18/4/25-15/8/25
- BV69 LNN - No data
- MA19 ZZA - 19/1/24-13/8/25
- MA20 ZZA - 28/8/24 - 9/5/25
- MA21 ZZA - No data
- MA22 ZZA - 27/2/24 - 13/8/25
- MA60 ZZA - No data
- *MA61 ZZA - No data
- MA70 ZZA - No data
- SN16 BWC - 18/4/25 - 15/8/25
- SN16 BWE - No data
- YX18 LJY - 9/1/24 - 15/8/25
Operation of more vehicles than authorised - cross reference Annex
In terms of the reports and data that were made available the Traffic Examiner, it was her view that Mr Kumar operated more vehicles than authorised. She was prevented from making a full assessment of how many vehicles operated but confirmed on 9 December 2025 (p.1019):
VEHICLES USED
The operator has authorisation for five vehicles but using the data and reports provided I found that on at least the following dates this was exceeded.
30/4/25 - AY23, BF23, BV69 LNM, MA19, MA20, MA22, YX18, MA61. 8.
1/5/25 - MA60, MA61, BF23, MA19, MA20, MA22, SN16, YX18. 8.
2/5/25 - BF23, MA19, MA20, MA22, SN16, YX18, MA60, MA61. 8.
29/5/25 - AY23, BF23, BV69 LNM, MA19, MA21, MA22, MA61, SN16, YX18. 9.
This report was sent to Mr Kumar by OTC on 9 December 2025 (page 1021). In paras 32-34 of his witness statement signed on 17 December 2025 Mr Kumar refers to period of vehicles out on ‘dry hire (no drivers supplied)’, including during the investigation period 1/4/25 – 30/6/25 involving ‘around’ 5 vehicles. This was the first mention of such an arrangement. Mr Kumar acknowledges that the arrangement was too informal to capture records and data required on the Licence undertakings, clearly identifying who was operating each vehicle on any given day. During the hearing I asked the Traffic Examiner’s assistance in checking the veracity of Mr Kumar’s suggestion of vehicle hire. I asked the Traffic Examiner to look at the vehicle unit ‘lock in’ and ‘lock out’ dates where data was sent in. I did so because this is a straightforward way for hirer and user to protect their data and records. The Traffic Examiner confirmed that:
- 3 vehicles were not locked in by Mr Kumar until 15/8/25 (3 days after the directions hearing).
- MA19ZZA was locked in and straight out again on 26/2/19.
- MA22ZZA was locked in on 10/3/25.
- The rest were never locked in by Mr Kumar.
Whilst not specifically referred to in Mr Kumar’s statement, in the representations bundle submitted to OTC on 19 December 2025 is an invoice of purported dry hire to Shellard Travel Limited for 5 vehicles between 28 or 30/4/25 and 31/5 25 – BF23CLO, MA19ZZA, MA22ZZA, YX18LJY and MA61ZZA (page 672). I asked Mr Kumar if any other vehicles were on loan/hire and he stated either SN16BWE and/or SN16BWC may have been, but he was not sure. No evidence of any such arrangement is found in any of the Operator’s documents.
Regarding the Shellard invoice, the Traffic Examiner identified that Mr Kumar was driving YX18LJY on 30/4/25. When I asked Mr Kumar why he was driving a vehicle said to be on hire, he replied that they were not on hire every day. That contradicts the invoice he has produced which identified the number of days as directly correlating with the stated hire period. Further, Shellard’s operating centre was in Swadlincote – 110 miles away, making ad-hoc day hire even less likely. As per Annex F, my analysis shows drivers on the same day were swapping between vehicles said to be on hire and those Mr Kumar says he was operating. The Traffic Examiner noted that Mr Kumar had also produced a driver infringement memo for an issue with MA19ZZA on 27 May 2025, which contradicts the vehicle being on ‘dry hire’. The DVSA disclosure bundle includes a note signed by Mr Kumar on 30 May 2025 that driver Umarmia Huzaifa Imtiazamad received a verbal ‘reminder’ (page 297), which again contradicts the vehicle being on ‘dry hire’.
