[Under appeal] Decision for Saeed Mohmed Bux (PC2041058)
Written decision of the Traffic Commissioner for the North West of England for Saeed Mohmed Bux and transport manager Mohammad Afzal
IN THE NORTH WEST TRAFFIC AREA
SAEED MOHMED BUX – PC2041058
&
Mr. MOHAMMAD AFZAL – TRANSPORT MANAGER
WRITTEN DECISION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER
PUBLIC INQUIRY HELD ON 14 APRIL 2026
DECISION:
Under the provision of sections 17(1)(a), 17(1)(b), and 17(2)(a) of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 (“the Act”), Operator’s licence PC2041058, held in the name Saeed Mohmed Bux, is revoked with effect from 23:45 on 14 May 2026.
Under the provision of Section 28(1) of the Transport Act 1985, Mr Saeed Mohmed Bux is disqualified from holding or obtaining an operator’s licence for a period of twelve months, with effect from the date of revocation of the above operator’s licence.
I make a finding that Mr. Mohammad Afzal has lost his good repute as transport manager. Mr. Afzal is disqualified with immediate effect from acting in the capacity of transport manager for any road transport undertaking for a period of twelve months under the provision of paragraphs 7B(1) & (2) of Schedule 3, of the Act.
Mr. Saeed Mohmed Bux is a sole trader who holds a Standard National PCV Operator’s licence authorizing four vehicles. The licence-holder was called to attend a public inquiry on Tuesday 14 April 2026 in Haydock, Saint Helens. Mr. Bux was in attendance along with Mr. Mohammad Afzal who was called separately, in his capacity as transport manager.
The licence-holder operates from a single operating centre given as Brownlow Business Centre, Bolton, BL1 3DX. Preventative Maintenance Inspections are recorded to be carried out externally by Brownlow Way Garage, Bolton, at 10-weekly intervals.
The DVSA were in attendance, represented by Traffic Examiners Harper and Tinsley.
Background
This operator came to the attention of DVSA following a routine compliance check which raised initial concern that: (1) drivers employed on a part-time basis were also full-time employees elsewhere, resulting in excess hours being worked each week, and (2) that vehicles were not being parked at the approved operating centre as per the requirements of the operator’s licence.
An investigation commenced on 01 August 2025, and I was concerned to read that a series of requests for data, issued under Section 99ZA of the Transport Act 1968 (“s.99ZA request”) were not complied with, or could not be complied with due to the lack of records being appropriately retained in contravention of operator licence requirements.
TE Harper undertook an assessment of the limited records that were eventually made available and concluded that certain vehicles had never been calibrated, vehicle unit data had never been downloaded as they remained locked into a previous owning company, the operator failed to produce records on request, and that vehicles – said to be used for school transport, exempt from EU drivers hours rules – were also likely being used for airport transport which was in-scope.
On 29 October 2025, DVSA undertook a maintenance investigation visit, resulting in an assessment of compliance systems which was concluded as “Unsatisfactory”.
Of thirteen areas assessed only eight were considered “Satisfactory”. Two areas scored “Mostly Satisfactory” with three scored as “Unsatisfactory”. Concerns were raised with regard to the operator systems for compliance in relation to: (i) Inspection / Maintenance Records; (ii) Inspection Facilities & Maintenance Arrangements; (iii) Emissions; (iv) Wheel & Tyre Management; and (v) Transport Manager / Responsible Person. Many of the shortcomings relate directly to areas critical for road safety.
It is also noted that the Operator’s Compliance Risk Score is Red, with a fail rate at annual test of 62.50% against a national average of 8.03%.
On 03 March 2026 notice was received of a further DVSA encounter where a driver, Mr. Abid, was found to be driving one of the operator’s vehicles without the proper entitlement to do so.
Due to the issues above a public inquiry was convened to consider whether the licence-holder had failed to comply with the conditions and undertakings of an operator’s licence and whether the licence-holder continues to meet the mandatory requirements to be of good repute, to be professionally competent and to have appropriate financial standing.
