[Under Appeal] Decision for Saybest Ltd (OB0221404 and OD0260224)

Written decision of the Deputy Traffic Commissioner in the North West for Saybest Ltd, Michael Bowyer and Philip Sloan

• From: Traffic Commissioners for Great Britain
• Published: 18 March 2026

• Subject: HGV operator and Transport manager
• Region: North West
• Case type: Regulatory
• Regulatory decision: Formal warning, Licence suspended and No action taken
• Published: 18 March 2026

NORTH EAST TRAFFIC AREA

SAYBEST LTD (Operator)

Operator’s Licences OB0221404 and OD0260224

MICHAEL JOHN BOWYER (Transport Manager)

PHILIP DANIEL SLOAN (Transport Manager)

BEFORE: MR M HINCHLIFFE (DTC)

SITTING AT LEEDS

ON 16 FEBRUARY 2026

DECISION

Under Section 26(1)(f) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (“the 1995 Act”) I suspend Operator’s Licence OB0221404 (“the Gateshead licence”) for 14 days commencing at 00:15 hrs on 9 March 2026 and ending at 00:15 hrs on 23 March 2026.

I take no action against Operator’s Licence OD0260224 (“the Hereford Licence”)

Under Section 26(6)(a) of the 1995 Act I order that that none of the 16 vehicles in possession currently specified on the Gateshead licence may be used under any other operator’s licence, including the Hereford licence, for the period of suspension.

The repute of Michael Bowyer, the relevant transport manager, is not lost but is tarnished. The repute of Philip Sloan is not lost.

Representation for operator and transport managers:

Mr Jonathan Backhouse, Solicitor.

Cases referred to: Stephen Mcvinnie t/a Knight Rider [2010] UKUT 358 (AAC);

Parks Haulage Ltd [2026] UKUT 2 (AAC); Hughes Bros Construction Ltd [2014] UKUT 0119 (AAC); Natalie Hunt t/a Wild Stretch Limousines (T/2010/81); Michael Hazell (N0.2) [2017] UKUT 0221 (AAC); A N D Haulage Ltd [2012] UKUT 159 (AAC).

REASONS

Background

This operator holds two standard national goods vehicle operator’s licences, both of which have been called up to this public inquiry. The case, however, is focussed on that part of the operator’s food service business that is based at an operating centre in Gateshead. There is another operating centre in Hereford.

The Gateshead licence authorises 32 vehicles, and the Hereford licence authorises 24 vehicles. According to the Traffic Commissioner’s VOL system, there are 16 vehicles in possession at Gateshead and 21 vehicles in possession at Hereford.

The operator is a 100% subsidiary of another company and then, via two other holding companies, its ultimate controlling party is Dole Public Limited Company incorporated in Ireland and listed on the New York Stock Exchange. The UK operations of Dole Public Limited Company are spread across a group of UK legal entities that operate from more than 20 UK facilities and hold goods vehicle operator’s licences authorising around 300 vehicles - over 280 of which are authorised under standard national or international licences.

To that extent, this operator is a relatively small part of a much larger integrated concern around the UK. For instance, virtually all correspondence relating to the serious wheel loss incident referred to below (which occurred on 13/02/2025) comes on “Dole” letterheads or emails, as does the internal Gateshead investigation report prepared by Mr M Pritchard, Branch Manager of “Dole Foodservice Gateshead”, and even the vehicle safety inspection sheet that features in this case - for specified vehicle WV64MME (which, on that safety inspection sheet, was signed off as roadworthy on 12/02/2025) - refers to “Dole Foodservice”, rather than “Saybest”. Moreover, the address of the Saybest Gateshead operating centre is given as: “Redbridge Produce & Flowers Ltd” on the Team Valley Trading Estate in Gateshead. Redbridge Produce & Flowers Ltd is, in fact, part of the Dole UK group and a subsidiary of this operator - holding three operator’s licences authorising over 50 vehicles in three traffic areas.

However, despite the strong evidence of integrated operations, Saybest Ltd - as a Ltd company holding its own operator’s licences - also needs to be considered on its individual merits and in the context of its own particular financial circumstances.

The wheel loss incident

On 13/02/2025, the day after a safety inspection roadworthiness sign-off on 12/02/2025, a Mercedes Benz 7.5 tonne vehicle WV64 MME, operated by the operator, suffered the loss of two wheels when its two rear nearside wheels fell off after becoming completely detached from the vehicle on the approach to a roundabout, whilst travelling eastbound along the A193, in North Tyneside.

The police attended and were concerned about the incident, which was causing significant disruption. In due course, the vehicle and wheels were recovered and removed from the scene. The operator reported the incident to the Traffic Commissioner’s office 26 days later, on 11/03/2025, and provided Mr Pritchard’s internal investigation report.

Mr Backhouse submitted to me that the operator was under no obligation to report this matter and, had the operator not done so, the Traffic Commissioner would not have known about it. I disagree on both counts. There is a condition on the licence that requires the operator, within 28 days of their occurrence, to inform the Traffic Commissioner of any events which affect the good repute of the licence holder (and any transport manager). This refers, in particular, to relevant convictions as defined in Schedule 3 to the 1995 Act, but it is not confined to such convictions and can include any other information which relates to the operator’s fitness to hold a licence. In my judgment, this on-road and dangerous double wheel loss incident was reportable (just as, for example, a bridge strike is reportable). And there is an established procedure in place whereby relevant matters can be - and often are - reported by the police to the Traffic Commissioner’s office, or to the DVSA.

Mr Pritchard’s internal investigation report

In any event, the incident was reported by the operator, and the internal investigation report was submitted for the Traffic Commissioner’s attention. The report concluded that fault lay principally with the driver who had partially completed a driver daily walk-round defect report sheet without actually performing a physical walk-round inspection, and the daily defect report sheet had not been signed by the driver. Mr Pritchard concluded that, at some point, the driver had deliberately falsified the daily defect report sheet by ticking off the check list without checking the vehicle. The driver subsequently resigned. The unsigned daily defect report sheet for 13/02/2025 is exhibited in the papers and the document contains the instruction: “PRIOR TO LEAVING SITE TEAR OFF AND LEAVE LOWER SECTION FULLY COMPLETED IN THE TRANSPORT OFFICE”. This does not appear to have been done prior to the driver leaving the site for his day’s deliveries. The document was unsigned, and nothing was torn off or left with the Transport Office before the vehicle drove away. In evidence, Mr Pritchard agreed that this was not company policy and it was not clear, therefore, how this vehicle had been permitted to leave the operating centre without the driver handing in a completed and signed daily defect report sheet, or a torn-off slip.

Then, going back over previous maintenance procedures, Mr Pritchard noted that the nearside rear wheels had been removed, by the franchised main dealer contractor, for tyre changes some two months earlier - on 14/12/2024. However, Mr Pritchard was satisfied that all procedures related to fitting and re-torquing wheels had been completed in line with both company procedures, and current Mercedes requirements and recommendations.

