Decision

Decsion for London Vintage Transport Ltd

Published 8 March 2024

0.1 IN THE EASTERN TRAFFIC AREA

1. LONDON VINTAGE TRANSPORT LTD – PF2007604  AND

2. MARK JAMES CUTLER – TRANSPORT MANAGER

3. CONFIRMATION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER’S DECISION

---

4. Background

London Vintage Transport Ltd holds a Standard National Public Service Vehicle Operator’s Licence authorising 3 vehicles. The Directors are Steve Hickin and Rob McElwee. There is no Transport Manager currently listed on the licence. Mr Cutler was appointed on 12 October 2021 following a Period of Grace. By letter dated 30 September 2023, he communicated his intention to step down as the Transport Manager no later than 30 December 2023, citing the impact of criminal proceedings involving a member of his family (see below).

There is one Operating Centre at Larkshill Farm, Stewkley Road, Soulbury, Leighton Buzzard LU7 0DF.  Preventative Maintenance Inspections are said to be carried out by Victoria Events Ltd and a Tom Burnage at 8-weekly intervals. There have been no annual tests results recorded against this operator since 15 August 2018. The following vehicles are associated with this licence MXX 456, HLW 177 and MXX 8, all specified on 15 April 2023.

The licence is subject to restrictions on the size and type of vehicle which can be operated. The operator lodged an application to vary this licence by increasing authority to 4 vehicles on 10 April 2023. The operator subsequently indicated that it wished to withdraw that application.

5. Hearing

The Public Inquiry was listed for today, 22 February 2024, in Tribunal Room 1 of the Office of the Traffic Commissioner in Cambridge. The operator was present in the form of the Directors, Mr Hickin, and Mr McElwee, represented by Mrs Beverley Bell, transport consultant, and accompanied by another consultant, Mr Chennel. Former Transport Manager, Mr Cutler was also present.

This case was originally listed for 7 November 2023. An application was made to adjourn this hearing on information that Mr McElwee was recovering from surgery and uncertainty about the health of a member of Mr Hickin’s family. That was granted, initially to 12 December 2023, based on a voluntary suspension due to the absence of a Transport Manager. The Deputy Traffic Commissioner was persuaded to ‘vary’ that temporary suspension from 23 to 25 November 2023, to allow the operator to meet three wedding contracts. A further adjournment request was made on 7 December 2023, due to the illness of Mr McElwee and the unavailability of the chosen representative. This was granted on 11 December 2023. The operator declined the suggestion that the ‘suspension’ should continue. The operator was advised that it required a Transport Manager.

6. Issues

The public inquiry was called at the request of the operators and following notice that I was considering grounds to intervene in respect of this licence and specifically by reference to the following sections of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981:

• 17(3)(a) – statements regarding inspections at 8-weekly intervals, by Victoria Events Ltd and/or Tom Burnage, and to comply with conditions on the licence.

• 17(3)(aa) – undertakings to observe the law on driving and operation (vehicles kept in a fit and serviceable condition, to employ an effective written driver defect reporting system, to retain complete maintenance records).

• 17(3)(c) – Prohibition Notices

• 17(3)(e) – material change in the circumstances of the licence holder:

• Section 17(1)(a) – good repute, financial standing, and professional competence.

• Section 28 Transport Act 1985 – disqualification in the event of revocation.

Mr Cutler was called separately to consider his repute as Transport Manager, under section 17(1)(b) and Schedule 3 and specifically where he had exercised effective and continuous management. He submitted a letter from a General Practitioner dated 19 October 2023 referring to a current diagnosis. There was no indication whether he would attend the hearing on 7 November 2023 or the rescheduled date of 12 December 2023. On 2 January 2024, Mr Cutler wrote to the Office of the Traffic Commissioner suggesting that he might ‘relinquish’ his Certificate of Professional Competence. There is no facility for a Traffic Commissioner to accept surrender of a CPC.  He wrote again on 24 January 2024, with evidence that he had resigned from appointments on PF11327789 and PK1054281 from 2 January 2024. He failed to attend a Public Inquiry as former transport manager on PF11422590, which took place on 1 February 2024. The presiding Deputy Traffic Commissioner made no record of action in respect of that role, despite him not attending.

The operator was directed to lodge evidence in support, including financial, maintenance and other compliance documentation. Maintenance, drivers’ hours, and financial documentation provided so that the Vehicle Examiner completed a supplementary report.

