Decision

Decision for Abbey Coaches (Darwen) Ltd, Rigby’s Executive Coaches Ltd, Farid Saad and Martin Evans

Published 19 October 2023

1. WRITTEN DECISION OF THE DEPUTY TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER FOR THE NORTH WEST OF ENGLAND

In the matter of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 (the Act)

1.1 Abbey Coaches (Darwen) Ltd

PC1025063

and

1.2 Rigby’s Executive Coaches Ltd

PC0004176

and

1.3 Farid Saad

trading as Swift Travel (Northwest)

PC2065907

and

1.4 Transport Managers Farid Saad and Martin Evans

2. Public Inquiry at Golborne on 16 August 2023

3. Background:

Asif Mohammed Din is the sole director of both Abbey Coaches (Darwen) Ltd and Rigby’s Executive Coaches Ltd (hereafter Abbey and Rigby’s) which have held Standard International Public Service vehicle operator’s licences since 2003 and 1996. These licences presently authorise 4 and 9 vehicles respectively and run in the curtailed form that was directed following the 2021 Public Inquiry. [This decision refers to ‘curtailment’ as shorthand for the Traffic Commissioner’s power to vary the condition on the licence by directing a reduction in the maximum number of vehicles which may be used on it at one time.]

Abbey carries out school contract and private hire work. Rigby’s concentrates on rail replacement work and private hire including tours.

Each company has a long but unenviable history of calls to Public Inquiry, but I set out below only the details of the single, joint Public Inquiry involving them that has arisen since Asif Din became their director.

The shared, nominated transport managers (TMs) for both companies at the time of the Public Inquiry were Farid Saad and Martin Evans.

Both companies before me seek upward fleet variations; applications made in early May 2023. In the case of Abbey from 4 vehicles to 10 vehicles, and for Rigby’s from 9 vehicles to 15 vehicles.

Originally, this hearing had also been convened to consider the new application of Harris Travel Ltd for a Standard International Public Service vehicle operator’s licence for 20 vehicles. That application was made on 1 February 2023 but was permitted to be withdrawn on 18 July 2023 (after this calling-in). It is also a company for which the sole director is Asif Din.

This hearing also concerns the new sole trader application of Farid Saad (acting as his own TM) for a Standard International Public Service vehicle operator’s licence for 1 vehicle. This application was made on 22 May 2023.

3.1 Previous history of these operators:

On 21 September 2021 at a conjoined Public Inquiry, it was found that both Abbey and Rigby’s had been operating without a nominated TM for 9 months. There had been no period of grace and Deputy Traffic Commissioner (DTC) Dorrington described that as “extremely serious misconduct”. Neither operator cooperated with the documentary requests for the Inquiry and during the hearing itself, one of the TMs was being prompted by Asif Din. Concerns were expressed about driver detectable defects found during preventive maintenance inspections pointing to a questionable driver defect reporting regime. Financial standing was not met for either company, but a period of grace was granted to rectify the position. There were some positives and, in that light, both licences had been allowed to continue but subject to effective curtailments by 4 vehicles for each of them. In the case of Abbey from 9 vehicles to 5 vehicles, and for Rigby’s 13 vehicles down to 9 vehicles. The DTC referred to leaving Asif Din with a total of 25 vehicles, which had then included the (subsequently revoked) licence of Harris Travel Ltd.

Specifically, the DTC set out that:

“This will be the last chance that any of the three operators before me will be given”.

He set out that the good repute of each operator was “very badly tarnished but not lost”.

On 9 November 2021 an application had been made by Abbey to vary its licence from 4 vehicles up to 10 vehicles, thus reversing the curtailment, which had only come into force 6 weeks earlier on 26 September 2021. The application was refused under Section 14ZA (2) (d) as no second TM was in place on the licence (DTC Dorrington had given a clear direction that one would be required, if such application were to be made). In addition, the provisions of Section 14ZC (1) (a) and (b) were not met.

On the same day, a similar application was made by Rigby’s to vary its licence from 9 vehicles up to 22 vehicles, again reversing the curtailment, which had only come into force 6 weeks earlier on 26 September 2021. The application was refused for the same reasons given in the case of Abbey. A Public Inquiry was offered in neither case, since it was concluded that the variation applications were frivolous.

Thereafter, Propose to Revoke (PTR) processes had been initiated in respect of both Rigby’s and Abbey in June 2022 for failure to satisfy the terms of the financial undertaking and period of grace agreed at the 2021 Public Inquiry.

