Impounding decision for YD19EJT
Written decision of the Traffic Commissioner for the South East and Metropolitan area for the application by Earthworks Services Ltd for the return of vehicle YD19EJT
IN THE SOUTH EASTERN & METROPOLITAN TRAFFIC AREA
APPLICATION TO THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER FOR THE RETURN OF DETAINED VEHICLE YD19EJT
EARTHWORKS SERVICES LTD (Applicant)
&
DRIVER & VEHICLE STANDARDS AGENCY (Respondent)
The Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (the “Act”)
Goods Vehicles (Enforcement Powers) Regulations 2001 (S.I. 2001/3981) as amended by S.I. 2009/1965
DECISION
The application by Earthworks Services Ltd for the return of vehicle YD19 EJT is refused.
REASONS
Background
This is an application by Earthworks Services Ltd for the return of vehicle YD19 EJT, which was impounded by DVSA on 10 November 2025. Earthworks Services Ltd held a Restricted Operators Licence OK2066469 from 07 August 2023 until 22 January 2024 when the Licence was revoked.
The GV500 setting out the grounds for the return of the vehicle were received on 01 December 2025. I determined that the application should be heard at a Public Inquiry. The hearing commenced on 04 February 2026 and was adjourned part heard. This was caused in the main by the late submission of evidence by the Applicant and more time was needed for that evidence to be considered. The hearing reconvened on 11 February 2026, and I confirmed that I would use best endeavours to issue a written decision within 14 days. I apologise at the slippage caused by annual leave.
The Sole Director Sean Dundon did not attend either hearing. On 22 January 2026 my office received notification from its Solicitor that in attendance at the hearing would be Darren Finnigan (Counsel), Charles Leigh (Earthworks Services) and Mark Henry (Earthworks Services). Instead, at both hearings Mr Suhash Sudra, identified as the ‘Contracts Manager’ purported to speak for the Applicant. The only other witness for the Applicant was the driver of the vehicle at the impounding, Mr Ded Preknicaj. He gave evidence with the benefit of an Italian Interpreter on 11 February 2026. DVSA were represented by Counsel Mr Daniel Brayley. I heard oral evidence from the impounding Examiner Mr Steven Marshall.
Ownership
On 22 January 2026, the Applicant submitted 3 pieces of evidence in support of its case. For proof of ownership, it relied on a V5. It also attached a hire agreement and a third-party operator licence. Albeit presented as relevant to the ground for the return of the vehicle, it is also raised prima facie evidence of ownership namely proprietorial rights, be subject to a hire agreement.
On 26 January 2026 the Applicant submitted an invoice between Henry Construction Projects Limited and Earthworks Services Ltd (Earthworks), dated 25 March 2023 with invoice reference VEH0221 as further evidence of ownership. On 04 February 2026 at 12:28 the operator submitted a 99-page bundle which included a letter of authority from Sean Dundon (director) dated 03 February 2026 which purportedly gave Mr Sudra authority to speak on behalf of Earthworks. This bundle included a schedule of bank transactions for Earthworks prior to Mr Dundon becoming the director. I was told by Mr Sudra that the asset list and payment schedule were obtained during due diligence for the purchase of Earthworks so that it could be satisfied that there was a proper audit trail for assets purchased from Henry Construction. I was told that a transfer of [REDACTED] on 26 May 2023 to Henry Construction included payment of the invoice VEH0221. Further, it produced Earthworks audited accounts to year end 30 June 2023.
The various transactions on behalf of the Henry Construction group of companies before entering administration on 8 June 2023 is a matter of separate legal proceedings and has received high-level industry comment. That is not relevant to my considerations here. Taken together, I am satisfied on balance that there was an asset purchase between Earthworks and Henry Construction Projects Limited on or around 26 May 2023, which included the impounded vehicle. I therefore treat the Applicant as the lawful owner for the purposes of this application.
Impounding
DVSA submitted a document entitled ‘Potted history – Earthworks’ dated 12 January 2025 with 9 appendices in support of the impounding. The documentation includes an impounding proforma confirming the date and time of the impounding as 10 November 2025 at 12:49. The email address provided for the user/illegal operator is john@keashdevelopments.co.uk and the name and address of the owner if different is given as John Noone. Under the question ‘Is the vehicle hired/leased?’ the answer is ‘no’. Also appended, are the following: -
- Pre-impounding letter from DVSA to Earthworks Services Ltd dated 23 January 2024.