Transport Manager Mohammad Afzal is also called to consider whether he remains of good repute and has been ensuring continuous and effective management of transport services as required in law.
Pre-Public Inquiry
On 02 March 2026 letters were issued to the operator and transport manager calling them to the public inquiry. These letters confirmed the date, time and location of the public inquiry. The letters invited each to provide any additional information they wished to submit and, in addition, set out specific case management directions for the provision of financial records, evidence of systems for managing drivers, and maintenance records.
Financial records and some maintenance records were provided on time allowing these to be assessed and reviewed in advance of the hearing. None of the requested records for management of drivers were provided as directed and a number of maintenance records were omitted.
Public Inquiry
Neither Mr. Bux nor Mr. Afzal were impressive as witnesses. Responses to questions were weak and vague, and each provided little assurance that they were capable of fulfilling their roles. In fact, throughout the inquiry I was quite certain that neither fully understood their responsibilities.
I commenced the inquiry by setting out the issues for consideration at the public inquiry. In summary these were (i) failure to comply with Drivers’ Hours and Tachograph Rules; (ii) failure to ensure proper records were kept and made available on request; (iii) failure to have proper systems for ensuring vehicles were maintained in a fit and serviceable condition; (iv) the use of unauthorised places as an operating centre; (v) an absence of financial standing; and (vi) the role of Mr. Afzal as transport manager.
Evidence
Compliance with Drivers’ Hours and Tachograph Rules
Evidence was received from TE Harper as to the function of a vehicle’s tachograph unit and the steps an operator would be required to take in order to utilise its benefits. This included the need to calibrate the tachograph unit, lock it to the operator’s Company Card, and download the Vehicle Unit (“VU”) data within 90 days. I was also provided with clarification that whilst an operator might be outside the scope of EU Assimilated Hours Rules, there remained a requirement to calibrate and download a vehicle unit where one was present in the vehicle.
The written report from TE Harper provided a timeline of events which was then explored. I do not repeat the extensive detail here, but between 22 August 2025 and 13 October 2025 the DVSA issued three s.99ZA requests for VU and driver card data from May 2025.
The operator’s responses did not provide the data but claimed an exemption as the only work undertaken was school transport. This exemption was acknowledged by the DVSA but regardless, the records were to be provided. This process repeated three times and still the records were not provided. Some alternative documents were provided – driver licence, driver card and log sheets – but not the VU or card data.
Eventually, on 18 October 2025 tachograph data was provided for two vehicles, but this included October data only. A maintenance check was arranged to allow DVSA to download the remaining periods. That occurred on 29 October 2025, however, no driver cards were produced. At the inquiry both Mr. Bux and Mr. Afzal (who had each driven during the period in question) stated that they had brought their cards to the check, but DVSA maintain that these were not presented.
An assessment of the VU data was made, and Mr. Bux was subsequently interviewed under caution. The DVSA made the following conclusions:
- The tachograph for vehicle PN11ZDH was last calibrated in 2014. These are due to be calibrated every two years.
- Vehicles PN11ZDH and YD15JUO could not initially be downloaded as they remained locked into another company.
- Mr. Bux admitted at interview that he did not have a Company Card, required to download VU data.
- On 9 occasions, when vehicle unit data showed the vehicle in use outside of the school hours, ANPR evidence placed the vehicles in the vicinity of Manchester airport
- Whilst Mr. Bux states that vehicles are out of scope of tachograph rules, the evidence strongly suggests he did, on six occasions insert his tachograph. Five of those occasions aligned with ANPR sightings at Manchester airport.