It was not until 21 July 2022 that the PTR process was set aside for Rigby’s.

In the case of Abbey, since there was no proper response within the timescale allowed, the Traffic Commissioner gave notice of the revocation of the licence with effect from 29 July 2022. The operator was however afforded the opportunity voluntarily to offer the further curtailment of the scope of the licence down to 4 vehicles, which it later did, to avoid revocation.

3.2 Asif Mohammed Din:

Asif Din is however the sole director of several other companies apparently engaged in the sector:

• Coach Travel Solutions Ltd – Not an operator’s licence holder (but see below).

• Croft Travel (Lancashire) Ltd – No longer the holder of an operator’s licence (PC2037248), it had been revoked on 26 April 2023 before Asif Din’s appointment as director in May 2023.

• Festival Coaches Ltd - Not an operator’s licence holder and declared as dormant by Asif Din as at 31 May 2022.

3.3 Previous history of the TMs:

At the Public Inquiry in September 2021, DTC Dorrington had approved the appointment of TM Saad.

At a Public Inquiry before me for Sky Coaches Ltd (PC1149014) on 1 February 2022 the good repute of its ex-TM, Farid Saad was marked as “tarnished but not lost”. A formal warning was recorded in respect of his good repute. He no longer holds office as TM on that licence.

TM Martin Evans had no prior regulatory history. He had been appointed as a second TM on both the Abbey and the Rigby’s licences on 16 February 2022.

4. The hearing:

Asif Din was present with TM Farid Saad, neither of them, nor the companies were legally represented, solicitors having notified they ceased to have instructions from Abbey and Rigby’s on 11 August 2023. I heard from both and from Harvey Taylor, the in-house garage manager.

TM Martin Evans was absent; no prior reason having been given. Telephone contact was made with him by my clerk shortly before the hearing had begun, but he was in Birmingham on a family matter. He claimed to have confused the hearing date and had expected to attend the next day. In an email he said he understood that I might choose to deal with the matters related to him in his absence

His colleague, TM Saad indicated that he had tried to contact TM Evans in the fortnight before the hearing, but he had not responded for reasons that were not clear. It was apparently the case that TM Evans worked remotely and only came in when required. He was described by Asif Din as “a back-up” and that he had not been seen in person, since the calling-in notices on 29 June 2023.

Since most of called-in participants were present and TM Evans had received the notice, I determined to proceed with the Public Inquiry but reserved my decision to enable me to give matters further consideration and to provide an opportunity for TM Evans at least, to make written representations, or request to be heard.

Specifically, I requested TM Evans tell me whether he remained TM on the licences now under consideration, and when he had ceased to act in the role (if that was the case), to confirm whether he had been paid for his role as TM in the period January 2023 to date and provide copies of the invoices submitted and corresponding credits into his bank account. I asked him to describe the nature of his TM role in the business and his interactions with TM Saad. I offered the opportunity to provide a response to the findings of the DVSA officers set out in the brief issued to him, including the accumulation of a series of prohibitions by vehicles on 23 June 2023 for both Abbey and Rigby’s licences, when they had been encountered at the Glastonbury Festival. Finally, to explain his contribution to the steps taken to improve compliance following the adverse outcomes of the DVSA visits.

A deadline for a response was set at Thursday 24 August 2023. TM Evans did not respond at all within the timescale, nor has there been any subsequent communication from him.

Other commitments have meant that I have not concluded this decision until now, during which time there have been further developments.

• TM Evans was removed from the Rigby’s operator’s licence on 23 August 2023. A new application was made on 25 August 2023 to appoint William Ford as TM on that licence.

• TM Evans was removed from the Abbey licence on 23 August 2023. No application to replace him has been made.

4.1 The calling-in:

The calling-in to this Public Inquiry has its roots in the ‘unsatisfactory’ outcomes of Maintenance Investigation Visit Reports (MIVR) prepared by VE Wilson on 6 May 2022.  His findings for both operators reflected a series of shortcomings in those businesses which (perhaps unsurprisingly) tended to mirror each other.

They referred to stretching of maintenance frequencies (27% of them in the case of Rigby’s), some driver detectable defects found at PMI, a failure to show rectification of some defects picked up by drivers, that recent evidence of CPD for the TMs was absent, and that the MOT first time pass rate for both was much worse than the national average.

The findings of DVSA were not the subject of material dispute.

The MOT history for Rigby’s showed a failure rate at first presentation of 78%: the national average is 12%. That for Abbey is not relied on, as for reasons that could not be identified, only a single vehicle appeared to have been presented for test in the last 2 years. Neither the director, nor I could believe this was accurate.