Further, according to the report, on the night of 10/02/2025 (less than 72 hours before the wheel-loss incident) the vehicle went in for its “six-weekly inspection” and, it is said, was returned to the operator in the early hours of 11/02/2025. (In fact, both the certificate of rectification from the technician and the certificate of roadworthiness from the workshop manager on the safety inspection sheet are dated 12/02/2025 – the very day before the incident.) Mr Pritchard asserts that images from the CCTV footage in the workshop confirm that torque check and re-torquing was performed on all wheels during the inspection.

Mr Pritchard gave evidence at the hearing, and I put to him that, although the driver on the evidence before me had clearly missed an opportunity to check whether the wheel nuts had moved since the safety inspection, that was not necessarily the root cause of the wheel loss incident. Indeed, Mr Backhouse agreed that if the wheel nuts had been re-torqued at the safety inspection just before the wheel loss incident (the evidence was not conclusive), then the process did not appear to have been entirely successful. Mr Pritchard agreed.

The DVSA investigation

Mercedes recommends the carrying out of a re-torque after 50 km, which is not an unusual recommendation because, after initial relaxation, torque tension can, over the ensuing 40km to 80km after a wheel fitting, further diminish with movement vibration. This recommendation is shown on the Mercedes torque tags.

As a consequence of this incident, Vehicle Examiner Flatters undertook a DVSA investigation on 15/04/2025. He confirmed that maintenance records for the vehicle indicated that the wheels had been removed to allow new tyres to be fitted on 14/12/2024 – two months before the wheels came off in motion. In this case, the initial torque was recorded, as was a re-torque after 30 mins. However, there was no evidence that the recommended 50km re-torque had been undertaken, and it did not appear to be the operator’s standard practice at that time. VE Flatters advised the company to do the initial torque, and a 30-minute re-torque, followed by a further re-torque at 50 km or so.

Whilst it is not a legal mandate for every single safety inspection, it is widely considered best practice to check wheel nut torque at each safety inspection in order to monitor wheel security and ensure roadworthiness. All torque checks must be performed using a calibrated torque wrench in order to ovoid over or under tightening.

VE Flatters noted from Mr Pritchard’s report the claim that torque checks were performed on all wheels during the safety inspection conducted between 10/02/2025 and 12/02/2025. On the actual safety inspection report (which is exhibited in the papers) – under the heading “Road wheels, hubs and wheel fixings, re-torque wheel nuts” there is shown a standard green tick although, later in the report it states that road wheels were not removed.

VE Flatters therefore looked closely at the CCTV stills to see if there was any actual evidence of a torque check and re-torquing procedure being completed. VE Flatters notes that, in fact, there is no visual evidence of any torquing taking place, nor even of a torque wrench present, and the position of people in the stills was not consistent with the position of people torquing wheels, rather it looked like someone squatting down looking at them. 

The operator responded to VE Flatter’s comments and recommendations by stating that, in accordance with DVSA’s recommendations, they had reviewed and updated their Safe System of Work (SSOW) for wheel management. Red wheel nut indicators had been ordered and would now be used following the 30-minute re-torque to serve as a visual reminder for a re-torque at the 50 km mark. Upon completion of the 50km re-torque, the red indicators would be replaced with yellow ones to show compliance.

Given the dangerous and potentially lethal wheel loss incident, coupled with the uncertainty as to how the driver could take the vehicle out on the road without handing in a signed daily defect report sheet or tear-off slip, the failure to complete the recommended 50km re-torque, and the less than convincing evidence of any torque check and re-torque procedure being fully and properly completed at the February 2025 safety inspection (as claimed), the Traffic Commissioner decided to convene a public inquiry.

The DVSA pre-PI supplementary statement

Shortly before the hearing before me, VE Flatters was instructed to look at a small (four-vehicle) sample of recent maintenance records, and the operator provided him with the latest records for the selected sample. This, again, is now standard practice and - so that I might have an up to the minute picture - the evidence is intended to be as contemporaneous as possible. The timing allows for the Traffic Commissioner’s office to serve the DVSA pre-PI supplementary statement on the operator a week or two before the public inquiry, but operators are not usually asked to respond in writing before the hearing. Instead, having been given advance sight of the DVSA update, operators are expected to be able to respond at the hearing. Of course, given the context, the hope in most cases is that the DVSA supplementary statement will simply reassure the Traffic Commissioner that things have improved, or that improvements have been maintained, and little in the way of further response is needed. VE Flatters’ pre-PI supplementary report is dated 02/02/2026.

Amongst other things, however, VE Flatters reported as follows:

• Vehicle NK25 XMW was put into service (on an unspecified date) having only undergone a pre delivery inspection, with no safety inspection conducted prior to use. In addition, the vehicle was marked VOR (vehicle off road) due to engine failure but was still allowed back into service without a safety inspection being conducted.

• For vehicle WM15ZFR, the safety inspection sheet dated 29/05/2025 was incorrectly endorsed. Its wheels had been removed to replace front discs and pads, but the safety inspection sheet was endorsed to state that front wheels had not been removed. Moreover, a copy of an email from Bells Trucks, included with the records, stated that the technician had incorrectly torqued the wheel nuts to 450Nm during this inspection.

• On the Re-Torque Register it was noted that this same vehicle, WM15ZFR, had the near side front wheel removed on the 24/07/2025, and the records had a comment to say that wheels were to be re-torqued once the vehicle was used (school holidays). But there were no records of any follow up re-torque in the register.

• For vehicle NK16OHG, on its safety inspection sheet dated 20/08/2025, there was no roller brake test printout attached. It was also noted at a subsequent safety inspection dated 17/12/2025 that the roller brake test indicated a 57% parking brake out of balance, but no follow up action was recorded.

• Again, for WM15ZFR, on the safety inspection sheet dated 02/10/2025, it was noted that “two front wheels had loose wheels”. In something called the WIP record, the technician had stated that the wheels had been torqued during the inspection - but (says VE Flatters) this is when the wheel nuts would have been identified as loose - and yet the detail of this, and any follow-up, is not recorded on the actual safety inspection sheet.

In conclusion, VE Flatters said that while the operator had made improvements regarding maintenance systems and procedures, further focus was still required by the transport manager to ensure that the fleet was roadworthy. And in the final sentence of his conclusion, VE Flatters added that, in October 2025:

“Potentially the operator has just avoided a second possible wheel loss incident and needs to consider tightening systems further, both in house and externally.”

Case management directions

The call-up letter is dated 18/09/2025, with a public inquiry originally listed for 04/11/2025. As is standard procedure across all traffic areas, and for virtually all public inquiries, the call-up letter raised the ongoing requirement in relation to financial standing, and the letter was accompanied by standard case management directions.

The relevant paragraph in the call-up letter relating to financial standing states:

“Due to the matters listed above, the Traffic Commissioner is also concerned that the company may not be of the appropriate financial standing to hold an operator’s licence for the number of vehicles authorised. The company needs to show access to an average of £255,500 over the last three months. Evidence of your financial standing should include the following original documents:

• (if available) the latest certified profit and loss account and balance sheets that have been prepared for the business;
• original bank statements for the last three months;
• details of any overdraft facility or other loan arrangement.