- Registered keeper, Companies House and HPI checks. These included confirmation of a change of registered keeper to Earthworks Services Ltd on 12 June 2023 with the date of disposal for Henry Construction Projects Limited given as 29 May 2023.
- Impounding roadside checklist to confirm that all aspects of DVSA policy were complied with.
- Photographs of the vehicle and contents of the vehicle.
- Section 9 Witness Statements for Metropolitan Police Commercial Vehicle Unit Officers Lascelles and Wilson both dated 20 November 2025.
- Section 9 Statement of DVSA Examiner Steven Marshall dated 24 November 2025.
During the hearing on 4 February 2026 a job sheet seized from the vehicle, g, dated 03 November 2025 between Total Auto Glazing Services Limited and Keash Developments limited was added to the bundle.
During oral evidence, Examiner Marshall confirmed that at no point did anybody say to him that the vehicle was on hire from Earthworks Services Ltd to Sangra Transport Limited or indeed any other business. During an interview under caution the driver had the benefit of an Italian interpreter and when asked what company he worked for, he said that he was not sure. When asked the boss’s name, he replied ‘John’ and wrote down on a piece of paper ‘John Noone’. The driver was also not sure who paid his wages, but he offered to call his boss. The Examiner confirmed that at 12:49 he called the mobile number that the driver had given him, and the gentleman identified himself as John Noone. The Examiner noted that the telephone number was the same contact number listed on the revoked Earthworks Operator Licence. It was then that Mr Noone also provided his Keash Developments email address referred to in paragraph 7 above.
In addition, the DVSA rely on the two Police witness statements. The Applicant did not request the attendance of those officers to give evidence but that becomes more relevant in terms of the grounds for appeal for return. In terms of impounding, I am satisfied that it was lawful. DVSA had the vehicle linked to a revoked operator, who received a pre-impounding letter in January 2024, and no mention was made of the vehicle being on hire to any third party or any other lawful basis for the vehicle being on the road. In fairness the Applicant conceded the impounding was lawful.
Has the Applicant made out on balance that the vehicle should be returned
The Applicant relies on Ground (a) namely that the user of the vehicle held a valid Operator’s licence ‘whether or not authorising the use of the vehicle’. The GV500 attached the V5 and a hire agreement dated 27 October 2025 between Earthworks and Sangra Transport Limited. It is a matter of record that Sangra Transport Limited holds Licence OK2060610 authorising the use of 1 heavy goods vehicle and 0 trailers.
The return of a vehicle pursuant to ground (a) requires the Applicant to overcome a high hurdle and I have carefully considered the evidence, and the purpose of the legislation. In these cases, the absence of evidence can be equally relevant. It is helpful to list the documentary evidence suggesting that the vehicle was on hire to Sangra Transport Limited on 10 November 2025 is:
-
The hire agreement dated 27 October 2025 with the hire period of 3 weeks for a fixed sum commencing on the same day, 27 October 2025.
- The hire agreement is signed by Sean Dundon for Earthworks and Harvinder Sangra for Sangra Transport Limited. Companies House confirms that Sean Dundon became a director of Earthworks on 9 August 2025 and Mr Sangra had been a director of Sangra Transport Limited since 2022.
-
An email from now former director of Sangra Transport Limited, Harvinder Sangra, dated 04 February 2026 at 10:25, stating that Sangra Transport was the user the vehicle on 10 November 2025. The email address used by Harvinder Sangra is sangratransportltd@gmail.com and the recipient is sean@boulevardconstruction.co.uk. Sean Dundon was also a director of Boulevard Construction Limited on 10 November 2025.
- Wage slips received during the hearing on 04 February 2026, produced as self-billing invoices between Sangra Transport Limited and the driver Mr Ded Preknicaj for the first two weeks of the hire period to complement the invoice submitted earlier in the day for 10 November 2025.