7. Summary of Evidence

Following the application to increase authority, the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency was prompted to conduct a maintenance investigation. Vehicle Examiner, Glen Winn, attended on 28 April 2023. He identified the following alleged shortcomings:

• Two vehicles were inspected - one vehicle was issued with a delayed prohibition as there was a loss of air in the braking systems with brake applied, but pressure could be sustained with the engine on fast idling.  This demonstrated a weakness in the maintenance system.

• Maintenance records were found to be either missing or maintenance had not been carried out.

• No Vehicle Off-Road records were maintained.

• A wall chart forward planner commencing in March 2023 was observed for maintenance schedules, but no other records produced.

• There was no evidence of any incident reporting process and no system in place for the assessment and repair of defects.

• The Examiner was unable to establish maintenance arrangements at the time of the inspection.

• There was no effective wheel security system in place and there were no effective tyre management arrangements.

The Examiner questioned the effectiveness of the management in place and whether the Transport Manager’s involvement was continuous and effective. There was the impression of a disconnect between the operator and Transport Manager which resulted in two separate responses: one from the operator and the other from Mr Cutler.

Mr Cutler’s response dated 14 May 2023 (page 72) can be summarised as follows:

•        The operator signed a maintenance agreement with Longmile, where the External Transport Manager worked full-time. This apparently helped to ensure that inspections were carried out correctly,

• Longmile had completed 14 Inspections of the operator’s vehicles, but the operator had most of the rectification work undertaken by its fitter, Tom Burnage.

• Mr Cutler left employment with Longmile in 2022 and was aware that the operator had terminated its contract with Longmile in March 2023.

• Preventative Maintenance Inspection dates were recorded by the Transport Manager using Google Calendars and reminders were sent to the operator, but the dates were often missed due to vehicles not being used or dates being changed by the operator.

• As a result, a number of reported defects were rectified by the operator or its fitter.

Mr Cutler indicated that he was considering his position as Transport Manager. He suggested that the operator was reluctant to allow the contractors to complete repairs, preferring to manage defects in house. Rectification records were not completed sufficiently, and some were missing or had not been completed. He appeared to apportion blame to the operator but failed to explain how he had met his responsibilities in the 21-month period since 23 July 2021. He had worked full-time for Longmile until the end of 2022, whilst being external Transport Manager for this operator (8 hours per week), and another operator (8 hours per week). 

The undated response from the operator and replicated by Mr Winn (page 73), can be summarised as follows:

• The operator was unaware of the Prohibition issued at the maintenance visit but understood that it had now been lifted.

• There had been no incidents requiring investigation and reporting.

• The Operator has no control over the security of the site but isolates the batteries on the vehicles following use.

• Inspections had been conducted by Mason’s and Longmile (not notified as maintenance providers), but the contract did not cover the rectification of defects.

• All Preventative Maintenance Inspections would be fully completed, and Tom Burnage would ensure that his name appeared on his inspection.

• He had taken over inspection and maintenance following the Transport Manager’s resignation from the contractor (Longmile).

• There is now a wheel security policy in place including checks on tyre age and wear. Wheels are retorqued and logged.

• Driver walkaround checks had revealed some occasional issues but the defects had been rectified before leaving the Operating Centre.

• There was no policy for dealing with defects other than the driver is briefed by email and, if ‘Rob’ is available at the farm, he fixes it, or it is entered into the vehicle defect book.

• There would be an effective defect recording system.

• When there is no work for the vehicles they are effectively off road, although no record has been retained. The operator claimed that there was no risk of them being accidentally used.

• A VOR policy and record would now be implemented. A calendar is maintained by the mechanic.

In evidence I was told that the operator thought that changes in contractor had been notified but there was no evidence of upload beyond the contract included in the bundle.