The following schedule of offences was produced:
- 18 February 2016 to date -Tachograph not calibrated following installation
- 22.08.2025 – Fail to comply with s99ZA Request
- 03.10.2025 – Fail to comply with s99ZA Request
- 13.10.2025 – Fail to comply with s99ZA Request
- 01.05.2025 – Fail to use tachograph record sheets or driver card
- 02.09.2025 – Fail to download data from a tachograph where data has not been previously downloaded
At the public inquiry the operator and transport manager continued to rely on the tachograph exemption, stating that they considered tachographs did not need to be calibrated as they were not being used. This is contradicted by both the DVSA evidence that where a vehicle unit is in place it must be calibrated, and Mr. Bux’s own use of the tachograph.
Mr. Bux’s evidence regarding the airport journeys was unconvincing. He stated that the journeys to the airport were personal trips made for the purpose of transporting family members. When asked why a tachograph was used, he stated that he would use it when unsure if the journey would exceed 50 miles. This makes little sense as he is attributed to nine such journeys – four of which had no card inserted and five of which did.
This highlighted a fundamental problem; there is no evidence of oversight by this operator. This licence was granted on 21 April 2021. Vehicle PN11ZDH was specified on 27 August 2024 and was never locked in. MW08XJL was specified on 01 February 2023 and was never locked in. YD15 JUO was specified since 01 February 2025 and was never locked in. As such there has never been any attempt to download or report on the travel records for these vehicles.
Mr. Bux advises that he trusted the drivers. He was satisfied that they only drove for his school runs and had no other employment whatsoever. He therefore felt no need to download driver card data (where a card was held) or Vehicle Unit data. The fundamental problem with the evidence provided was that the working time records submitted to me – referred to as “Domestic Duty Recording Systems” – were woefully inadequate.
These were completed by the drivers, all with an exact and repeated start time each day, then a morning finish time which varied. No afternoon commencement time was stated, but an afternoon finish time was quoted. The finish times, unlike the morning start time, varied but each day’s driving was recorded as exactly 4 hours. This consistent ‘four hour day’ was not supported in evidence. It was implausible to have been exactly four hours each day, and yet the records, which were similar for each driver, were all signed off by the transport manager as accurate. Despite this, the operator sought to rely on these documents as evidence of an effective means to monitor driver working times.
It was confirmed that the operator has not, and does not, routinely download VU and driver card data or cross reference to the records (erroneous as they are) provided by the drivers.
Accordingly, it is simply not possible for the operator to ensure that drivers are (i) not working for another employer, or (ii) using vehicles for journeys other than the allocated school runs.
I was advised that, in order to guarantee that drivers did not have other employment, a declaration was provided each month by each driver. This, I was told, confirmed that no other work was undertaken, it recorded the hours worked each day (all recorded as 4 hours from Monday to Friday), and was signed off as accurate by the driver and the TM.
Mr. Bux – proprietor and driver – had confirmed that, alongside his 4 hours per day driving, he spent a further 3 to 4 hours per day on duties relating to the running of the business – administration, working with drivers etc. Despite this, his declaration or working time included only four hours per day driving. Therefore, I question, if the responsible person’s declared working hours are wrong (and clearly so), how the remaining records could possibly be relied upon?
It is clear that there is no effective means of managing drivers’ hours. All information provided by the drivers is taken as accurate and signed off as being sound, despite the clear inaccuracies. Information is not verified, VU and driver card data is not reviewed, and there is no oversight.
Driver Records
A further aspect of driver control is the checking of driving licence entitlements. Mr. Afzal advised me, with some confidence, that this was in control and that he used the DVLA website to do this. He was, however, unable to provide me with evidence of that. He did, as an alternative, provide some check sheets providing dates various documents, such as licence, DCPC and qualification cards were checked. When I inquired about the check sheet for Mr. Bux I was amazed to hear Mr. Afzal state that those checks were not necessary as Mr. Bux was the boss. When I inquired about the check sheets for Driver Abid, the subject of the most recent DVSA encounter, Mr. Afzal had little reply.