Banks can take time to provide statements - send in internet printouts or shortform statements now if that is all you have, but you will need to provide original or authenticated bank statements on the date of the inquiry.”

The case management directions directed that, at least 14 days prior to the hearing (i.e. by 21/10/2025), the operator must send to the Traffic Commissioner’s office:

• evidence showing the availability of finance as set out in the call up letter, and
• any representations that they wish the Traffic Commissioner to take account of, statements of any witnesses they wish to call, and any expert report or audit they wish to submit.

On 7/10/2025, the operator’s legal representatives had to seek an adjournment of the public inquiry due to the ill health of one of the operator’s transport managers. This request was granted and, on 19/11/2025 a new date for the public inquiry was notified to the legal representatives – namely Monday 16/02/2026 at 10.00am. The case management directions were repeated - with a new deadline for the submission of financial and any other documentary evidence and submissions of 02/02/2026.

On 03/02/2026 the operator’s solicitors emailed the Traffic Commissioner’s office to say: “We are currently in the process of drafting a hearing report and are working as quickly as possible. However, it is unlikely to be with you before close of business on 11 February.” The Traffic Commissioner’s office replied to say that: “If the documents are not able to meet the case management directions, then the Traffic Commissioner will request a reason as to why the directions could not be met.”

At 13:26 on Thursday 12/02/2026 - the Thursday lunchtime before the public inquiry commenced at 10:00 on the following Monday morning - the operator’s solicitors submitted a 200-page pdf document comprising written submissions and other documentary material. It was neither paginated, scheduled nor indexed. The accompanying email provided no explanation for the late submission. It merely asked: “Could I kindly ask that this is put before the Traffic Commissioner for consideration.”

The Traffic Commissioner’s office has operational instructions whereby, in circumstances such as these, staff must seek an explanation for late submission of documentation after the 14-day cut-off date. Accordingly, the Traffic Commissioner’s office immediately replied:

“The case management directions in the calling-in recall letter state that all evidence/documents should be provided two weeks before the hearing. The Traffic Commissioner is asking for reasons as to why the documents could not have been provided on time per the case management directions. It is an expectation of operators to follow the case management directions and, as the calling-in letter states, failure to meet the case management directions can go against the operator’s good repute/fitness. Please can a reason be provided as to why the documents could not have been provided on time per the case management directions.”

In response to the request from the Traffic Commissioner’s office to say why the submission was late and explain why it could not have been provided on time, the operator’s legal representatives replied:

Thank you for your email, regarding our submissions. I refer to our previous correspondence on this subject and the fact there are no binding directions on the operator. In any event in this case, we needed to have considered and taken instructions on the DVSA officers addendum document before providing submissions. If the Traffic Commissioner would prefer not to receive submissions, then please let me know, otherwise they are designed to assist the Traffic Commissioner in the hearing; they are neither lengthy nor complex, and it would be appreciated if the Traffic Commissioner was given the opportunity to read them before the hearing. May I remind you that the Traffic Commissioner is obliged to consider any submissions delivered including written submissions right up until the end of the hearing. This is a legal requirement as referred to in previous correspondence. If the Traffic Commissioner does not wish to read these submissions, we are happy to take him through them all on the day.

As it happened, I was sitting at the Traffic Commissioner’s office in Leeds on 12/02/2026, with an all-day list of public inquiries and which concluded with two decisions to write. I had already spent time preparing for the Saybest public inquiry because, on the Friday, I was committed to voluntary public and charitable duties as a school governor and, over the weekend, I had a friend from Somerset to stay - so I indicated that unfortunately I did not think I would be able to read the 200-page pdf document before the hearing due to the lateness of it being provided but, of course, I welcomed oral submissions at the hearing.

So, whilst waiting for an explanation for the lateness, I authorised a staff member to communicate my additional concern to the operator’s legal representatives.

In due course, the operator’s legal representatives replied:

It is unfortunate that the Commissioner cannot find the time to read these submissions before the hearing, as previously stated he is obliged to by law to consider them and take them into account. The purpose of the written submissions are of course to assist the Traffic Commissioner; the operator is not obliged to produce any material prior to the hearing; however, the operator is entitled to produce any written material including submissions up until the close of the hearing pursuant to paragraph 5 of schedule 4 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Regulations 1995. (Mr Backhouse’s emphasis). Implicitly any written material produced by the operator in exercising this right must be read by the Traffic Commissioner before the close of the Public Inquiry. We are sure the Traffic Commissioner will be more than happy to do so, because as we said at the outset, these written submissions are here to assist.

The Senior Traffic Commissioner’s statutory documents

I turn now to consider what I understand to be the approach of Traffic Commissioners and staff to case management directions in the light of the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s statutory documents, which include both binding ‘Directions’ and also ‘Guidance’ that Traffic Commissioners must have regard to. There is, in addition, some Upper Tribunal consideration of the topic, the ratio decidendi of which is generally binding on Traffic Commissioners, and staff also have officially approved Operating Instructions. I am, further, mindful of Schedule 4, Paragraph 5 of the 1995 Regulations, which I will consider shortly.

First, I note that Section 4C of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 provides that the Senior Traffic Commissioner may give to the Traffic Commissioners guidance, or general directions, as to the exercise of their functions under any enactment. Directions include the procedure to be adopted in conducting inquiries under Section 35 of the 1995 Act. Indeed, under Section 1(2) of the 1995 Act, a Traffic Commissioner shall (my emphasis) act under the general directions of, and shall have regard to any guidance given by, the Senior Traffic Commissioner.

Statutory Document No. 9 is entitled “Case Management”. Some relevant passages (so far as they are relevant) include:

Guidance

Active Case Management

1. The Upper Tribunal has made clear that the public inquiry process cannot function where a party fails to adhere to the process and timescales as determined by the Traffic Commissioner but substitutes his/her own timeframe for the submission of evidence and the determination of matters: “In this day and age, and especially in the essentially inquisitorial framework of the public inquiry system, there is in our view a clear duty on operators to help the Traffic Commissioner deal with cases fairly and justly – and to avoid delay, so far as compatible with the proper consideration of the material issues. The modern trend is to expect parties to tribunal proceedings (and, by analogy, operators) to co-operate generally. A wise operator will take whatever steps are required to ensure that he takes advantage of every opportunity to submit relevant and helpful evidence …”        (See - 2010/043 Stephen Mcvinnie trading as Knight Rider)

2. …  An unfortunate practice has developed whereby parties and/or their representatives ignore the given timetable for compliance. A failure to comply with the timetable given may result in the Traffic Commissioner being unable to hear the case that day and, for instance, an application being put back into the list for another day. However, it should not be used as a device to avoid an adverse finding. The Upper Tribunal declined to criticise a Traffic Commissioner for suspending a licence pending receipt of appropriate financial evidence. (See A N D Haulage Ltd T/2012/05) The Upper Tribunal observed that this type of order might be a “powerful spur to rapid action on the part of an operator who may, up to that point, have appeared to be dragging his or her feet. We can also see how it can provide a measure of protection to the public in cases where it appears, on paper, that there are real concerns as to road safety”. However, the Upper Tribunal urged caution and that the power should be used sparingly and on occasions in which it is essential in order to achieve a just result. Traffic Commissioners should ask:

(i) is it necessary to compel the party to do something?