Unsigned proofs of evidence were submitted in advance of the Public Inquiry and only signed on the day. I was put on notice that Mr Hickin would outline how part-time coach and bus driving in his late 20s led him to become involved with this operation after a career involving HGVs. He obtained a Goods CPC in the 1980s, and a PSV CPC in about 2009. He was aware of interest from entertainment personalities in vintage buses. He met Mr McElwee at an historic buses event in 2016 or 2017. He received some money and bought a Routemaster bus and operated under a partnership until that licence was surrendered. In 2017 he and Mr McElwee invested a sum of money on a 1947 bus. He was primarily interested in vintage buses, but they also invested in vintage tractors. They formed this limited company, which was incorporated on 17 August 2017. The company grew over the years, and it now operates three vehicles, which are used for weddings, special occasions, and some film work. Mr Hickin has a full-time job but still takes the bookings and answer customer queries by telephone or Whatsapp, whereas Mr McElwee generally deals with the email inbox. He also deals with the paperwork and other administration.

Mr Hickin referred to vehicles: HLW 177 (a 1947 AEC Routemaster double decker bus), which they own jointly and lease to the operator; MXX 456 (a single decker bus) owned by Mr McElwee and leased to the operator. MXX 8 (a single decker) is a company asset. The vehicles are kept at the Operating Centre which is approximately 1 hour 15 minutes (45 miles) from his residence. He also referred to two drivers: Graham Bugby and Vuk Vukovich. He suggested that they were not employees, because the work is occasional, but Mr McElwee refers to them as regulars. Mr McElwee referred to quarterly driver licence checks, which he retains. They are paid at £15 per hour, but for full eight-hour shifts. They are paid an hourly rate for time over the 8 hours and 25p a mile mileage. The vehicles were said to be maintained by Tom Burnage, who used to work for Ward Jones Commercials. Mr Hickin described him as extremely able.

Mr Hickin and Mr McElwee “thought that Mark Cutler was doing a really good job as the Transport Manager and that everything was alright”. The DVSA Examiner investigated, which, Mr Hickin claimed, made Mark Cutler resign; “Clearly he was at fault, but I also accept my own failings”. Mr Hickin accepted that he failed to manage Mr Cutler. He referred to his personal circumstances and other work commitments. He accepted that he had not always carried out the role of a director in accordance with the legislation. He has decided to now commit himself to those duties. In 2025 he will be allowed a 6-month sabbatical from his employment with Waitrose and then he will be able to work flexibly. In the meantime, Mr McElwee lives and works abroad. They communicate via WhatsApp and the occasional conversation. Mr Hickin did not have access to the VOL record and left this to Mr McElwee. It was suggested that Mr Burnage might manage the company in their absence.

Mr McElwee’s statement referred to his varied career history. He had obtained an LGV driver’s entitlement in the late 1980s and a PCV entitlement in 2013, with the intention of driving Routemaster buses. Through other persons employed through the BBC, he developed his interest in vintage buses referred to in Mr Hickin’s statement. He took up employment in Qatar from December 2014 but returns for 10 days, every six weeks, when he goes to the Operating Centre. He has been seeking treatment in Europe since October 2023, following a diagnosis in February 2021. There were post-operative complications, which are reflected in the adjournment requests, referred to above, and in his ability to attend the proceedings. Mr McElwee agreed with Mr Hickin’s evidence and added that MXX 489 replaced MXX 456 after an engine failure. Tom Burnage is in the process of rebuilding that engine.

Mr McElwee referred to the vehicles (two single decker vehicles and one double decker). Mr Hickin also drives if he can, as does Mr McElwee, if he feels up to it. The vehicles are kept at the Operating Centre where another licensed historic operator, Alphabus, is also located. He referred to Mr Cutler’s notice expiring on 31 December 2023. He accepts that they were not communicating well enough to ensure that the Transport Manager met the statutory duty. Mr McElwee described the Directors as naive and assumed that Mr Cutler would ensure compliance. In contrast, Mr McElwee apparently communicates directly with Tom Burnage. Mr Hickin wishes Mr Burnage to take over day-to-day on the ground management, but Mr McElwee is unsure whether he has the interest or the time. Mr Burnage has also been asked to assess the drivers’ competence, to attend breakdowns and occasionally to be there at the start of a job.

Mr McElwee communicates with the drivers via WhatsApp and email. When a job comes in, he sends them a job sheet including a route map. The driver is expected to double-check the route and to do their job properly. He insisted that they could be relied upon, despite the concerns expressed by Mr Winn. At the beginning of every shift, the drivers complete a declaration to say they are fit to drive, they are complying with the EU drivers’ hours’ rules, and have had enough rest. Mr Bugby is on the pay role but there was no check of other work and for other employers. They use analogue tachographs so there is no software to analyse or remote access. A photograph of the completed record (disc) is sent via WhatsApp and apparently shared with the Transport Manager. Mr Cutler told me that he had been satisfied with this arrangement but accepted that he was unable to inspect the disc. The drivers are given weekly envelopes to retain the tachograph records, with the maintenance records in a file box in a locked container at the Operating Centre. Mr McElwee explained that driver defect reports are left in the vehicles until he or Mr Burnage are around to collect them.