Mr. Abid was known to Mr. Bux and had carried out some ad hoc work. When subject of a DVSA encounter in March 2026 it was found that Mr. Abid had a ‘101’ condition against his D1 entitlement meaning that he is unable to drive those vehicles for hire or reward. I inquired about the process for checking entitlement I was advised by the operator that this was a function undertaken by the council and that Mr. Abid had been cleared - by the council - to drive.
This evidence is, however, contradicted by the DVSA statement which went on to advise that Mr. Abid was not an authorised driver and was in fact refused by the council on 08 September 2025 due to the ‘101’ condition being against his driving licence.
Additionally, the council confirmed that Mr. Bux had not provided the council with any up-to-date record of vehicles and the council had no record of Mr. Bux or Driver Zishan being authorised to drive for their contracts.
The DVLA checks for drivers could not be provided at the inquiry, and it was confirmed that Disclosure and Barring Service checks were not undertaken by the company. The fact that this business operates to transport children to and from school gives serious cause for concern.
In an effort to understand the most current position regarding driver management the calling in letter requested the following to be provided to the DVSA for an assessment ahead of the inquiry:
- Raw tachograph (.ddd files) for vehicles
- Driver licence checks carried out for the last six months
- Driver infringement reports for the last three months
- Vehicle unit download (missing mileage) reports for the last six months
- Evidence of continuous professional development
- Evidence of disciplinary action received by drivers and managers
This case management direction was not complied with and none of the above was provided as directed.
Parking of Vehicles
The DVSA investigation had found that Mr. Bux regularly parked a vehicle at his home address, which is not the approved operating centre. It was confirmed by Mr. Bux during the hearing that he parked it, not outside his home, but on the road at the end of his street. This happened Monday to Friday when the schools were open, and was justified as being “for operational need”. The vehicle returned to the operating centre at weekends and on school holidays.
This issue was explored and evidence was provided by the operator of what it referred to as “Vehicle Parking and Operational Control”. This showed that the other drivers, Mr. Lowe and Mr. Zishan, also parked their allocated vehicles at their home addresses, Monday to Friday during term time.
Logs for the period November 2025 to March 2026 were provided. These showed that vehicles were recorded as being consistently parked overnight at the drivers’ home addresses. I have reviewed the given addresses on Google Maps and each is a mid-terrace home with no off-street parking.
I have regard to the guidance of the Senior Traffic Commissioner at paragraph 13 of Statutory Document 13 [‘PSV Operations’] which states:
- “There is no provision to consider the environmental suitability of an operating centre on a PSV operator’s licence. However, section 20(3) of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 clearly refers to where vehicles are normally kept. There must be sufficient capacity within the nominated site to meet that requirement. In addition, section 14ZC(1)(b) requires operators to make adequate arrangements for securing compliance with the requirement of the law relating to the driving and operation of relevant vehicles. A traffic commissioner might therefore consider the ability of drivers to conduct a driver daily walk round check within the proposed operating centre. A traffic commissioner might also, for example, consider the safety of the point of access or egress in order that the laws on safe driving can be complied with.”
It is widely accepted that vehicles must normally be parked within the operating centre when not in use. The operating centre is approved upon consideration as to its suitability to allow for the compliance of the laws regarding the driving and operation of the vehicles – this includes the ability of the driver to undertake a full and proper walk around check.
Additionally, an operating centre is an address within which vehicles are to be security parked.
This operator advises that it is his standard business practice to have drivers take the vehicles on Monday morning, and return them to the approved operating centre on Friday where they will be parked over the weekend. The evidence provided confirms a long standing and consistent parking of vehicles at driver’s home locations, and this evidence is all signed and verified by the transport manager.
This demonstrates a systematic abuse of operating centre arrangements. The addresses used, having no off-street parking, would not be considered suitable to be listed as an operating centre and the arrangements show a complete disregard for vehicle security and proper control.