(ii) is the threat to road safety so serious that suspension pending action on the part of the party is essential?

(iii) is suspension to prompt the party to do something proportionate to the situation?”

Alternatively, it may be appropriate to proceed to hear the case and to draw adverse inferences from the failure to comply with directions.

Directions

Case Management

1. … Traffic Commissioners are reminded that useful guidance as to the principles of case management is available from the ‘overriding objectives’ referred to in the Procedure Rules in both the civil and criminal jurisdictions. By analogy, the Senior Traffic Commissioner considers that in these cases Traffic Commissioners will be able to actively manage the case whilst ensuring that cases are dealt with justly and expeditiously, so far as is practicable by:

(a) ensuring that all evidence is served in a timely manner;

(b) ensuring that any written evidence and representations from the operator and/or its representative is provided to the presiding Traffic Commissioner sufficiently in advance of the hearing so that it can be read and considered by the Commissioner in advance;

(c) ensuring that operators provide the documents requested by the Office of the Traffic Commissioner in advance of the public inquiry where requested to do so;

(d) identifying the issues for determination by the Traffic Commissioner at an early stage;

(e) ensuring value for money in the use of time and resources (including considering the need to call witnesses whose evidence may be agreed);

(f) dealing with the case in ways which are proportionate to:

• the size and type of licence/s involved;

• the nature and scale of the breaches;

• the complexity of the issues;

• the likely orders and directions to be made;

• the likely effect upon the operator of the proposed orders and directions; and

(g) ensuring that the public inquiry is listed expeditiously and that an appropriate time estimate is allocated.

1. … When setting time limits within which specified steps must be taken it is best to express the requirements as a date by which the steps must be taken rather than as a period of time with a potentially uncertain start/end date. …

2. In managing a case it may be useful for a Traffic Commissioner to make case management directions for the parties to follow so that the case is in a state to be heard and that parties are not disadvantaged. Examples of case management directions might include:

• for a party to indicate whether a DVSA witness is required to attend by indicating what is at issue;

• in impounding cases to serve documentary evidence of ownership;

• to confirm that evidence is in a form which can be relied upon at a hearing;

• to supply a time estimate and/or an indication of the names and number of witnesses to be called by that party;

• to supply dates to avoid for listing;

• to serve specified documents including skeleton arguments on a point of law.

The above is not an exhaustive list. The Upper Tribunal has criticised representatives for not supplying material in a timely manner. Parties are frequently requested to disclose documentary evidence such as original bank statements or maintenance records in advance of the hearing date. Compliance with directions allows for proper preparation, a more efficient use of tribunal time and therefore the interests of justice.

…

1. A practice has developed amongst some operators and representatives whereby Traffic Commissioners are served with documents on the day of a hearing or shortly before. This impedes a Traffic Commissioner’s ability to prepare for a hearing and has been expressly disapproved of by the Upper Tribunal. Where the Traffic Commissioner has requested evidence to be served in advance, if a representative is unable to comply with the request that representative should inform the Traffic Commissioner well in advance of the hearing and explain why … Any bundle to be relied upon should be scheduled or indexed. … If documents are lodged which do not meet the above requirements, then staff may refer them to a Traffic Commissioner…

The principles of case management, the ‘overriding objectives’ and the Procedure Rules of other courts and tribunals referred to in Paragraph 88 of Statutory Document No. 9 are well illustrated in the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009. Here, Rule 5(3)(a) and (d) allows the tribunal to direct or permit a party or another person to provide documents, information or submissions to the tribunal or a party, to impose time limits for complying with such a direction and (if necessary) to then extend or shorten the time limits.

The First-tier Tribunal is plainly entitled to refuse to accept the submission of any such material placed before the tribunal in contravention of directions without good reason. A similar rule assists with the onerous work in the Upper Tribunal. In this era, when commercial transport cases seem to be much more complex than back in the late 1990s and with far more paperwork generated, it is simply not possible to deal with complex cases expeditiously, efficiently, fairly and justly without such powers – proportionately enforced (if need be) and based upon a clear duty of cooperation by all parties. Routine failure to comply with, or then consistently enforce, lawful case management directions will serve only to devalue the case management system as a whole and undermine its essential credibility and practical effectiveness.

The expectation of cooperation was acknowledged in the Upper Tribunal decision of Stephen Mcvinnie t/a Knight Rider [2010] UKUT 358 (AAC) when, at paragraph 13, the tribunal said:

The overall sense we have of this case is of an operator failing to adhere to the process and timescales as determined by the Traffic Commissioner and seeking, instead, to determine for himself the timeframe for the submission of evidence and the determination of matters. The public inquiry process cannot function in this way. In this day and age, and especially in the essentially inquisitorial framework of the public inquiry system, there is in our view a clear duty on operators to help the Traffic Commissioner deal with cases fairly and justly – and to avoid delay, so far as compatible with the proper consideration of the material issues. The modern trend is to expect parties to tribunal proceedings (and, by analogy, operators) to co-operate generally.

Operating Instructions

In order to support Traffic Commissioners in actively case managing cases in the build-up to a public inquiry, staff in the Traffic Commissioner’s offices follow officially approved Operating Instructions that are agreed by the Traffic Commissioners. This ensures a consistent approach.

Currently, the Traffic Commissioners’ offices use a digital “Case Center” (sic) to which operators and other parties can be given access to upload documentary material. Where case management directions fix a deadline of 14 days before the public inquiry, the system freezes at that point. This ensures parties can upload documents up to 14 days in advance of the hearing, but if a party wishes to submit additional documents after the freeze date, they must contact the caseworker and send the material electronically to the hearing centre inbox. Upon receipt, the caseworker must not file the material on Case Center unless and until authorisation has been obtained from the presiding (or another) Traffic Commissioner. Amongst other things, the caseworker will request an explanation from the submitting party as to the reason why they failed to comply with the case management directions and why the apparently late material could not have been submitted on time.

Upon receipt of a response, the case worker will forward the explanation to the presiding (or another) Traffic Commissioner for a decision on whether the evidence should be accepted into the system in the light of the explanation and, if so, in what format. If the Traffic Commissioner declines acceptance, then the case worker will notify the submitting party by email and upload the email correspondence to Case Center – but will not upload the late material itself.

It will be seen that, following a request or attempt to submit late documentary material, the case management regime involves (if there is time) a pre-hearing decision from the presiding (or another) Traffic Commissioner as to whether the late material is to be accepted, and such a decision will usually necessitate consideration of the reason given for lateness and the explanation as to why the material could not have been submitted on time.

It is implicit in the regime that one outcome, once reasons and explanations have been given, is that the late material is not accepted – and so then, for most purposes, it is not then admitted. This will often be the outcome if no reason or explanation is given at all. It will, of course, remain open to the presiding Traffic Commissioner to revisit the decision right up to, and during, the hearing if it is in the interests of fairness and justice to do so. But effective case management becomes untenable if there are no powers to enforce case management directions, or if they are enforced unpredictably and inconsistently.