Of the 4 dates where the TE identified more than 5 vehicles, I note that on each of those dates, the vehicles alleged to have been on hire to Shellard were driven by 3 of the drivers for which Mr Kumar produced D14 reports for the hearing on 12/8/25:
- 30/4/25 Driver Ovidiu-Marian drove MA61ZZA
- 1/5/25 Driver Ali Hussein drove MA22ZZA
- 2/5/25 Driver Ali Hussein drove YX18LJY
- 29/5/25 Driver Des McNulty (the same Mr McNulty proposed as TM) drove MA61ZZA as well as two other ‘non-hire’ vehicles. In oral evidence Mr McNulty said that he was aware of Shellard only in that he sees them on the Tour circuit. He did not say he drove for that Operator.
I have also noted further anomalies between alleged ‘dry hire’ and named drivers arising from the V6 missing mileage reports (p.273+) in the DVSA disclosure bundle. By way of example, charging dry hire for MA19ZZA for 30 May 2025, when the vehicle was not used from 21:17 on 29/5 until 18/6/25 and said to be fuelling and shunting in yard on days when on ‘hire’ – 2/5, 12/5 and 29/5 (p.273/4).
I remind myself that the 2012 Public Inquiry gave Mr Kumar the benefit of the doubt around his informality with hire arrangements and the impact on statutory records. The decision included: ‘The Forward Planner must show the periods when vehicles are rented out to other Companies’. I see no good reason to give Mr Kumar the benefit of the doubt again. On balance, the sheer weight of evidence is that Mr Kumar operated the vehicles. The only contrary evidence is the unpaid invoice which Mr Kumar himself contradicted in terms of days on hire. I find that Mr Kumar created the invoice as a device to hide his unlawful operation.
The Operator’s attempts to explain the missing mileage identified by the Traffic Examiner on 9 December 2025 raised more concerns. On 18 June 2025, the vehicle unit for YX18LJY appears to show the driver card of Mr Gas is pulled at 21:32 and the vehicle then continues to be driven without a card until 22:50. On the face of it there is a false record for the driver to hide the fact that he ran out of hours. The witness statements of Mr Kumar and Mr McNulty did not address this. In his oral evidence, Mr Kumar told me Mr Gas was running out of hours, and Mr McNulty met him enroute to takeover. Mr Kumar and Mr McNulty rely on a Trutac duty report. However, there is no explanation as to why Mr McNulty’s card was not showing alongside the vehicle unit data. The traffic examiner was clear that at some point the system has been manipulated because she has the raw data and Mr McNulty’s driving is not on there. Further the vehicle unit data shows that the vehicle barely stopped. The card was removed and driving continued in less than 60 seconds. I also pointed out that these ‘feeder’ journeys that allegedly took McNulty to Central London in the van and Mr Gas returning to base were not recorded either.
Mr McNulty gave evidence in support of the account provided by Mr Kumar. Mr McNulty gave an account of Mr Gas having a rant about running out of hours and that they arranged to meet at Limehouse for swap over with the company van. Mr McNulty said that the report he recently produced showed the driver calendar and he could not explain why the D14 report did not show his driving after taking over YX18LJY from Mr Gas at 21:30 (page 262). Mr McNulty could not explain why he failed to input “feeder” journeys. The traffic examiner pointed out that on 20th of June 2025 Mr McNulty put in the manual entry of rest backdated to 18 June 2025. I cannot accept as genuine that a driver handover took place in less than 60 seconds. I accept the Traffic Examiner evidence that there has been a subsequent manipulation of data and there is no valid audit trail of the accounts provided by Mr Kumar and Mr McNulty.
Services Transport Limited as the ‘de facto’ Operator.