Maintenance
This operator has a first time fail rate at annual test of 62.5%, against an annual average for PSV vehicles of 6.69%. Since August 2024 each of the three vehicles specified have been presented for test and failed. The reasons are varied, but each points to failings in maintenance and driver defect reporting. This is reflected within the Maintenance Investigation Visit Report conducted by the DVSA on 29 October 2025. That assessment concluded that maintenance records and inspection reports were unsatisfactory, as were inspection facilities and maintenance arrangements. The report also concluded that the transport manager (Mr. Afzal) and responsible person (Mr. Bux) demonstrated only partial control of transport services, and provided no evidence of continuous professional development.
This position improved very little ahead of the public inquiry. An assessment of more recent records, which were provided as per the case management directions, found PMIs to be on time but not properly completed. Some further evidence was provided including an annual calendar which, notably, was absent tachograph recalibration. Of note, a range of materials requested were not received ahead of the inquiry. I consider that the omission of these records, alongside the provision of other records, indicates that the missing records do not exist and represent further gaps in the maintenance regime.
Following the MIVR this operator committed to TM refresher for Mr. Afzal (but was silent on training for Mr. Bux) and formal arrangements to be made with the maintenance provider, Brownlow Garages. Neither of these commitments have been complied with, although, on the day of the inquiry the operator provided a new contract with an alternative maintenance provider signed only last week. This appears to have been a last-minute attempt to provide some evidence to this inquiry and comes some five months after the initial DVSA report. This is not an operator who has taken immediate and effective steps to remedy the issues identified but rather have come to the public inquiry with some promise of future action.
Financial Standing
Ahead of the public inquiry the operator provided financial records for the past three months as directed by the case management directions. An assessment of these records showed that the financial standing requirement of £21,500, could not be demonstrated.
The following evidence, in Bold Underline, was taken in private session. The detail is to be redacted from any published version of the decision with the findings included. This information should not be disclosed to any party other than the operator, without first obtaining the permission of the Traffic Commissioner.
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
Accordingly, I conclude the financial standing is not satisfied, but tangible evidence exists that a period of grace may allow the shortcoming to be remedied.
Transport Manager
Having gone through the evidence Mr. Afzal accepted that he had failed in his transport manager responsibilities. He stated that he did not take his responsibilities seriously until the DVSA investigation. I note that he was appointed transport manager for this operator in February 2024. As such, a considerable period had elapsed during which this operator has been transporting children to and from school. It is wholly inappropriate and unprofessional to not take such responsibility seriously.
Mr. Afzal stated that he attempted to introduce improvements – as evidenced by the ‘Driver Duty Record Sheet and Secondary Employment Declaration’ – but accepts that these have fallen short.
Throughout the inquiry Mr. Afzal stated or inferred that records had been submitted, then corrected himself to say he thought they were submitted and further corrected himself to offer an apology for not submitting the evidence.
I do not repeat the range of evidence reviewed or the issues identified, but needless to say that Mr. Afzal, in his role as transport manager, was responsible for the effective and continuous management of these elements of transport services. Mr. Afzal appears to have used this public inquiry as a means to obtain direction or guidance as to how to improve. Whilst a public inquiry can be educational, one is not called to a public inquiry for the purpose of training. It is an opportunity for a transport manager, operator, to demonstrate understanding and compliance. In this case Mr. Afzal has failed to do so.
Findings
Compliance with Drivers’ Hours and Tachograph Rules
It is an undertaking on the licence held by Mr. Bux that the operator shall make proper arrangements so that the rules on driver’s hours and tachographs are observed and proper records kept.
I am satisfied to the civil standard, and with a significant degree of confidence, that this operator has not fulfilled that undertaking. Drivers’ Hours is a road safety critical matter and is a feature that can have a detrimental impact on fair competition. On the face of it, those driving for this operation should not have any cause to exceed the limits of GB Domestic Hours. However, Mr. Bux, the proprietor, was himself regularly driving outside of the scope of the school contracts, and was possibly undertaking journeys which would be within scope for Assimilated EU Drivers Hours Regulations. Further, vehicles left the operating centre on a Monday morning and did not return until Friday.