In this case, despite a clear request, no substantive reason for the lateness was given in advance of the hearing, and no comprehensive explanation was offered as to why the solicitor’s submissions and other documentary material could not have been presented on time – except by reference to the DVSA supplementary pre-PI statement. The matter was referred to me on the Thursday afternoon, but I drew back from making a final decision, deferring the decision whether or not to accept the late material to the hearing itself, which was less than two working days away. However, I indicated my difficulties as they appeared to me on the Thursday afternoon, before the hearing on the following Monday morning.

Clearly, however, the key issue remains proper consideration (had they been offered) of any reasons or an explanations, as requested. Had I decided to accept the late material, or part of it, in the light of any reasons given and explanations offered, I would then have thought about how any practical difficulties could be overcome.

Thus, at the hearing before me, I asked Mr Backhouse to address me on the subject of case management directions and the late submission of the 200-page pdf material. In summary, Mr Backhouse contended that, unlike established tribunals (he says that a Traffic Commissioner sitting in a public inquiry is not a tribunal), there is no power in this particular  jurisdiction to direct the submission of any documentation in advance of the hearing, and no power to decline to accept any such material if presented after any so-called cut-off date specified in so-called directions. The 200-page pdf document was, therefore, not “late” in any real sense at all.

The Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Regulations 1995, Schedule 4, Paragraph 5

Mr Backhouse bases his argument on the wording of The Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Regulations 1995, Schedule 4, Paragraph 5 which (so far as it is relevant) reads:

Procedure at inquiry

5.—(1) Except as otherwise provided in this Schedule, the Traffic Commissioner shall determine the procedure at an inquiry.

(2) Subject to sub-paragraph (5), a person entitled to appear at an inquiry in accordance with paragraph 3 of this Schedule shall be entitled to give evidence, call witnesses, to cross examine witnesses and to address the Traffic Commissioner both on the evidence and generally on the subject matter of the proceedings.

(3) The giving of evidence, the calling of witnesses, the cross examination of witnesses and the making of such addresses by other persons appearing at an inquiry shall be at the Traffic Commissioner’s discretion.

(4) Subject to sub-paragraph (5), any person present at an inquiry may submit any written evidence or other matter in writing before the close of the inquiry.

(5) Without prejudice to sub-paragraph (3), the Traffic Commissioner may refuse to permit—

(a)the giving or calling of evidence;

(b)cross examination of persons giving evidence; or

(c)the presentation of any other matter,

which he considers to be irrelevant, repetitious, frivolous or vexatious.

Paragraph 5(4) in particular, according to Mr Backhouse, sweeps aside and negates entirely the case management process now widely and routinely applied to all public inquiries. He argues that there are and can be no binding directions on the operator. The Traffic Commissioner is obliged to consider any material delivered including written submissions right up to the end of the hearing. This, he says, is a legal requirement, and the Traffic Commissioner is obliged by law to consider everything and take it into account. The operator is not obliged to produce any material prior to the hearing; however, the operator is entitled to produce any written material including submissions up to the end of the hearing, pursuant to Paragraph 5. Mr Backhouse contended that the only lawful response to documentary material presented either at the last minute or during the hearing, no matter how voluminous the material or how urgent the matters arising, is to read it and proceed - or adjourn to allow more time. But it must always be accepted because it can never be “late”.

As an issue not only in this case, but in most cases, Mr Backhouse placed particular emphasis on the likely need to respond to the DVSA supplementary statement which, as I have said, may not be ready for service on the operator until a week or two before the public inquiry. I put to Mr Backhouse that, speaking from my own experience (for which I hope I may be forgiven) many tribunals have to make contemporaneous and up-to-date decisions, based on the facts as they are at the date of the hearing itself, but they nevertheless need to manage the submission of documentary material in accordance with a firm timetable. At some point the advance submission of documentary material has to stop, but a final oral update can always be given at the hearing. That was certainly the case in the tribunals I was most familiar with. Mr Backhouse repeated his principal submission that Paragraph 5(4) was unambiguous, a Traffic Commissioner sitting in public inquiry is not a tribunal, Traffic Commissioners do not have authority to case manage in the way that HMCTS tribunals do, and any attempted enforcement except by way of mutual agreement was wholly unlawful.

In a recent letter, Mr Backhouse adds, with regard to his email dated 03/02/2026 providing me with his own hoped-for deadline of 11/02/2026:

Therefore, the Office of the Traffic Commissioner was clearly on notice that we were intending to file written submissions to assist the Traffic Commissioner, but they would not be within the Traffic Commissioner’s desired timescale. Had the Traffic Commissioner not wished for submissions due the time constraints then it may have been helpful for that to have been indicated to the operator.

Conclusions regarding case management directions in this case

I am unable to accept Mr Backhouse’s eloquent interpretation of how the regulation is now to be applied following the official promulgation of the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document No. 9 and the resulting system of case management directions.

First, although Traffic Commissioners are currently not part of the First-tier Tribunal, this does not mean that they are not a tribunal when exercising their judicial functions under the applicable legislation. Many tribunals operate outside of HMCTS. Some are sponsored or administered by government departments, and some by local authorities or other lawfully mandated bodies. Collectively, Traffic Commissioners act as a non-departmental judicial tribunal and an administrative licensing authority, sponsored by the Department for Transport. The day may come when those two functions are separated out, but at the present time both functions are conjoined within the Traffic Commissioner’s office. Appeals from the judicial decisions of Traffic Commissioners usually go to the Upper Tribunal, within the HMCTS framework. To that extent, Traffic Commissioners are generally regarded as standing at a level equivalent to a First-tier Tribunal, even though they do not have Tribunal Procedure Rules in the same way as HMCTS tribunals do. But that does not mean that there must therefore be a complete free-for-all in terms of judicial control of proceedings, case management of documentation, and the timetabling of pre-hearing preparation.

Paragraphs 5(2), (3) and (4) of the regulation seem to me to be primarily concerned with the distinctions between persons entitled to appear at an inquiry on the one hand, and other persons appearing at the inquiry on the other, and also between oral input on the one hand, and written material on the other. It tells us who can submit (or seek permission to submit) what.

Thus, reflecting the more pro-active approach now seen in other tribunals, including those jurisdictions brought into the First-tier and Upper Tribunals (but not exclusively in such jurisdictions) I judge that Statutory Document No. 9 is a companion to Paragraph 5 of the regulation, sanctioned by primary legislation, and is an official addition to it.  The regulation spells out who can participate in the hearing, how they can participate, and who can submit what material. Deriving authority from Statutory Document No. 9, case management directions set out a lawful timetable which parties are expected to cooperate with. And if a request is made to submit late material, along with reasons and explanations, the matter falls to be determined - in the interests of consistency and efficiency - in accordance with the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s statutory directions and guidance.

