Decision for Hardings Ready Mix Ltd (OF2052422)
Written Confirmation of the decision of the Traffic Commissioner in the East of England for Hardings Ready Mix Ltd
IN THE EASTERN TRAFFIC AREA
HARDINGS READY MIX LTD – OF2052422
CONFIRMATION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER’S DECISION
Background
Hardings Ready Mix Ltd holds a Restricted Goods Vehicle Operator’s Licence authorising 5 vehicles and 1 trailer. The Directors recorded on VOL were as follows: Stuart Alan Farmer and Sophie Lumley. It emerged that Ms Lumley resigned on 4 March 2025.
There is one Operating Centre at Seven Acre Farm, Aylesbury Road, Aston Clinton, Aylesbury HP22 5AH. Preventative Maintenance Inspections are said to be carried out by C C S - Comprehensive Commercial Services Ltd and APR Engineering Ltd at 12-weekly intervals, despite the age of the vehicles. A contract was signed in November 2024 suggesting 6-weekly inspections, but that was not implemented (see below).
The operator’s licence commenced on 21 February 2022. This licence was considered at Public Inquiry on 2 July 2024 predominantly due to financial concerns. A formal warning was issued after two additional undertakings were given: for a finance review by 21 November 2024 and for all vehicles to undergo a roller brake test as part of every Preventative Maintenance Inspection.
The Companies House register records a change of directorship in October 2024: Stuart Farmer was appointed as a Director on 8 October 2024; Sophie Lumley was appointed as a director and Person of Significant Control on 16 October 2024; Benjamin Mason resigned on 18 October 2024. Douglas Crowe, was appointed as a director on 20 November 2024. I was not informed of that appointment. He resigned on 14 January 2025 but appears to have retained two VOL user identities allowing access to this licence record, both with administrative access. ID REDACTED was created on 21 October 2024 and REDACTED was created on 10 January 2022.Neither of the current directors appear to enjoy self-service access.
Mr Crowe previously held a sole trader licence, OF1116065, until its revocation on 10 November 2023. In correspondence he was informed that he was disqualified from 3 January 2024 for a period of no less than five years from holding or obtaining any type of operator’s licence in any traffic area and from being the director of any company holding or obtaining such a licence, pursuant to section 28 (1), (4) and (5) of the 1995 Act. Companies House records indicate that a Doug Crowe is the sole director of Doug Crowe Haulage Ltd – Company number 12028703. That company’s status is recorded as subject to a proposal to strike off. The nature of business is described as ‘freight transport by road’. Mr Crowe and Ms Lumley have the same correspondence address (32 Pineapple Road, Amersham)
Hearing
The Public Inquiry was listed for today, 27 March 2025, in Tribunal Room 1 of the Office of the Traffic Commissioner in Cambridge. The operator was present in the form of Mr Farmer, Director, represented by Carolyn Evans of CE Transport Law.
Issues
The public inquiry was called at the request of the operators and following notice dated 13 January 2025 that I was considering grounds to intervene in respect of this licence and specifically by reference to the following sections of the Goods Vehicle (Licensing of Operators) Act:
• 26(1)(b) – conditions on licence to notify changes, in this case relating to management and the availability of finance.
• 26(1)(e) – statements relating to conditions on the licence.
• 26(1)(f) – undertakings (vehicles to be kept fit and serviceable, effective driver defect reporting, complete maintenance records)
• 26(1)(h) – material change in fitness to hold the licence and in the availability of finance required.
• 28 – Disqualification.
The operator was directed to lodge evidence in support by 13 March 2025, including financial, maintenance and other compliance documentation. I was referred to unverified bank statements. It was suggested that the credit card supplier would not produce zero balance statements. By email dated 17 March 2025, it was suggested that I might contact the bank direct. I declined to communicate with ‘Railsbank’ or Paynet Ltd or any of the other suppliers named on those statements. The Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document No. 2 has long set out the forms of evidence which a traffic commissioner will consider. The operator chose these financial suppliers and must therefore have determined that they were suitable despite the published guidance. I refer to the appellate Tribunal’s decisions in 2013/030 MGM Haulage Ltd and Morgan J Ltd [2024] UKUT 337 (AAC).
Infringement reports were provided for Drivers Douglas Crowe and Les Hatch. Both show infringements for insufficient breaks and work periods exceeded. The reports are not signed. Evidence of toolbox talks was provided but there were no dates given.
Summary of Evidence
The operator failed to submit financial evidence in compliance with the licence undertaking. Correspondence was issued requesting an explanation for the failure to comply with the undertaking. Details were requested of the new Director(s) and their understanding/experience in operator licensing and any steps proposed to equip themselves to deliver the operator licence requirements. The Directors were also reminded of Douglas Crowe’s disqualification. They were requested to supply an explanation of his involvement in the business.