The operator had no viable or effective means to record or monitor the work of the drivers. Any attempt to correct that position fell woefully short. Furthermore, the operator consistently ignored the direction of DVSA that VU data and driver card data still needed to be monitored. Even as at the date of the inquiry this information was not being downloaded and reviewed.
I conclude that proper arrangements were not in place at the time of the DVSA investigation, and it remains that proper arrangements were not in place at the time of the public inquiry. Records were not provided when requested by the DVSA on the occasion of three Section 99ZA requests, and records were not provided to this inquiry as per the case management directions. Other information was provided therefore this is not a case of the operator misunderstanding the directions. I conclude that the records were not submitted because they do not exist, and they do not exist because of an absence of effective management and control on the part of the operator and its transport manager.
Driver Records
It is a further undertaking on the operator’s licence that the licence-holder shall make proper arrangements so that the laws relating to the driving and operation of vehicles used under the licence are observed. This requires, as a starting point, the operator and transport manager to establish that any driver has the required vocational entitlements. I remind myself at this stage that this operator’s business is one of transporting children, being vulnerable passengers, to and from school. That insufficient checks should be taken is completely unacceptable. This manifested itself in a way that resulted in a person not authorised for the type of transport being put in charge of the vehicle. That individual was not subject to a Disclosure and Barring Service review and – as code 101 is normally allocated to those obtaining grandfather rights – it raises a significant concern that the individual may not have been trained or tested in that class of vehicle. I was advised that the driver in question, Mr. Abid, explained his relationship with Mr. Bux as being “He’s a family friend, I owe him favours and he owes me favours” – I consider this to be a completely inappropriate means of identifying a person as being suitable for the transportation of children to school.
The absence of evidence of driver licence checks, the absence of DBS checks, the purposeful absence of checks on Mr. Bux’s driving validity and the oversight that allowed Mr. Abid to take control of a vehicle are all matters that enable me to conclude, to the civil standard, that this operation does not have proper systems for ensuring that the laws relating to the driving and operation of vehicles used under the licence are observed
Parking of Vehicles
In his application for a PSV operator’s licence Mr. Bux advised that vehicles would normally be parked at Brownlow Business Centre. This has not happened. The Business Centre will have been approved following consideration of its availability and suitability.
Evidence is such that I am content to conclude that, once the licence was granted the vehicles were, thereafter, normally parked at a range of addresses, depending upon the home address of the driver at any given time.
The three locations I have considered were each absent of a place where the vehicle could be securely parked off-road, and did not allow for the safe completion of a driver walk around check (being parked on an open road).
What is of further concern is that this was not an unusual or exceptional circumstance, and that this was agreed (and conducted) by the licence-holder, and signed off by the transport manager.
Accordingly, I consider that the operator, when declaring his operating centre address, made or procured to be made for the purposes of his application for the licence a statement of fact which (whether to his knowledge or not) was false, or a statement of expectation which has not been fulfilled.
Maintenance
It is an undertaking of the licence that the licence-holder shall make proper arrangements to ensure that vehicles, including hired vehicles, are kept in a fit and serviceable condition. This operator has presented eight vehicles for test, of which five have failed. The operator’s fail rate is significantly above the national average for PSV, and the reasons for failures include items that should reasonably have been identified at maintenance inspection or driver defect reporting. These items were identified at annual test despite vehicles allegedly being monitored daily, subject to a maintenance inspection every ten weeks, and prepared for test.
This, coupled with the findings of the DVSA within the maintenance investigation, and the failure of the operator to take any meaningful corrective action until only the week before the inquiry, is such that I am satisfied that proper systems for maintenance were not, and are not, in place.