The prohibition history of the operators showed:

Abbey - 4 prohibitions for one vehicle (Immediate (1) and Delayed (3)) at Glastonbury Festival on 23 June 2023.

No other prohibitions since the last Public Inquiry.

Rigby’s - 6 prohibitions for three vehicles (Immediate (5) and Delayed (1)) again at Glastonbury Festival on 23 June 2023. One prohibition was “S” marked, albeit the principal criticism was of the driver, not the operator, the underlying issue remained the effectiveness of the walk round checks undertaken. I noted that the incident itself also led to a fixed penalty issued for the dangerous condition of the vehicle.

There were 4 other prohibitions (Immediate (2) and Delayed (2)) since the last Public Inquiry.

Evidence of financial standing was requested in advance of the hearing. Neither Abbey nor Rigby’s provided the requested Companies’ House evidence, but I was aware of it, raised it with Mr Din and took account of the following:

Abbey –

• The most recent accounts filed at Companies’ House were for the financial year ended 26 May 2022. The accounts showed there had been a single employee in that financial year and total staff employment costs amounted to £852. For the preceding two years there were no employees recorded and no employment costs, even though the company had been operating vehicles at that time.

• Bank statements produced appeared to meet the financial standing requirement, but I could not locate the payment of any monies to any driver employed, no sums in respect of PAYE or in respect of any expenditure on the maintenance of vehicles.

Rigby’s –

• The most recent accounts filed at Companies’ House were for the financial year ended 28 September 2020. A marker indicated that accounts were overdue for the financial year ended 28 September 2021, which ought to have been filed by 28 June 2022, (and presumably those for the 2022 financial year, which would have been due by June 2023).

• There had been two employees referred to in the 2021 financial year end accounts but none in previous years, even though the company had been operating vehicles at that time.

• Bank statements produced appeared to meet the financial standing requirement, but again, I could not locate the payment of any monies to any driver employed, for PAYE, or in respect of any expenditure on the maintenance of vehicles.

I had concerns that some other company, or person was operating vehicles under the licence, or/and that the bank statements (and therefore any calculation made) did not truly reflect the income and expenditure of the entities holding the licences. Subsequently, I raised these matters with the director.

4.2 Evidence heard:

4.3 Asif Din told me:

4.4 Response to DVSA findings

• No explanation could be offered by him for the recorded lack of response to the MIVRs, other than that he claimed he had provided responses. No copy of it was previously provided, nor was one offered at the hearing and the evidence in the DVSA report was that there was none.

• Roller brake testing equipment had now been installed and the plan was to test all vehicles at each PMI, it was conceded this was not yet consistently achieved. Whilst PMI frequencies were set at 8 weeks, the aim was to carry them out in the 6th or 7th week. My dip sample suggested current checks were not late but were not completed early, as proposed.

• In-house maintenance fitters who had been in place had since been removed and replaced by a team led by Harvey Taylor, who also gave evidence.

• The appointment of Mr Campbell, a former DVSA employee had been part of the response to the last Public Inquiry. Mr Din was of the view this strategy did not work and that the appointee had made things worse and had been removed.

4.5 Arrangements within the group of businesses:

• Drivers were said to be a mixture of employees, agency drivers and others treated as self-employed. Pressed to explain how those treated as self-employed had that status, no convincing explanation could be offered. Drivers had been permitted to choose their status, rather than there being an application of the relevant rules.

• Challenged to explain why financial evidence provided by both the companies for the hearing contained no entries for the payment of staff or drivers, Mr Din conceded that any staff with employment contracts were employees of, and paid by, Coach Travel Solutions Ltd.

• He treated drivers as being interchangeable between the various businesses on the basis that there was common ownership in him.

• He acknowledged there was no cross-invoicing between Abbey and Rigby’s for example where for operational reasons a Rigby’s vehicle was used to deliver one of Abbey’s school contracts. Mr Din offered that this was simply a continuation of the longstanding way in which work had been carried out throughout the life of the licences.

• Mr Din accepted that whilst TM Evans’ appointment had been approved as an internal TM, he was treated as though he was an external TM. He agreed he had made an error.