There was also the oral evidence from Mr Sudra and Mr Preknicaj. Mr Sudra confirmed that in addition to being Contracts Manager for Earthworks he also assists Mr Dundon with other business interests. He started working for Mr Dundon in August 2023 around the time they undertook due diligence for Mr Dundon’s purchase of Earthworks. Mr Sudra was able to speak in some detail around the due diligence process for the purchase of Earthworks. Mr Sudra knew of Sangra Transport Limited because Earthworks has hired the vehicle to Sangra Transport previously; it was an ongoing relationship. The hire agreement produced at the hearing is a generic one that ‘we’ (Earthworks) used and filled when necessary. Around the time of the hire, Mr Dundon expressed interest in buying Sangra Transport because of the amount of transport that Earthworks and his other companies were needing.
The discussion to buy Sangra Transport Limited commenced mid-2025, somewhere around June. Alongside the hire arrangements there were ongoing discussions to purchase Sangra Transport. Mr Sudra said it is a coincidence that the sale completed on 10 November 2025, the same day as the vehicle impounding. Mr Sudra could not help why Therese Woulfe was listed as director of Sangra Transport for 2 days (10 – 12 November 2025) before Mr Dundon became the sole director on 12 November 2025. Mr Sudra was aware they knew each other Mr Sudra had seen her in some company events. He was aware that John Noone was a director of Henry Construction Projects Limited and Therese Woulfe is the wife of Mark Henry formally of Henry Construction Projects Limited. Mr Sudra dealt with Sangra Transport operationally, but was not involved the due diligence or purchase, unlike his detailed involvement in the purchase of Earthworks.
Mr Sudra is paid by Earthworks and Boulevard Construction. Even though he is also a director of Boulevard Construction, he invoices for his time on an hourly rate rather than as a director. Mr Sudra is also aware of another business of Mr Dundon, System Plant Limited. Any other email addresses he has are linked to customer contracts rather than anyone who employs him. Mr Sudra did not know why Charles Leigh told JMW (solicitors) that Mark Henry was attending for Earthworks because that is not correct. Charles Leigh works in the office; he splits his time between working 2 to 3 days a week for Earthworks and the rest of the time for Therese Woulfe. John Noone joined Earthworks in November 2023 because he had previously worked for Henry Construction managing the yard and had known Mr Sudra and Mr Dundon for many years.
John Noone is a foreman for Earthworks and does not work for anyone else. The driver knew who to give his hours to, namely John Noone, who had helped him significantly because of his limited English. When he was driving the heavy goods vehicle, his hours would be charged through Sangra Transport Limited and otherwise would be paid by Earthworks. Mr Noone would help the driver to complete his driver sheet and then Mr Sudra would email it to Sangra Transport Limited, and they would email a payslip back.
Mr Preknicaj said that he was working for Sangra Transport on the day and that John Noone had given him his instructions. He was firm that he was paid by Sangra Transport Limited. The driver denied that he had told the police that he was employed by Earthworks and said that he told the police that he was not sure which company. When asked why on 10 November 2025 he was not sure, he said that ‘they’ would call him to give him the work. He referred to John Noone and Mr Sudra as the boss. He confirmed that nobody from Sangra Transport Limited gave him his instructions. He was aware that he had been paid by Sangra Transport Limited for the relevant period, when he got his payslip. He thought that Sangra Transport Limited had only paid him for those two weeks and prior to that he had always been paid by Earthworks. He did not think that anyone would have explained to him in advance, but it might be that simply he had not understood. When asked even when driving the lorry before November 2025 had he been paid by Earthworks he said ‘yes’ and that he had not met anyone from Sangra Transport Limited. His driver defect sheets were given to John Noone and Mr Sudra. He did not know who Mr Dundon is. He knows who Mark Henry is, because he had worked for him a little bit at the Henry Construction yard. He did not know Charles Leigh. He did not know who was downloading his driver card - he would simply leave it in the Earthworks office for someone to download. He had no idea who downloaded the vehicle unit.
After the connection between Mark Henry, his wife Therese Woulfe, Sean Dundon and his wife Sarah Dundon (Mark Henry’s sister) was raised by DVSA, Mark Henry gave oral evidence to clarify the position. He confirmed that he is a civil engineer of 20 years’ experience, Keash is a rental company not a construction company. He did not know why his wife was listed as director for Sangra Transport Limited for 2 days, other than it must have been a mistake because the intention was for Sean to own the company. Mark Henry told me that he is not in any other business arrangement with his sister.