As previously stated, Operators and Transport Managers have deemed knowledge of advice and guidance in the public domain. Statutory Document No. 1 and 5 are clear on the legal test for who is the Operator and the consequences of getting it wrong. The Licensing team asked Mr Kumar questions about the limited company for that very reason and he portrayed it as an asset holder only. The issue is covered in detail in the Representations submitted by Mr Malik on behalf of Mr Kumar (pages 571 to 574). Mr Kumar “..accepts that the historic arrangements gave rise to an unacceptable lack of clarity when assessed against that legal test’. Mr Kumar avers no financial gain or intent. I disagree. The Statutory Documents are clear on the legal test. Each continuation checklist requires consideration of whether there has been a change of entity – in this case 2017 and 2023. The answer given to Licensing about ‘asset holding’ was not true based on what Mr Kumar produced to the Traffic Examiner and now tells the Inquiry. The Services Transport Limited bank statements from March to July 2025 are the accounts of a coach operator – client payments in, fuel payments out etc. Ensuring compliance is not just hours and maintenance. Time must be taken to ensure the law and all conditions and undertakings are met. Whilst competitors were in their office doing just that, Mr Kumar was out driving and getting new business in – a direct competitive advantage and unlawful operation.
Maintenance
Whilst this is not a maintenance case per se, records are requested as part of a public inquiry to ensure any operator has done a full review of all systems and not just linked to any given DVSA report. If I had only looked at the maintenance records for the first vehicle in the operator’s maintenance bundle MA19ZZA (starting at page 681) it paints a positive picture. Regrettably, it is less so for the two vehicles that follow. The records for MA21ZZA and MA22ZZA are incomplete. For MA21ZZA I only have the front page of each PMI dated 2 September 2025 and 4 December 2025. There is no brake performance test on 2 September 2025. There was a roller brake test on 24 October 2025 but no corresponding PMI. All the driver defect sheets produce between 8 September 2025, and 5 December 2025 show no defects. I cannot audit these against the PMI because it is incomplete. On the face of it there are no defects on the driver daily defect sheets or PMI, which of itself can bring questions, even with low mileage. It is a similar picture for MA22ZZA where I only have page 1 of the PMI dated 23 October 2025. Interestingly the PMI gives the “Inspection Organisation” as MAZZA (FALCON). VOL does not include in-house maintenance by Mr Kumar and Mr McNulty is the proposed transport manager for Falcon Coaches Ltd. On balance, the maintenance systems would need more careful scrutiny by DVSA if the Licence were continuing.
CONCLUSIONS
Mr Malik suggests that the starting point is SEVERE to SERIOUS category identified in Statutory Document No. 10 Annex 4 (para 9.4 of the Representations). Based on my findings this case it sits in the high end of the SEVERE category: Deliberate or reckless act(s) that compromised road safety and/or gave the operator a clear commercial advantage and/or operator caused or permitted driver offending and/or any attempt by the operator to conceal offences or failings. It is very challenging to find genuine positives where they are predominantly future assurances from an individual I do not trust. I am offered a different transport manager (Mr McNulty). A different transport manager was offered in 2012 and there have been serious issues since. I am offered quarterly visits from Mr Garvey but as shown in this case, even when serious non-compliance is identified, is it takes many months to get an Operator to Public Inquiry. The agreements and documents produced are untested and I am satisfied on balance that in future Mr Kumar will simply do what suits him. By way of example, Mr Kumar’s evidence in December 2025 was telling on the employment of drivers. Mr Kumar had received clear advice regarding the employment of drivers in August 2025 from his then legal representative (a very experience transport law solicitor). Mr Kumar said he understood freelance drivers was not just about pay but the ability to control and discipline. However, Mr Kumar was against the solicitor’s recommended approach and was going to use zero hours contract. The solicitor also advised that would not work. As of 23 December 2025, Mr Kumar was still undecided on which way to go. He appeared to have forgotten the documents in the most recent Operator bundle said to be regularising the position. Any positives I might find cannot outweigh my adverse findings to any material extent. They also mean that the offer to surrender the Licence during the Public Inquiry process cannot be accepted.
Mr Kumar’s good repute as Operator and Transport Manager is so inextricably linked as to not be divisible on the facts of this case. He has merged the roles to such a degree that there is no separation. The mendacious Mr Kumar has no place in this regime when his business is built on bankruptcy, fraud, lies and manipulation. Mr Kumar is a risk to road safety and the level playing field which is so crucial to the integrity of the operator licensing regime. I have no hesitation of finding that this Licence must be revoked. Considering the long adverse history and previous Public Inquiry, such an outcome is not disproportionate. Mr Kumar is no longer of good repute as Operator and Transport Manager. Accordingly, I have reached the decision set out in paragraphs 1 and 2 above.