I wish to add that I do not believe that the Senior Traffic Commissioner would have issued statutory directions and guidance if they conflicted as fundamentally with the regulation as is suggested by Mr Backhouse – a regulation drafted and issued long before the statutory endorsement in two key statutes of all the statutory documents issued by the Senior Traffic Commissioner. Indeed, the regulation substantially pre-dates the current practice of active case management which is routine across many judicial and quasi-judicial tribunals dealing with important matters, and which increasingly (as Mr Backhouse acknowledged) can generate large and unwieldy amounts of documentary material - all of which is likely to need active and effective case management in advance of the hearing.

Additionally, I do not accept that unfairness arises from there being a final pre-PI update or supplementary statement from the DVSA, so long as it can be served in time for a party to consider a response if need be - which, if necessary, can be given at the hearing.

What happens when case management directions are not complied with? In my view, if directions are not or cannot be complied with then, as is confirmed in the approved Operating Instructions, an explanation should be sought (if not given) before the material is accepted. Then, having considered any explanation offered, it is open to the Traffic Commissioner, in his or her discretion, to accept - or decline to accept - the material, so long as the decision is made judicially and consistent with the interests of justice all round. And brief reasons for the decision (especially a decision to decline to accept the late material) should be given.

It has been long established that the interests of justice include the efficient disposal of judicial business where that can be achieved in a fair, balanced, cost-effective and proportionate way. Moreover (apart from the draconian step of making adverse findings about repute or fitness because of wilful non-cooperation) a considered refusal to accept late documentary material is the obvious way that case management directions can be enforced. Indeed, it is pretty much the only practical and effective way to do so.

In summary, deriving statutory authority from both the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 and the 1995 Act, I conclude that Statutory Document No. 9 provides a solid basis for Traffic Commissioners to be able to actively manage cases whilst consistently ensuring that cases are dealt with fairly, justly and expeditiously by-

• directing parties and legal or otherwise approved representatives to: 2. submit any particular documentary material specified by the Traffic Commissioner, or the Traffic Commissioner’s office acting on behalf of the Traffic Commissioner, in advance of the public inquiry or hearing - in the format, manner and by a specified date - as directed; and 3. submit any other evidence, documentary material and submissions or representations in a timely manner and, in any event, by a specified date as directed - so that it can properly be read and considered by the presiding Traffic Commissioner in good time before the hearing commences; and

• refusing to accept any written or documentary material submitted or presented in contravention of case management directions without good reason and explanation.

Active case management is precisely what the Traffic Commissioner attempted to do in this case. The case management directions were lawfully issued and should have been cooperated with – failing which, a good reason and explanation should have been given. Here, apart from reference to the DVSA supplementary statement, no reason or explanation for the late submission of the material was offered, even though the vast majority of the solicitor’s submission or report, it seems to me after hearing it, could easily have been presented well before the eventual cut-off date. The only part of Mr Backhouse’s report that related to the DVSA supplementary statement was the bit at the very end that acknowledged that some areas within the Gateshead branch had fallen behind regarding paperwork and record keeping. The Traffic Commissioner had been informed about the wheel loss incident, and the operator had sought to be open and honest at all times. The DVSA evidence was accepted, and the operator was confident of future compliance. Essentially, that was it.

In my view, helpful though this is, it did not justify or warrant the late delivery of everything else, and this brief response to the DVSA supplementary statement could easily have been given orally at the public inquiry – as, indeed, it was. Given the lack of a good reason for the lateness, or any persuasive explanation why the material could not, in substance, have been submitted in time, I decided not to exercise my discretion to accept the 200-page pdf document out of time and I refused to do so, but I confirmed that I would hear oral submissions in the usual way.

As I have said, Mr Backhouse proceeded to read out, in full and more or less verbatim, the first section of the 200-page pdf document. Were this to happen again, it is possible that I may consider such a step to be vexatious - because case management is meaningless if a formal judicial decision not to accept material submitted in contravention of directions can be directly thwarted by the material being forced in by a determined party or representative.

Consideration of the wheel loss incident and other maintenance-related matters

I have already referred above to Mr Pritchard’s evidence which was moderately helpful, although I do not think he got to the root causes of the incident. But, moving on from that, Mr Backhouse, in his final remarks, submitted that, at the end of the day, this operator had done everything possible constructively to address the issues arising in this case and that, with the exception of the wheel loss incident, this operator was a model of good practice. The incident had been immediately reported, which (he said) it did not need to be - and the operator does not “sit on its laurels”. There have been meetings with the maintenance provider and others, with matters taken up to Board level. All vehicles would now have a third re-torque at 50km or thereabouts, and red wheel nut markers had been introduced following VE Flatters’ recommendations.

By reference to the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document No 10, Mr Backhouse submitted that this case was very much at the low end, and the appropriate disposal was ‘no regulatory action’.

I judge that the wheel loss incident was potentially a very serious matter. Lives can be lost when such a thing happens on the public road. It is widely accepted, now, that there is usually no mystery as to why it happens. Most commonly, it is “careless torque” – hence the DVSA leaflet entitled “Careless Torque Costs Lives”. This document, which manufacturer’s recommendations may add to, states that following a wheel change and first torque, the wheel fixings should then be re-torqued after 30 minutes if the vehicle is stationary, or within 40 kilometres (25 miles) to 80 kilometres (50 miles) if the vehicle is moved. In fact, several reputable manufacturers now recommend both the 30 minute and a 50km re-torque.

Regular monitoring is also crucial. Drivers should check the wheel nut markers (if fitted) at their daily walk round check and record the outcome of their observations. And at all safety inspections it is established good practice to perform calibrated wheel torque checks where possible, in order to ensure that wheel nuts have remained tight over time.

It is clear that the driver’s failure to conduct a driver walk-round check before the vehicle was driven on the public roads on 13/02/2025 is one possible area of failure. It was a missed opportunity to spot the loosening of the wheel nuts if the wheel nut markers had shifted out of alignment since the safety inspection. But, in my view, the operator was too ready to place all the blame on the driver (who had resigned), when there are other factors.

First, at the safety inspection of 14/12/2024 the operator had not ensured compliance with the Mercedes torque recommendation that wheels be re-torqued after 50 km.

Second, the daily driver walk-round defect report sheet was not signed, and the tear-off section appears not to have been fully completed and left in the Transport Office before the vehicle was able to leave the site. That was an administrative failure with consequences.

Third, and what seems to me to be an obvious area of concern given its proximity in time to the incident of 13/02/2025, is the apparent failure of the safety inspection - that began on the evening of 10/02/2025 and which resulted in the vehicle being signed off as roadworthy on 12/02/2025 - to prevent the serious wheel loss incident where two wheels completely detached and fell off the vehicle onto the road, on the day after sign-off.