Finance
Financial Standing is a mandatory and continuous requirement to hold an operator’s licence. As stated above the requirement is not satisfied, but an opening balance exists that would provide tangible evidence that a period of grace would be worthwhile. Whilst an adverse finding is made under provision of Section 17(1)(a) this is not, in itself, a determining factor considering the opportunity for that issue to be remedied and given the breadth and nature of other adverse findings.
Good Repute
A further mandatory and continuous requirement to hold a Standard National PSV licence is the requirement for the licence holder to be of good repute. Features of this hearing, which are relevant to my consideration, are the long standing absence of proper systems for managing drivers’ hours and tachograph rules, for maintaining vehicles in a fit and serviceable condition, and for complying with the laws relating to the driving and operation of vehicles.
Additionally, I consider it very relevant that this operator failed to comply with the requests from the DVSA and the case management directions for this public inquiry. In evidence Mr. Bux provided little confidence and failed to provide any evidence of improved systems, or any assurances that improvements would be forthcoming. The unlawful parking of vehicles, failure to notify changes to financial position and failure to comply with undertakings and conditions of the licence are further negative features towards his good repute.
Against these negative features I have very few positives. Accordingly, I conclude that Mr. Bux does not currently satisfy the requirement to be of good repute.
Transport Manager
I am satisfied that Mr. Afzal has failed in his lawful duty to ensure effective and continuous management of the operator’s transport service. The shortcomings are well laid out below and Mr. Afzal has put his signature and stamp to a wide range of records which raise further questions rather than provide assurance. I am not satisfied that he has provided any effective oversight and has not challenged the operator where incorrect decisions have been made. He has failed to ensure ongoing continuous professional development noting that whilst he may have only obtained his TM CPC qualification in 2023 he failed to take remedial action after the DVSA investigations. He also failed to satisfy me as to how he kept up to date with latest developments as he was not signed up to receive the regular updates issued from the Traffic Commissioners or DVSA.
As with the operator, I find that the transport manager has numerous failings which are well laid out above and I have few positive features against which to balance. Accordingly I am satisfied that good repute has been forfeited.
Decision
For the reasons set out above I make adverse findings under the provision of the following legislation:
-
17(1)(a) – the licence-holder no longer satisfies the requirements of section 14ZA(2)(b) – namely the requirement to be of good repute
-
17(1)(a) the licence-holder no longer satisfies the requirements of section 14ZA(2)(c) – namely the requirement to have appropriate financial standing
-
17(1)(a) the licence-holder no longer satisfies the requirements of section 14ZA(2)(d) – namely the requirement to be professionally competent on account of adverse findings against Transport Manager Afzal.
-
17(1)(b) the transport manager designated no longer satisfies the requirements of section 14ZA(3)(a) – namely the requirement to be of good repute
-
Section 17(3)(a) – that the holder of the licence made or procured to be made for the purposes of his application for the licence, or for the purposes of an application for a variation of the licence, a statement of fact which (whether to his knowledge or not) was false, or a statement of expectation which has not been fulfilled – namely that vehicles would normally be parked at the specified and approved operating centre.
-
Section 17 (3)(aa) – that any undertaking on the licence has not been fulfilled – namely: (1) the laws relating to the driving and operation of vehicles used under the licence were observed; (2) the rules on driver’s hours and tachographs are observed and proper records kept; and (3) vehicles, including hired vehicles, are kept in a fit and serviceable condition
-
Section 17(3)(e) – that there has been, since the licence was granted, a material change in any of the circumstances of the holder of the licence which were relevant to the grant of his licence, namely that the approved operating centre is no longer being used and vehicles are being normally parked at a location not approved as such
On review of the guidance provided by the Senior Traffic Commissioner on starting points for regulatory action, as set out at Annex 4 of Statutory Document 10, I place this case within the category of “severe”. There are clear and deliberate acts which compromise road safety and give the operator a commercial advantage.