• Asked about the current status of TM Evans, who had been appointed as a second TM on the operator’s licences in February 2022, in response to the indication given by DTC Dorrington at the last Public Inquiry, he admitted uncertainty. His TM had not been seen in the business for 6 weeks, and there was no clarity whether he was acting in the role or not. It was offered that his intention was to dismiss him ‘that evening or the next day’. By way of explanation, he told me that TM Evans’ role had been downgraded after the termination of Harris Travel Ltd licence but admitted that no notice of this material change was given to the Office of the Traffic Commissioner.

• He claimed that TM Evans had been paid for 64 hours per month but none of the financial evidence showed payment to him.

4.6 Financial and Governance arrangements:

• Asif Din admitted to the failures to file accounts with Companies’ House in timely fashion. The company’s accountant was blamed for the situation. They were being chased to conclude matters. I was told that as soon as matters were up to date (within the next two weeks) a new firm would be instructed.

• Accounts for the financial years to 2021 and 2022 for Rigby’s were said to exist in draft but were not produced. I did not ask for them to be produced. The Guidance suggests that draft accounts should not be relied on.

4.7 Prohibition and MOT history:

• The poor MOT history for vehicles being operated by Rigby’s was put down to disappointment with the work done by Clive Campbell in their preparation. Asif Din accepted the record of MOT failure was “shocking”. I had the strong impression however that it was his belief that as Mr Campbell had previously been a DVSA employee and that he had been appointed as a result of the last Public Inquiry that this somehow lessened the operator’s responsibility.

• There was some degree of acceptance by Asif Din that the operator ought to be embarrassed about the circumstances of the multiple prohibitions at Glastonbury. The director however would not accept any responsibility for any of the prohibitions related to the internal features of the vehicles, putting these down to the misconduct of passengers, but did appear to acknowledge that the efforts of those maintaining the vehicles had been inadequate.

4.8 TM Saad told me:

4.9 Role as a TM on both licences:

• He said he had been naïve and inexperienced when he appeared at the 2021 Public Inquiry. He regarded Mr Din as “a guide and teacher” but had found Mr Campbell to be misleading. He claimed to have relied on him and to have taken what he said as true. He said he believed he was “improving” in the role, alongside a good maintenance team.

• He could not explain the stretching of maintenance frequencies and said he accepted responsibility for the Glastonbury prohibitions as representing oversight “on our part”. He did not appear able or willing to tell me what he proposed to reduce the risk of repetition of such adverse encounters.

4.10 His own application for a licence:

• Mr Saad told me of his plans to start his own business carrying out private hire work. He planned to purchase a 36-seater vehicle in order to conduct such work. He would continue in his role for Abbey and Rigby’s and run his business in his own time. There was no intention to drive himself.

• I pressed him to explain how I might be confident in his plan to appoint the same Clive Campbell to carry out his maintenance, when the earlier evidence before me (including from him) had alleged that the failures to deploy vehicles that were consistently fit and serviceable was down to the inability of Mr Campbell to make a difference and had led to his removal. Initially, he offered that the in-house facility of Asif Din might carry out the work but from the immediate reaction from Mr Din, which he and I observed, it became clear this would not be possible.

During the period following the hearing, there was unsolicited contact by Mr Saad, who notified my clerk of an alternative maintenance provider, Paul Wickstead in relation to his application.

In his evidence Harvey Taylor told me that he had started to work for Mr Din at the beginning of April 2023 but described what he found as “it was all a bit of train wreck with mountains to climb”. Whilst he had not wished to cast aspersions, he was not impressed by Mr Campbell, who he had worked alongside initially but only for a month. He reckoned maintenance records were diabolical, and it was often unclear if rectification work had been completed or not.

I asked him about the accumulation of prohibitions at Glastonbury, but he too was unwilling to accept that the operator can have borne any responsibility for any of the incidents. He maintained that the circumstances of those incidents away from base meant that no meaningful investigation of what had gone wrong could have been carried out.

4.11 Closing representations:

In closing submissions, Asif Din stated:

• He accepted he might need to be “more strict” in terms of compliance.

• He repeated his intention, that had been offered at an earlier hearing that it might be appropriate to merge his operations under a single entity but indicated a need for 3 to 5 months to achieve that state.

• He reiterated a need for the variation applications sought for both companies to be granted, pointing out that at the time when the Harris Travel Ltd licence was in force there had been more vehicles available to him. He told me that 11 vehicles were required to service school contracts let by Lancashire County Council and by Blackburn & Darwen Council.

• He asked for the opportunity to prove himself.

5. Findings in respect of these operators and their Transport Managers:

I made the following findings on the balance of probabilities, except where stated, the findings relate to both operators:

• I accepted the evidence of VE Wilson as a balanced account of what he found in May 2022, in relation to shortcomings in the maintenance systems in place.