I recognise that, here, safety inspections are not conducted in-house, but it is for the operator to properly establish a root cause, quickly learn lessons and check all systems if something as serious and obvious as this occurs. Regrettably, before the DVSA got involved, everyone seemed only too willing to heap the blame onto a driver who no longer worked for the operator, without full and proper consideration of other potentially relevant factors and without robustly investigating and challenging the unlikely and unproved claims that all the vehicle’s wheel torques had been properly checked and re-torqued at the immediately preceding safety inspection. I do not say that there was no follow-up at all. I heard evidence about the various conversations, and Mr Pritchard reported. But my judgment is that follow-up was insufficiently robust, critical and challenging. I agree with VE Flatters that further focus is still required by the transport manager (and, in my view, others up the chain of command) to ensure that the fleet is always kept safe, roadworthy, fit and serviceable.

Then, as a result of the recent DVSA analysis of the latest safety inspection sheets for a small sample of four vehicles, we have the situation regarding vehicle WM15ZFR where, according to the PMI report dated 02/10/2025, “two front wheels had loose wheels” such that, potentially, the operator has just avoided a second possible wheel loss incident

The response to this in Mr Backhouse’s report, which he read out to me and which he specifically tells me was held back to take the DVSA pre-PI supplementary statement into account, is to accept the report from VE Flatters. In evidence, however, I was told that the safety inspection sheet of 02/10/2025 may have been badly worded and that the problem may not have been loose wheels, but over-tightened wheel nuts. There was a suggestion that technicians had incorrectly torqued the wheel nuts to 450Nm.

On balance, I am not persuaded by this new suggestion. In VE Flatters’ supplementary statement there is reference to something similar, but that referred to incorrect torquing during a safety inspection dated 29/05/2025. So, either the operator is conflating two separate incidents, or it has happened twice. Either way, VE Flatters’ comment regarding the operator potentially avoiding a second possible wheel loss incident was not contradicted in Mr Backhouse’s submissions, which were not prepared until after receipt of VE Flatters’ supplementary statement – indeed, VE Flatters’ pre-PI supplementary statement and conclusion is partially quoted in the submissions.

Fortunately, the loose wheels were found at a safety inspection although it is not known how long they were loose, how loose they were, or how many journeys had been made with loose wheels. This is something more extreme and worrying than a marker out of alignment or a torque reading needing adjustment. And this is why VE Flatters concluded that, “potentially, the operator has just avoided a second possible wheel loss incident”. In addition, there are four other matters of safety-critical concern arising from the most recent DVSA analysis of a comparatively small sample of maintenance records, as set out in Paragraph 21 of this decision. Each one, in my view, is significant and serious.

There are positive factors to put in the balance. This is a first public inquiry involving this operator. The maintenance regime has strengths as well as weaknesses, and could certainly have been far worse, or more widespread across more parameters. The safety-critical concerns here are fairly narrow. There could have been a catalogue of prohibitions or a blatant disinterest in achieving high standards of compliance. The MOT fail rate is good. The operator has investigated, cooperated, taken advice on board, and made a number of improvements regarding maintenance systems and procedures - and accepted DVSA suggestions regarding the 50km re-torque and use of red wheel nut markers. Matters have been taken seriously. I accept that, with time and space, there is a genuine desire to ensure that nothing like this potentially lethal wheel loss incident could ever happen again.

However, in my view, that time and space is still urgently needed, especially given the reasonable suggestion on the evidence that as recently as last October, the operator just avoided a second potential wheel loss incident. And there are other, recent, safety-critical areas of concern. As VE Flatters says, further focus is still required by the transport manager to ensure that the fleet is roadworthy, and I judge that this further focus is required at all levels of management at the Gateshead depot.

Having had an opportunity of watching and listening to the witnesses and giving due consideration to all the positive factors, and submissions made to me, I do not think that this is a revocation case, or that the operator’s repute is lost. But I do think that the repute of the responsible transport manager is tarnished and, for regulatory purposes, I place this case in the moderate to serious category. In reflecting on the likely impact of my decision, I note the wider corporate structure within which this company operates, although this is not determinative, and I note that the operator has another authorised fleet that operates under the Hereford licence from a different operating centre.

It is my intention to take regulatory action that will ‘ground’ the Gateshead fleet until a further urgent root-and branch system review has been undertaken and completed of all the maintenance arrangements there (including driver compliance and the quality of work undertaken by franchised main dealer contractors) and time for reflection and remediation has been utilised. This, in my view, requires a 14-day suspension of the Gateshead licence.

Whatever the operator has done to date, and I do not discount or undervalue the steps that have been taken, it nevertheless falls to me to direct that time and space is provided to ensure that, so far as possible, a tragic and avoidable incident does not occur in the future.

I take no action directly against the Hereford licence and this operator may deploy its Hereford vehicles wherever it likes, but Hereford vehicles cannot use the Gateshead operating centre as their operating centre. And it would not be appropriate for any of the Gateshead vehicles to simply be transferred across to use the Hereford unused margin.

As I say, it is not pivotal to my decision, but it may be possible for the operator to mitigate the impact of this suspension. Gateshead might be able to sub-contract work to other operators that have a standard national or international authorisation - even those around the UK within the UK Dole Group - but not necessarily limited to in-group vehicles. Across the UK, this group has a total authorisation for over 280 vehicles on a standard national or international authorisation. I am suspending 16 such vehicles in possession for a fortnight. I consider that this time-limited suspension of one of the operator’s two licences strikes the right balance and is proportionate to the matters before me. But I also order that that none of the 16 vehicles currently specified in the Gateshead licence may be used under any other operator’s licence, including the Hereford licence, for the period of suspension.

I therefore suspend Licence OB0221404, the Gateshead licence, and I do so for 14 days, commencing at 00:15 hrs on 9 March 2026 and ending at 00:15 hrs on 23 March 2026. This suspension is for breach of undertakings relating to keeping vehicles fit and serviceable, and making and keeping full and proper records, and is directed under Section 26(1)(f) of the 1995 Act. And under Section 26(6)(a) I order that that any vehicles specified in this licence may not be used under another operator’s licence.

Mr Backhouse represented both transport managers before me but did not call them. I can understand this decision. Mr Sloan was not responsible for that side of the operation directly involved in the wheel loss and other incidents before me, and Mr Bowyer has other issues to deal with. Mr Pritchard effectively gave evidence for the operator and transport managers, even though he is not the nominated transport manager on the licence. I had no objection to that approach. However, it is the transport manager who is responsible to the Traffic Commissioner, and Mr Bowyer was mentioned specifically by VE Flatters as needing further focus. I take it no further. The repute of Michael Bowyer, the relevant transport manager, is not lost but is tarnished. The repute of Philip Sloan is also not lost.

Financial Standing

The evidence submitted in advance of the hearing to demonstrate continuing financial standing was a copy of the published Annual Report and Audited Financial Statements for 31 December 2024, which is part snapshot as to the situation on that actual date, and part summary of the trading year ending 31/12/24. In Parks Haulage Ltd [2026] UKUT 2 (AAC) the Upper Tribunal provides a helpful and comprehensive summary of earlier jurisprudence relating to financial standing, and adds that financial accounts, whether audited or unaudited, should be analysed and considered for what they are worth in determining financial standing. Often, the accounts are just part of a more comprehensive and up-to-date portfolio of financial information. If relevant, all accounts and statements etc. should be considered and objectively assessed.