Mr Finnigan relied on the pre-existing relationship between Sangra Transport and Earthworks. He suggested that a level of informality had arisen in terms of the detail in the hire and driver arrangements. I was asked to make no adverse inference from that level of informality. He suggested that the payment of the driver by Sangra Transport Limited and the hire agreement taken together were sufficient evidence for the purposes of the application.
If the evidential burden were that low, then anybody could obtain a return of an impounded vehicle. Careful consideration must be given to each piece of evidence whether documentary or oral. I had a hire agreement but no oral evidence from either signatory. I had self-billing invoices created for Mr Preknicaj but no evidence of actual or direct payment from Sangra Transport. The absence of evidence is also potentially relevant. Mr Dundon put his signature in the hire agreement and dated it 27 October 2025. Mr Dundon for all intent and purposes became the director of Sangra Transport Limited on 10 November 2025. The purported email from Harvinder Sangra dated 04 February 2026 came from a Sangra Transport Limited email address. Whilst Mr Sudra sought to explain these matters away, the reality is the two individuals best able to give evidence are Mr Dundon and Mr Sangra. I pose the question ‘Why they would not present themselves to give this evidence?’. I was asked to accept that there was a long-standing relationship with Sangra Transport Limited, John Noone was integral in that arrangement and yet at no point on 10 November 2025 did John Noone mentioned the Sangra Transport Limited Licence. Indeed, at one point he mentioned to the police that operations might be under the Earthworks Licence. Mr Noone was not called by Applicant in support of its case.
I have the payslips for the driver; I do not have evidence that Sangra Transport Limited paid the driver and that is a crucial part of the test. The invoices are just one part of the evidence chain. Mr Preknicaj relied on Mr Noone to ensure he was paid for his work. Mr Preknicaj was not troubled as to precisely who was paying him. The fact that Mr Preknicaj had no engagement with anyone from Sangra Transport at all (not just on 10 November 2025), undermines the suggestion that it was Sangra Transport operating the vehicle on 10 November 2025. Mr Preknicaj was apparently produced to demonstrate how limited his English to discount some of the police evidence. I had the benefit of observing and speaking to Mr Preknicaj as he came forward to the witness table. He was able to engage in part without the interpreter. In his evidence, through the Interpreter, he was very clear as to who he was employed by. This contrasts with 10 November 2025 even with the assistance of an Interpreter, when he was not sure who he worked for, but he was clear that his boss was John Noone. I am satisfied that the difference between 10 November 2025 and 4 February 2026 is that he has since been instructed. There is no other credible explanation. The 2 police officers were not required by the Applicant and yet then sought to undermine their evidence. Both officers work in the Metropolitan Police Commercial Vehicle Unit. It is a matter of judicial knowledge that they are used to dealing with HGV drivers including those where English is not their first language. Both put their names to a Section 9 Statement. I see no good reason to discard their evidence. Things said and impressions gained on the day of the impounding must be given due weight. The Applicant had from that day onwards to liaise with Sangra Transport Limited and collate the necessary evidence. Instead, I received very little until the morning of the first hearing and indeed, 90 minutes before the hearing commenced.
It was for the Applicant to persuade me on balance that ground (a) was made out. It is irrelevant that the vehicle probably should have been specified on the Sangra Transport Limited Licence (due to the references of it having previously on hire to it). What is relevant is that on 10 November 2025 and the previous two weeks, Sangra Transport was not giving the driver his orders, it was not collecting his driver defect sheets and was not seeking the driver card from Mr Preknicaj. Who pays the driver is a starting point, that does not mean it is the end point and indeed I only have part of the evidence, limited to the fact that Sangra Transport Limited was purportedly raising the self-billing invoice for the driver. STC Statutory Document No.3 paragraphs 37 to 40 are apposite here. Whilst linked to transport managers in that document, it sets out the relevant considerations for who is an operator/user.
The Applicant assumes the evidential burden. The correct test is whether the Applicant has produced sufficient evidence to satisfy me upon the balance of probabilities, that the vehicle was being operated under the control of the holder of an operator’s licence. Not whether there is doubt as to its operation. This is particularly important where there is a common director between the Applicant and the alleged operator. Based on the evidence summarised above, I am not persuaded by the arrangement suggested to have been in place so that Sangra Transport Limited was the user and/or operator of the vehicle on 10 November 2025. Accordingly, I reached the decision set out in paragraph 1 above.
Miss Sarah Bell
Traffic Commissioner
9 March 2026