• I found the evidence of Asif Din, director, to display a lack of knowledge and understanding of the expectations of a licence holder and to minimise the responsibility of the operators for DVSA’s findings. On occasion he did seek to prompt or answer for TM Saad, but he did cease to do so, once warned.

• I found the evidence of Farid Saad to be somewhat superficial and that his continuing references to his relative inexperience to be hollow since he has been working in Asif Din’s businesses now for over 30 months. I was able to detect very little from what he told me about his role for either Abbey or Rigby’s as might have represented positive action he had taken or proposed to take. It seemed that throughout the hearing he was deferring to Asif Din. Having had earlier (other) opportunities to see and hear from TM Saad, also when he was supporting a driver at a separate hearing (when Mr Din was not present), I found his presentation out of character.

• I find, as was admitted by Mr Din that TM Evans had not been carrying out the full role of TM in the businesses that had been promised when he took office. I found the failure to follow up his TM’s absence in the period before the Public Inquiry is concerning and points to his appointment being little more than “window-dressing.”

• I found on balance that there had not been any response provided to the MIVRs then issued. I concluded that in this sense there had been a lack of cooperation with DVSA. Neither the operator (nor either of the TMs) had taken the opportunity to respond positively and proactively to the outcomes, as I might have expected bearing in mind the operators’ previous regulatory history.

• I found that the total of 10 prohibitions issued at Glastonbury Festival to four of the operators’ vehicles on 22 June 2023 to amount to serious failures to secure the safety of passengers. Coming as those encounters did after the appointment of Harvey Taylor and other changes in the in-house maintenance facility, they did not reflect positive change in terms of compliance. There was no evidence of any formal investigation or analysis of what had gone wrong, despite the extent of the encounters and that within a week or so, call-in notices for this Public Inquiry were issued.

• There was little evidence that MOT pass rates were improving. Since the beginning of 2023, three of five vehicles had failed at first presentation.

• It was admitted that some drivers were deployed on a self-employed basis when the operators were unable to justify such status. Such arrangements where staff are allowed to choose their employments is anti-competitive and unfairly prejudices those that comply with the guidance of HMRC supported by trade bodies.

• I was unable to conclude that Rigby’s met the required financial standing requirements. Whilst the calculation carried out was (on the face of things) sufficient for the existing licence, it did not meet the sum due for the increase to the fleet if it were granted.

• In any event, I was not able to satisfy myself that either the bank evidence produced by both companies, or the profit and loss accounts filed for them reflected the whole of the income and expenditure of those businesses individually. I find that even where financial standing was met mathematically, there was a reliance on the finances of Coach Travel Solutions Ltd, a separate entity. Finances must be held exclusively in the name of the licence holder.

• I find that the Companies’ House requirements for Rigby’s have been breached by a failure to file evidence for the preceding two financial years. The absence of up-to-date profit and loss accounts and a balance sheet prevents any reliance being placed on them in contributing to a decision about financial standing. It also undermines any confidence I might have in the company’s corporate governance arrangements.

• I find I am unable to satisfy myself that vehicles are being operated by the individual company that holds each operator’s licence. Section 81 (1) (b) of the Act defines the operator of a passenger carrying vehicle, as:

“[..] (i) the driver, if he owns the vehicle, and

(ii) in any other case, the person for whom the driver works (whether under a contract of employment or any other description of contract personally to do work).”

The evidence before me is to the effect that employed drivers are in the employment of, and paid by, Coach Travel Solutions Ltd, therefore the operator is neither Rigby’s nor Abbey.

I conclude that each of the allegations made under Section 17 (3) of the Act to be made out for each company.

In making decisions about the good repute of the operators, I have balanced the positives and negatives:

5.1 Negatives:

• The operators have both fallen well below expectations of them as operators, particularly when viewed in the context of the warning given by DTC Dorrington about the future jeopardy in which the licences would be placed, in the event of another appearance at Public Inquiry.

• The issue of multiple prohibitions to vehicles in June 2023 including an “S” marked prohibition issued to a vehicle, was of significant concern.

• The absence of any evidence of a detailed plan of action that would address the shortcomings which would be likely to lead to sustainable improvements being made.

• That the operator was unable to account for one of his TMs and had not followed up his apparent absence.

• Fundamental, long-term and unresolved issues raised about who or what was operating the vehicles, who or what employed and controlled the drivers and how the companies were governed and met their statutory responsibilities.  