Mr Cutler told me that he had first been contracted in 2021. He had been put forward through Masons as a potential Transport Manager. There was no health declaration despite his predating conditions. They did not ask, and he did not tell. The

potential for a conflict of interest, in his position as Transport Manager and his full-time employer supplying maintenance, had not occurred to the operator or Mr Cutler. He had physical contact with the Directors only once when Mr McElwee brought in a vehicle to the Operating Centre. It had not occurred to either of the Directors or Mr Cutler that the declared contractors were signing off inspections where reports were completed elsewhere. He was apparently unhappy with arrangements where the notified contractors were not contracted to carry out repairs the maintenance but failed to notify me. When I asked him to explain, he put it down to pride on his part.

Despite the references to Mr Burnage, Ian Chennell of IJC Transport Consultancy

was contracted to “oversee the operation and systems of the operator’s licence”. Whilst Mr Chennell is an ex-VOSA officer, he has been working closely with both directors and reviewing the systems, so his evidence could not be treated as independent. I noted his other qualifications. Mr Chennell examined the tachograph charts for VUK VUKOVIC for vehicle HLW 177 dated 23 and 25 November 2023. He recorded that Mr McElwee had carried out driving licence checks in November 2023. He had not visited the Operating Centre and all contact with the Directors was via emails, WhatsApp messaging and video calling.

His undated proof (signed on the day of the hearing) referred to contact with Mr Hickin in November 2023. A contract was agreed and signed on 11 November 2023. He then reviewed the documents sent to Mr Winn. He referred to the delayed prohibition on 28 April 2023. The brake chamber was removed cleaned and refitted, with no air leaks. He observed that the operator continued to have inspections during the voluntary suspension to be ready to re-enter service, including 7 December 2023 for HLW 177 and 25 January 2024 for MXX 8, with roller brake testing on the same day. He observed the inspection documents to be fully completed. HLW 177 was operated for a wedding from 23 to 25th November 2023. A 2024 calendar has been established with inspection dates, road tax and a VOR system (recording vehicle registration, dates, and reasons, but not the odometer readings). Mr Chennell volunteered that the operator was aware of the PSV 112 incident reporting form.

Mr Chennell noted the driver walk round check for the private hire on 23 November 2023. He found it to have been completed correctly, with no defects identified by the driver. This is the only operation since his involvement. He described the maintenance arrangements by reference to the operator’s contract with Tom Burnage dated 2 March 2023, specifying 8-week inspections (see below) As he referred to wheel security monitoring to be completed by Tom Burnage, with retorque at 50 km or 30 minutes after first torque. The policy suggests that tyres be changed at tread no less than 2mm. Drivers were said to make visual observation of the tyres and wheel nuts during the walk round check. In the absence of Mr Cutler no-one was present to observe or confirm the quality of walk-round check. He has advised the Directors that they must abide by the licence requirements.

Mr Cutler was removed as the Transport Manager on 2 January 2024 (see above). Notice was served by the Office of the Traffic Commissioner on 3 January 2024 giving a deadline of 17 January 2024. A letter of 8 January 2024 from Mrs Bell’s assistant formally requested a Period of Grace, but contrary to an email of the previous day, indicated that an application would not be lodged until 12 January 2024. As per the Upper Tribunal in 2014/008 McKee: “when considering whether or not to grant a period of grace, Traffic Commissioners will need some tangible evidence, beyond mere hope and aspiration, that granting a period of grace will be worthwhile, and that there are reasonable prospects for a good outcome. Some sort of analysis along these lines will be necessary because, amongst other reasons, Traffic Commissioners have to decide how long to grant. Moreover, as with a stay, there is no point in granting a period of grace if the likely effect is just to put off the evil day when regulatory action will have to be taken”. A request for further information was despatched on 9 January 2024.