Key principles include:

• the requirement to be of appropriate financial standing cannot be satisfied by evidence of a ‘snapshot’ of the financial position on a particular day;
• Paragraph 6A of Schedule 3 to the 1995 Act is not an exhaustive statement of how financial standing may be demonstrated;
• cash held in a bank account over a period of time is one of the most reliable indicators of available finance but reference to other financial evidence is not precluded by the legislation;
• the requirement to be of appropriate financial standing can only be met from assets which are available to pay bills as and when they fall due, hence the guidance that, for example, an account requiring more than 30 days’ notice should not be considered;
• while it might appear possible, in theory, to put forward physical assets in order to meet the requirement to be of appropriate financial standing, the practical difficulties are such that it is unlikely to prove possible in practice.

The 2024 Annual Report and Financial Statement in this case is the only financial document provided in advance of the hearing. It is a publicly available document that can be found on the Companies House website. Having regard to the wording of Paragraph 6A of Schedule 3 to the 1995 Act, Mr Backhouse submits that this is the only evidence that needs to be submitted and so (again, he says) the case management directions asking for more documents had exceeded any lawful basis. I note the comment in Parks Haulage Ltd that Paragraph 6A of Schedule 3 to the 1995 Act is not an exhaustive statement of how financial standing may be demonstrated. That seems to me clear from the wording of Paragraph 6A (2)(a). However, Mr Backhouse was asked to take instructions and, at my request, he confirmed that the most recent three months of bank statements would be submitted to the Traffic Commissioner’s office within seven days – which they were.

First, I accept that the latest annual accounts can be submitted and are capable of being accepted as a substitute for bank statements etc. where they have been certified and provide a sufficient level of detail in order to satisfy the broader tests as set out by the Upper Tribunal. Those tests allow flexibility in how the continuing and mandatory requirements might be satisfied for standard national and international operators, including certified annual accounts comprising balance sheet, profit and loss accounts and notes on accounts. But, where any type of business accounts are relied upon it is always open to the Traffic Commissioner to seek further information. If an operator declines to provide anything else, the Traffic Commissioner will have to decide how best to proceed – striving, as ever, to balance proportionality with the requirement to be fair to the operator, and other operators.

The case law for standard licences refers to the statutory purpose for the requirement of having available finance, namely that the licence holder has the financial resources available to ensure that its vehicles are safe to use on public roads, other road users are not put at risk, and that the operator can compete fairly with other operators, within the constraints of the regulatory regime. The assessment of financial standing in a case requires a Traffic Commissioner to consider whether the facilities for maintaining all authorised vehicles in a fit and serviceable condition might be prejudiced by a lack of available finance. And if finance is not “readily available” for this purpose, then it is not really available at all.

“Available” is defined as: “capable of being used, at one’s disposal, within one’s reach, obtainable or easy to get” and, in an appropriate case, a traffic commissioner is entitled to make sure that there are sufficient financial resources to maintain the vehicles in a fit and serviceable condition and pay the contractor’s bills as and when they fall due - see Hughes Bros Construction Ltd [2014] UKUT 0119 (AAC). For example, a business may have deposits that exceed the statutory financial requirement for financial standing but may nevertheless have everyday business expenditure, without taking account of maintenance, that exceeds the deposits made. In those circumstances, there would be no funds left for maintenance - see Natalie Hunt t/a Wild Stretch Limousines (T/2010/81).

In Michael Hazell (N0.2) [2017] UKUT 0221 (AAC) the Upper Tribunal said “Our starting point is that financial standing can be demonstrated in a variety of ways and the total figure in any given case can be made up by a portfolio of different sources. The willingness of Traffic Commissioners to accept a particular source of funds which are said to be available will depend upon the facts of each individual case, the nature of the source of funds and the amount relied upon from that source. The most reliable evidence of available funds will be cash in either bank accounts or reserves which have been held over a period of time; the least reliable is undrawn credit card balances. There are other sources of available funding which fall in between those extremes. …. … We do not agree that financial standing is “black and white”. Neither do we agree that Traffic Commissioners do not have a discretion in relation to accepting or rejecting a particular source of funding or accepting or rejecting the level of reliance upon that source. Each case is fact sensitive.”

In the case before me, the audited accounts were not, in my judgement, black and white. They show that the operator made an operating loss in 2024, with the eventual profit figure only being achieved through substantial dividend returns from fixed asset investments and interest. What form those dividend returns take, I do not know. Note 10 to the accounts gives further detail (including shareholdings in other companies within the group, which are themselves owned by other companies), and investments in overseas companies that cannot be searched for at Companies House. The investments held are very substantial, but I have no evidence of asset nature, location, structure or liquidity. There is a substantial ‘cash at bank and in hand’ figure recorded for 31/12/2024 - but the problem with reliance on this alone is that I have no picture of continuity, or of use over time, and it is over a year out of date. It is also a snapshot. In theory, the money could have gone into a bank account on 30/12/2024 and been withdrawn on 02/02/2025 for use elsewhere. With a group holding multiple licenses, double counting of the same money is a danger - which a look at recent bank statements over time can alleviate. In any event, Mr Backhouse took me to the Balance Sheet at 31/12/2024 and the section headed “Capital and reserves”. This comprises called-up share capital, share premium account, and profit and loss account. Added up, these are described as “Shareholders’ Funds”.

I attempted to discover where this monetary value actually was, and how these funds could be made available (for example to pay urgent maintenance bills) but Mr Backhouse submitted that there is no formal requirement for such funds to be “readily available”, and the concept of using such funds for safety-critical maintenance and other essential day-to-day operational expenses was also an error. The true purpose of financial standing was simply, he said, to establish entity viability.

This seems a very significant departure from my understanding of financial standing and, so far as I can tell, from the evolving jurisprudence of the Upper Tribunal.

I would only add that, had the offer to provide bank statements not been given, I would have considered the case of A N D Haulage Ltd [2012] UKUT 159 (AAC) referred to in Para 61 of Statutory Document No. 9. That is a case where a Deputy Traffic Commissioner directed that a licence had to be suspended until such time as appropriate financial standing could be established or until, in the absence of satisfactory financial evidence, a final decision on financial standing could be made. The Upper Tribunal did not hear full argument on the point but did say (amongst other things) that if this power is to be used, then any suspension should be proportionate to the situation.

Bearing in mind that the statutory consequence of a failure to demonstrate financial standing (when reasonably asked to do so by the Traffic Commissioner) is mandatory revocation under Section 27(1)(a) of the 1995 Act, one could reasonably argue that a short suspension under Section 26(1)(h) to compel the swift production of the requested documentation, as listed in the call-up letter and as required by directions, is a far less draconian and much more measured and proportionate step than the alternative.

Additional financial information has now been provided, along with explanatory notes from Mr Backhouse – for which I am grateful. Having now had had an opportunity to consider the recent bank statements for this operator and a subsidiary, REDACTED, and the audited accounts for both this operator and the subsidiary, I find that financial standing is established.

Mark Hinchliffe

Deputy Traffic Commissioner

23 February 2026

Published 18 March 2026