• The operators had not appeared to take up the likely benefits of informed transport advice, or to obtain independent evidence of progress for the hearing or for the future.

• Nothing the director offered within the hearing led me to conclude I can have the confidence in this director to resolve the structural issues of his businesses, or to take the steps required for the day-to-day operations to be on an even keel.

5.2 Positives:

• Roller brake testing equipment had been installed and appeared to be in use. This will have represented a positive monetary investment in the business.

• My review of records produced did not reveal stretching of maintenance frequencies.

• Decisive action had been taken within the in-house maintenance facility, albeit whilst Mr Taylor did offer some level of confidence that he might be able to manage the unit more effectively, his own view of what he found when he arrived had been scathing. He had been employed for over 2 months when four vehicles which seemed to be in significantly poor condition were encountered at Glastonbury.

• No specific concerns were raised by DVSA in relation to drivers’ hours matters. Amongst the evidence produced however were examples of a Tru Tac report in the name Coach Travel Solutions Ltd with a list of unreconciled “missing mileage”.

I find that the negatives substantially outweigh the positives so much so that I conclude that good repute has been lost. Trust has been undermined beyond immediate repair.

In the light of the findings set out in paragraph 39, I also find both the companies to be without financial standing.

I reach the conclusion that severe regulatory action is well justified here. Such action falls into the “severe” category, since good repute and financial standing are absent. Patently the operator has not taken up the last chance offered by DTC Dorrington.

The variation applications to increase these licences fall away because of my decision.

As far as professional competence is concerned, I have concluded on balance that whilst I have found TM Saad to have been a somewhat unimpressive witness, I consider his presentation to have been affected by the deferential nature of his relationship and interactions with Asif Din. I have serious concerns that he is probably “out of his depth” here and that the imbalance between the two is such that he would struggle to make his mark. I take into account that whilst VE Wilson assessed the outcomes of his investigations overall for the operator to be ‘unsatisfactory’, he scored TM Saad as ‘mostly satisfactory’. In that light and by necessarily narrow margins, I do not find his good repute to have been lost, even when I factor in that I found it “tarnished” at an earlier hearing, for a different operator. I have concluded that it would be disproportionate to find his good repute to be lost.

I do not find that the operator is without professional competence.

Clearly however, these transport businesses will be unable to operate without a licence, following their revocation which I direct. I note that a significant number of council funded school services are dependent on these operators. I factor that in to my calculation which balances the need for the licences to come to an end for reasons related my lack of confidence in Mr Din and to both road safety and fair competition in the industry, but also to the needs of users when the school year has only just begun. I understand that schools cease for half term on or about Friday 20 October 2023, so direct these licences will terminate at 23.45 hours that evening.

5.3 Transport Manager – Farid Saad

I conclude that his good repute remains intact but has been further tarnished by his shortcomings.

5.4 Transport Manager – Martin Evans

I have set out what I know of the (now) former TM, Martin Evans at paragraphs 18 and 20 - 25 above. For reasons unknown, he has chosen not to engage in these proceedings. Of course, such omission by him is of itself unbecoming of a TM. There is a legitimate expectation that TMs will respond to their regulator. He is aware that his failure to attend may mean that he is dealt with in his absence. He has been in post as TM for an extended period during which adverse findings were made by DVSA, multiple prohibitions were issued and there is scant evidence of any active role in the business. 

When DTC Dorrington directed that it would be appropriate to bolster the TM function within these two businesses, the expectation was of improvement. No such improvement is manifest. In that event, and in the absence of any explanation or assurance from him, I conclude that it would not be disproportionate to find his good repute to have been lost. As required by the relevant provisions, I declare him unfit to act in the role of TM in any traffic area and disqualify him from acting in the role of TM for a period of 2 years.

5.5 The Sole Trader Application of Farid Saad

Since I have concluded that his good repute remains intact, I have been able to find despite some reservations, which I reflected to in paragraph 34 that the modest application for a single vehicle operator’s licence is capable of grant. The details of the replacement maintenance contractor will need to be formally notified to the licensing staff at Leeds. I do however consider it appropriate that I attach to the licence a provision that requires Farid Saad to agree to commission an independent audit of his operations during the month that is 6 months from the date upon which his vehicle is nominated on the operator’s licence. The audit to be presented to my office together with his proposals for acting on any recommendations by the 15th day of the 7th month. His agreement should now be sought when the application can be granted

Simon Evans

Deputy Traffic Commissioner for the North West of England

11 September 2023.