Disqualification
As per paragraph 65 of Statutory Document No. 10 “….Disqualification is a potentially significant infringement of rights and the Upper Tribunal has indicated that whilst there is no ‘additional feature’ required to order disqualification it is not a direction which should be routinely ordered. There may be cases in which the seriousness of the operator’s conduct is such that a traffic commissioner may properly consider that both revocation and disqualification are necessary for the purposes of enforcing the legislation. The provisions are in general terms, consistent with the concept of deterrence, but assessment of culpability and use of words such as penalty should be avoided. The case law indicates a general principle that at the time the disqualification order is made that the operator cannot be trusted to comply with the regulatory regime and that the objectives of the system, the protection of the public and fairness to other operators, requires that the operator be disqualified.”
Whilst no additional features are required, an individual or entity is entitled to know why the order is made and the reasons for the length of disqualification. In terms of deterrence, I remind myself of Thomas Muir (Haulage) Limited v. The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [1998] ScotCS 13 (25 September, 1998); [1999] SC 86; [1999] SLT 666; (on appeal from 1997 J1) “On the other hand, it does not follow that a traffic commissioner is prevented from taking into account, where appropriate, some considerations of a disciplinary nature and doing so in particular for the purpose of deterring the operator or other persons from failing to carry out their responsibilities under the legislation. However, taking such considerations into account would not be for the purpose of punishment per se, but in order to assist in the achievement of the purpose of the legislation. This is in addition to the obvious consideration that a direction may be used to provide direct protection to the public against dangers arising from the failure to comply with the basis on which the licence was granted. Whether or not such disciplinary considerations come into play must depend upon the circumstances of the individual case”. The link with disqualification was cited with approval by the then Transport Tribunal in 2002/75 Hazco Environmental Services: “We emphasise Lord Cullen’s reference to deterrence and have to say that all operators should realise that conduct of the sort in question here is not to be tolerated. ….. Lastly, we were asked to scrutinise the disqualifications and their length. As we have indicated, this was a bad case in which we think that mandatory revocation followed an inevitable finding of loss of repute. In applying the Thomas Muir case a period of disqualification was also inevitable…”
Mr Kumar obtained a Licence in 2007 based on a false declaration. On 16 June 2012 Mr Kumar signed the Licence continuation checklist and submitted it to the Licensing team in Leeds as accurate. He failed to disclose his fraud conviction even though it was clearly not spent. This is Mr Kumar’s second Public Inquiry. On 29 June 2012 Mr Kumar attended a Public Inquiry and failed to notify his fraud conviction. He also requested a period of grace to demonstrate financial standing, whilst hiding the true extent of his financial challenges - he had additionally fraudulently obtained and spent £51,000. In September 2015 Mr Kumar continued to hold the business assets protected within his limited company and failed to disclose his bankruptcy to OTC. By this point the Licence should most likely have been revoked or terminated in 2011, 2012 and 2015. Instead, Mr Kumar continued to do as he pleased and obtained an increased authorisation to 5 vehicles in 2019. At some point through ‘commercial necessity’ (para 3.4 of the Representations) Services Transport Limited became the Operator as a matter of law. This is now accepted by Mr Kumar, but he has failed to identify when the incremental changes likely crystallised to unlawful operation/licence lending. It appears to be some considerable time before 2023 (para 3.9 of the representations). As a the ‘de facto’ Operator, Services Transport Limited also falls to be considered under section 28 Transport Act 1985. The limited company and Mr Kumar are equally culpable as Mr Kumar is the sole director. In amongst all this Mr Kumar has failed to fulfil his duties as a transport manager. That has a distinct role of exercising continuous and effective management of the transport operations – a mandatory safety mechanism. He failed as director and owner to exercise quality monitoring and control of the transport operations. The failings are deep and long-standing.