There was no substantive response, but a TM1 application was lodged on 14 January 2024, naming a CPC holder, Kinglsey Hamilton. As per the appeal decision in 2011/036 LWB Ltd, the Licensing team wrote to the operator on 17 January 2024 seeking a signed employment contract to show genuine link and how the statutory duty might be met. The Operator was given until 31 January 2024. On that date, the operator provided an unsigned employment contract. A signed but undated copy was not produced until 9 February 2024.

In a telephone conversation with the Office of the Traffic Commissioner on 12 February 2024, Mrs Bell apparently indicated that further submissions would be lodged. It was suggested that Mr Hamilton would work as Transport Manager for this operator for 4 hours per week. The operator was aware that the signed contract was undated. He declared other employment as the contracts manager for Danmac Coaches, working 5 hours per day on Monday to Friday every week. He is not listed as a Transport Manager on any other licence. Mr Hamilton is not listed on any other licence. He qualified in January 2015 and apparently attended a refresher course in December 2023. Mr Hamilton lives approximately 2 hours away (88 miles) from the Operating Centre and so planned to visit once a week, on a Sunday. I was denied the opportunity to put further questions to Mr Hamilton. I therefore remained to be satisfied as to his ability to exercise effective and continuous management in the context of the operations and shortcomings, described above.

I noted that it was Mr Chennell who had put together the folder which had been passed to Mr McElwee electronically containing the various documents and policies for future compliance. He was informed that Mr Hamilton had been nominated to act as the Transport Manager. On his appointment, Mr Chennell would cease his oversight. That was varied during the course of the hearing as concerns about the ability to meet section 14ZA(2)(d) developed.

A single page statement dated 22 February 2024 from Mr Burnage was supplied immediately prior to the hearing. He recounts undertaking mechanical work for Cliffs Coaches Ltd for two years before becoming self-employed to have “the space to do things the right and compliant way”. The Directors came to him a few years ago as he had been recommended to them. He lives 20 minutes from the Operating Centre (11.2 miles). I was told in evidence that he takes the vehicles to the premises of Countrywide Coaches or Motts Travel, both of which have inspection facilities and roller brake testers.

Mr Winn’s supplementary report referred to the documents supplied by the operator by email on 29 November 2023, through Ian Chennell, these included inspection records, brake test reports, forward planner, wheel removal and re-torque records. On reviewing those records, Mr Winn found the wheel security procedures to be satisfactory but, following his visit, there was no brake test recorded for HLW 177 on 30 August 2023, MXX 8 no brake checks recorded on 5 July 2023 and 14 September 2023. He observed that additional paperwork was supplied further to that made available at his visit showing that MXX8 failed a brake test on 13 April 2023: service brake 38% (minimum 45%) and failed again on 17 May 2023: 41%. HLW177, made 16% park brake effort (minimum requirement) on 3 May 2023. He confirmed sight of the Forward planner (with inspection dates and road tax) for 2024 only and referred to the fact that two driver defect reports had been supplied.

Noting the alleged shortcomings, I was concerned that there be a qualitative assessment of the CPC holder’s ability to exercise effective and continuous management of the transport operation. I was unclear how the proposed CPC holder was intending to ensure driver management when only attending on a Sunday and being 88 miles away for the remainder or how any form of quality assurance would be carried out. It was suggested that I should await the Public Inquiry, despite some of these issues having been outstanding since October 2023, with no Transport Manager in place and no Period of Grace.

A two-page statement dated 21 February 2024 from Mr Hamilton was supplied immediately prior to the hearing. This was the first occasion that I was aware that Mr Hamilton would not be attending the hearing, apparently due to his other work commitments. His statement refers to his education and qualifications, eventually leading to becoming a bus driver in 2012. He turned down a promotion to operations manager and left Croydon Coaches (UK) Ltd in 2016. He was employed for 6 months by Westbus Coach Services before returning to Croydon Coaches as casual driver before then joining Danmac Coaches undertaking school runs. He sat the CPC course in 2014.

Mr Hamilton’s statement indicated that he met these Directors through a shared interest in vintage buses. In December 2023 he was approached by Mr Hickin. He confirms that he will undertake his duties on Sunday. The statement refers to a “few strategies to put in place to help the operation become more compliant such as implementing driver declarations when training is carried out, staff agreements and diaries to log activity and a proper filing system for maintenance records and tachograph downloads.”  The statement made no reference to the documents produced by Mr Chennell or gave any other indication as to how the statutory duty might be met, beyond the signed contract dated 7 January 2024, which merely replicates much of paragraph 60 of the Statutory Document.