In undertaking the well-established balancing exercise, I note in the positive that more thought has recently been given to the recording of drivers’ hours and that some monitoring controls have been put in place. Additionally, I note a recent decision to change maintenance provider in an attempt to remedy the poor MOT pass rate.
These positive features are, however, insufficient to tip the balance of the negative features. There has been a long-standing failure to maintain records, a complete absence of effective oversight, and an unenviable failure rate at MOT. These failures have put members of the public at risk as vehicle maintenance and driver rest are features which are critical to road safety. Additionally, the attitude of the operator and transport manager leaves much to be desired. Failing to provide records as requested, a failure to take corrective action on the advice of the DVSA ,and an absence of control satisfy me that the operator and transport manager cannot be trusted to comply.
I consider the question posed by the Upper Tribunal in 2009/225 Priority Freight namely: how likely is it that this operator will, in future, operate in compliance with the operator’s licensing regime? I answer in the negative. The evidence before me in respect of this licence holder leads me to conclude that this is not an operator who can so comply.
I go on to consider the question posed by the Upper Tribunal in 2002/217 Bryan Haulage namely, is the conduct such that the operator ought to be put out of business? I answer this in the positive. I consider the words of the Upper Tribunal at paragraph 13 of 2013/082 Arnold Transport Ltd
- It is important that operators understand that if their actions cast doubt on whether they can be trusted to comply with the regulatory regime they are likely to be called to a Public Inquiry at which their fitness to hold an operator’s licence will be called into question. It will become clear, in due course, that fitness to hold an operator’s licence is an essential element of good repute. It is also important for operators to understand that the Head of the TRU is clearly alive to the old saying that: “actions speak louder than words”… We agree that this is a helpful and appropriate approach. The attitude of an operator when something goes wrong can be very instructive. Some recognise the problem at once and take immediate and effective steps to put matters right. Others only recognise the problem when it is set out in a call-up letter and begin to put matters right in the period before the Public Inquiry takes place. A third group leave it even later and come to the Public Inquiry with promises of action in the future. A fourth group bury their heads in the sand and wait to be told what to do during the Public Inquiry… it seems clear that prompt and effective action is likely to be given greater weight than untested promises to put matters right in the future.
This is not an operator who has taken prompt and effective action and falls closer into the category of those that wait to be told what to do during a public inquiry. I have considered the operator’s representations on the impact of regulatory action, and I recognise that this will result in the end of operations. Whilst noting the negative impact on the business owner I balance this against the identifiable risk to those using this operator’s service.
I therefore make a direction that this licence be revoked with effect from 23:45 on 14 May 2026. This short timeframe is established to balance an orderly closure of the operator’s transport operations alongside the cessation of services which I find to present an unacceptable risk.
Disqualification
This is a serious case showing persistent operator licence failures with inadequate response. Having revoked the licence and found that good repute is lost the issue of disqualification is a discretionary matter. I am conscious of the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s guidance at paragraph 65 of Statutory Document 10 that such a direction is a potentially significant infringement of rights and should not be routinely ordered. I must, however, balance this against the multitude of failings identified in this case and the risk that is presented.
This operator is ill-equipped for the management of transport operations. A wide range of undertakings have not been complied with and there has been an inadequate approach to drivers’ hours, tachograph equipment, control of drivers, maintenance and parking of vehicles. The case has identified considerable risk to road safety and an undermining of fair competition.
I conclude that a period of disqualification is appropriate and, on consideration of the guidance from the Senior Traffic Commissioner, noting that this is the operators’ first public inquiry, I consider a 12-month disqualification to be justified and proportionate.
Additionally, having concluded that Mr. Afzal has forfeited his good repute I am required, under direction of paragraph 7B(2) of Schedule 3 of the Act, to make an order of disqualification. As with the operator, I acknowledge that this is Mr. Afzal’s first public inquiry and again consider that a 12-month disqualification is a robust but proportionate conclusion.
David Mullan
Traffic Commissioner for the North West of England
17 April 2026