It is many years since I have come across such a combination of deceit, self-interest and dereliction of duty. The failings go back to the start of the Licence and continued all the way through to the end of Mr Kumar’s oral evidence on 23 December 2025. It is important that those who rely on the operator licensing regime understand that if it takes years, even decades for misconduct to be uncovered, a robust and meaningful outcome will follow. It would send entirely the wrong message that getting away with something serious over the passage of time will diminish the outcome. In my judgement a significant period of disqualification to the higher end of the band of reasonableness is appropriate and proportionate to protect the hard-working legitimate industry. I see the band of reasonableness as 7 – 10 years. Accordingly, I have reached the decision set out in paragraph 3 above.
I am aware that revocation and disqualification will not completely remove Mr Kumar from the coach industry in that he may continue to ‘dry hire’ vehicles. However, I remind all Operators that (a) for hired vehicles the user should ‘lock in’ and ‘lock out’ the vehicle unit to preserve their data (duty to produce records is an undertaking on the Licence); and (b) the user must ensure that the vehicle is roadworthy and in line with their own safety declarations.
Application: Mr McNulty as Transport Manager
As the Licence is revoked the application does not fall to be determined in a meaningful way for Mr Kumar. However, it is important for Mr McNulty. I have marked it as refused as I would not have accepted Mr McNulty as of 23 December 2025. Mr McNulty completed two TM1 forms – for the sole trader Licence and Services Transport Limited. The latter application was withdrawn but both TM1 forms include false declarations (pages 411 and 480). Mr McNulty failed to declare the revocation of PF1119613 Plan Ahead Travel Limited on 19 December 2023. Mr McNulty was the sole director and transport manager. It was an in-office revocation, but the revocation is a matter of public record. It was shortly after this revocation Mr McNulty began to drive for Mr Kumar.
I did not accept Mr McNulty’s evidence regarding 18 June 2025, which means I did not find him truthful. Mr McNulty committed tachograph offences as a driver. It is unclear if there were other vehicle or financial arrangements between Mr Kumar and Mr McNulty. There is reference to Mr Kumar paying Mr McNulty’s mortgage on two occasions – explained as him being abroad but that is opaque. One of the vehicles referred to in paragraph 31 (BV69LNM) was previously locked in (2022) to Plan Ahead Travel. The VOL record shows BV69LNN and BV69LNM were on PF1119613 until the date of revocation. Mr McNulty says there is no ongoing financial connection, but the tribunal time was not required to focus there any further. However, the connections do go to his nomination as transport manager. In my judgement, the relationship is too close for Mr McNulty to be the TM for Mazza Coaches even if the Licence continued. Accordingly, I have reached the decision set out in paragraph 4 above.
I am aware there is an extant application for Mr McNulty to be TM on application PF2085550. I note that he failed to declare the revocation again on that application in September 2025. It will be for the Eastern Traffic Commissioner to determine the application. However, I know this decision will be considered. Mr McNulty may benefit from a hearing before a different TC, where his repute can be considered moving forward away from the connections to Mr Kumar. However, the reference in paragraph 42 to “Inspection Organisation” as MAZZA (FALCON) may benefit from further scrutiny. ‘Falcon’ is not listed as a maintenance contractor for Mazza Coaches.
TC DECISION
Pursuant to adverse findings under section 17(3)(a), (aa), (b) and (e) and section 17(1)(a) and (b) of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981, the Operator 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 PK1071374 Kamlesh Kumar t/a Mazza Coaches is revoked with effect from 23:45 on 30 April 2026.
Kamlesh Kumar and Services Transport Limited are disqualified from holding or obtaining an Operator Licence in any GB Traffic Area as a sole trader, partner or director or being engaged in the management, administration and/or control of an entity that holds or obtains such a Licence in Great Britain for a period of 10 years from 23:45 on 30 April 2026 pursuant to section 28(1) and (4) of the Transport Act 1985.
Upon a finding that the Transport Manager Kamlesh Kumar 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, Kamlesh Kumar is disqualified and prohibited from being designated as a Transport Manager on any Operator Licence for a period of 10 years with effect from 23:45 on 30 April 2026.
The application to nominate Desmond McNulty as Transport Manager is refused.
Sarah Bell
Traffic commissioner London & South East
Written decision issued: 2 April 2026.