Decision for C Evans Scaffolding Ltd (OF2057846)
The Deputy Traffic Commissioner for Eastern England's written decision for C Evans Scaffolding Ltd (OF2057846)
Documents
Details
The Deputy Traffic Commissioner for Eastern England decided:
-
I make findings under section 26(1)(b),(c)(iii),(e), (f), (h).
-
The DVSA investigation showed a situation that was highly unsatisfactory and moreover, the recent analysis demonstrates that there has been little improvement. I have serious road safety concerns and the number, breadth and severity of the conclusions reached by DVSA.
-
This operator appears not to have reacted appropriately to intervention by DVSA prior to this Public Inquiry. Whilst some improvements have been made, as set out above, these are not sufficient to alleviate my concerns. I also found Mr Evans’ evidence to be unconvincing at times (see paragraph 12 above).
-
Balancing these serious concerns, I have of course considered whether there are any positive features; I note that Mr Evans purported to cooperate with the DVSA. I also find that these failures result from a lack of understanding rather than a deliberate attempt to evade the system. He admitted that he was “learning on the job”; his approach was clearly very reactive rather than proactive.
-
I have considered the impact of regulatory action. Mr Evans told me that if he didn’t have a licence the business would fold, and this is his sole source of income. He told me that he employs about 10 people, they are self-employed: They all work for C Evans Scaffolding exclusively, but they are not PAYE.
-
Mr Evans told me that he has 2 or 3 projects on at present; they could be up for months on end. I assume from Mr Evans’ response, that these projects would mean any lengthy period of suspension would equate to a similar outcome to revocation so did not pursue this any further. At the outset of the hearing, he indicated that he could reduce authorisation by 2 vehicles, demonstrating that he could manage with 2 less vehicles, which is relevant to the issue of curtailment.
-
Mr Evans didn’t explain to me why he couldn’t use smaller vehicles.
-
Considering Annex 4 of Statutory Document No.10, I consider this case falls within the serious bracket. My starting point, given the breadth and severity of matters, is revocation with consideration of disqualification. The limited positive features in the balancing exercise regrettably do not bring me down from that starting point.
-
On balance, even taking account of the impact, I regret to conclude that the failings are so severe, wide ranging and numerous that this operator deserves to be put out of business. Further, financial documentation provided was not complete and the finance requirement was not met, even on a generous view. I have serious road safety concerns and it is unfair to compliant operators to allow this operation to continue. I afforded Mr Evans every opportunity to present his case before me, but I find that this operator misled me and lacks fitness to hold a licence.
-
I revoke this licence from 00:01 on 10th February 2024, to allow an orderly wind down of the operation.
-
I must now go on to consider whether to disqualify this operator from holding a licence in future. This is the first Public Inquiry for this operator and Mr Evans has much to learn. However, there were shoots of positivity in the booking of an OLAT course and some improvements, albeit not sufficient. I give credit for these by not imposing a disqualification.
-
This operator should be under no illusion that if applies for a licence in future, that application will be considered by a Traffic Commissioner. There would need to be significant, real, and evidenced change in how the operation would be run and significant upskilling on the part of those involved in the operation.