8. Determination

Based on the evidence set out above, I was satisfied that I should record adverse finding under the following sections:  17(3)(aa) – undertakings to observe the law on driving and operation, specifically vehicles to be kept in a fit and serviceable condition, to employ an effective written driver defect reporting system, and to retain complete maintenance records; 17(3)(c) – Prohibition Notices. Having invited representations, I substituted an adverse finding under 17(3)(b), that being the condition to notify changes, for any relating to statements of intent. The repeated failure to notify those changes meant that I was misled by the operator and former Transport Manager; as far as I was aware, there was full compliance, until suggested otherwise by Mr Winn. That struck at the trust which I could place in them following a finding that there had been a material change under section 17(3)(e):  

For the avoidance of any doubt, those findings did not amount to effective or continuous management by Mr Cutler. Too much was done remotely or on an ad hoc basis because of the sporadic nature of the operation. The failure to communicate with me, placed Mr Cutler’s repute at real issue. Taking account of his current health condition and upon acceptance of a personal undertaking that he will not seek to rely on his Certificate of Professional Competence without first obtaining the permission of a Traffic Commissioner, I was, exceptionally, able to draw back from making a finding of loss of repute in circumstances where it would undoubtedly have led to his disqualification, were he not to have already departed the industry.

The absence of a Transport Manager led to the adverse finding under section 17(1)(a). In the circumstances described above, I was not satisfied on the papers with the nomination of Mr Hamilton and section 14ZA(2)(d) remained to be met. Mrs Bell sought a Period of Grace. The limited evidence meant that I was only able to allow a period of 1 month from the date of hearing to supply tangible evidence of a good outcome, upon which I might extend, or the operator’s licence will have to be revoked. A CPC holder must be accepted by a Traffic Commissioner before appointment as a Transport Manager. In this case they will be expected to demonstrate how they will achieve compliance given the challenges identified above

I considered the initial 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 was able to take account of the positive update provided by Mr Winn but the failure to sort out the operations was not encouraging. The evidence undoubtedly placed this case in the category of SERIOUS, if not SEVERE.

Mrs Bell correctly referred to the Upper Tribunal decision in 2013/082 Arnold Transport Ltd: “Traffic Commissioners   must feel able to trust operators to comply with all relevant parts of the operator’s licensing regime.…..The attitude of an operator when something goes wrong can be very instructive. … 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.

The impression of the operation was not of professionalism but of a hobby, where systems were applied as and when there was time away from other work commitments did not suggest a compliant future. Regardless of the passion for vintage buses, these Directors must ensure that the operation complies with the same basic requirements which apply to every operator. The late intervention by Mr Chennell offered the prospect of policies, which might be adopted, but there was little clarity as to who or how this might be managed. The operator committed to his continued involvement. I was given the following undertakings to weigh into the balance:

• Mr Chennell will be retained on a consultancy basis to advise on compliance with the operator licence requirements, devoting a minimum of 7 hours a month.

• All regular drivers will be made employees and then subject to PAYE and National Insurance contributions going forward (by the deadline below).

• A Director will attend in person or virtually, a one-day course of Operator Licence Awareness Training, run by either a trade association (Logistics UK/RHA/BAR/CPT), a professional body (IoTA/CILT/SOE/IRTE), an accredited training centre or an exam centre approved by an accredited body to offer the transport manager CPC qualification in passenger transport. A copy of the certificate of attendance will be sent to the Office of the Traffic Commissioner in Cambridge within seven days of the course taking place.

The repute of the operator is undoubtedly severely tarnished by the events above.  As the Upper Tribunal identified in 2019/025 John Stuart Strachan t/a Strachan Haulage: “one of the aims of the regime is deterrence, both for the appellant and for operators as a whole, who might be tempted to flout the system”. This reflects the approach in Arnold Transport (above) “other operators must be able to trust their competitors to comply, otherwise they will no longer compete on a level playing field”. There cannot be an amateurish approach to compliance. I determined that I must make this clear to this operator by suspending the licence for not less than 5 weeks from 23:45 tonight and for undertakings 2 and 3 to be complied with. Whether the licence survives that long will depend on an extension to the Period of Grace.

R Turfitt

Traffic Commissioner

22 February 2024