In email correspondence, Mr Farmer advised that he acquired a 50% shareholding on 8 October 2024. In fact he acquired a 25% holding which was then extended by a further 25% thereafter. His background is in construction, and he suggested that “since becoming a person of control I have been going through a hand over period with the previous director Ben Mason, and their transport manager Christopher Armstrong, as a FORS accredited operator their knowledge has been invaluable to me. I can confirm that I am working towards obtaining my OLAT qualification at the end of my acquisition and hand over. This is booked for 27 January 2025. Douglas Crowe is currently our batcher, passing on his knowledge pertaining to batching concrete, quantifying material, ordering material”.
Unverified bank statements addressed to ‘Douglas Michael William Crowe, Hardings Ready Mix Ltd.’ were emailed by Mr Farmer on 1 January 2025. The average of the statements covering the period of the undertaking was not sufficient to demonstrate the required sum although there was an improving balance in the latter part of October 2024. A screenshot of one unverified credit card statement dated 27 October 2024 was also provided.
The bank statements also disclosed a number of transactions between Doug Crowe Haulage Ltd: between 7 August 2024 – 22 October 2024 Doug Crowe Haulage Ltd made six payments into the business account totalling REDACTED. This includes a REDACTED injection on 22 October 2024. During a similar period, Doug Crowe Haulage Ltd received 18 payments from the business account totalling REDACTED. Between 24 – 26 October 2024 REDACTED was paid to Doug Crowe Haulage Ltd. This was described as a director loan. Wage payments of REDACTED were made to Sophie Lumley on 4, 11, 18 & 25 October. The updated statements showed wages being paid to Ms Lumley and to a Les Hatch (see below). There are regular payments to Doug Crowe Haulage Ltd, with one payment made to Mr Farmer on 22 December 2024 REDACTED.
Since the change of Directors, the correspondence and email addresses have not been updated on VOL and may still relate to the former director Benjamin Mason. In addition, there has been no notification of the use of Chambers Engineering Ltd as a contractor. Records produced by that supplier do not include brake test print-outs, with results written in the inspection sheet, so records are incomplete. Where print outs are available, whilst difficult to read, there appear to be notable imbalances. The pro-forma appears to apply out of date standards, which are not fully consistent with the Current Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness, referring instead to VOSA and the 2003 consolidated inspection manual. Minimal driver defect reports were provided, and driver detectable defects appear on the Preventative Maintenance Inspection records. By way of illustration, I refer to LJ16 FSE • 17 February 2025 – inspection with roller brake test indicated, but 47%, 26%, 20%, despite being preparation for annual test. It also refers to defective wings/ stays, lamps/markers and tyres with EML illuminated on the dashboard, with no corresponding driver defect report.
• 19 January 2025 – inspection (14 + weeks since the previous) with roller brake test indicated, but no print-out: 28%, 46%, 28%. It also refers to defective washers, security of body, wing bracket and rear markings (again) with no corresponding driver defect report.
• 12 October 2024 – inspection (12+ weeks since the previous) with roller brake test indicated, but no print-out: 27%, 44%, 28%. It also refers to defective mirror, indicator and rear markings with no corresponding driver defect report.
• 17 July 2024 – inspection by APR Engineering Ltd with roller brake test, but 46%, 19 % and possible imbalance of 34%. It also refers to defective rear lamps and side markers, mirror, indicator and rear markings, with dash warnings illuminated but with no corresponding driver defect report.
Mr Farmer provided a statement in email form, immediately before the Public Inquiry in which he detailed his professional and business experience. He became involved with the procurement of the Utranazz batching plant and belly silo along with the associated training when MC Concrete (now Hardings Readmix Concrete) was established in 2021. However, since the plant went live in 2021 he has had limited involvement as cement has been in short supply during busy periods for many reasons not least the building of HS2. In October 2024, Mr Mason indicated that he wanted to leave the business and Mr Farmer was approached with a view to buying into Hardings. Mr Farmer referred to this being the only independent concrete supplier in the area with impending expansion and an impressive turnover. There were “shortcomings” and referred to Mr Crowe having his operator’s license revoked and slim margins and seasonal trading fluctuations in weather. The terms agreed were that he would enter the business, audit, streamline and restructure it. The handover period started in mid-October 2024. Internal politics between directors and our transport consultant meant communication was poor at best and that things were getting missed.
It has proved very difficult to value the business due to the absence of administration and written agreements. Mr Mason decided to depart the business in order to concentrate on his grab hire operations. He also owns the Operating Centre and is seeking to increase the size of that site. Mr Crowe therefore bought him out without really appreciating the impact of the disqualification direction. That approach is also reflected in the haphazard approach to paperwork suggested by my observations above. Mr Crowe’s role is now limited to that of batcher, part-time driver, booker and for ordering concrete. However, his name still appeared on the invoice supplied by the current contractor
Mr Farmer quickly identified that the fleet needed to be reduced from 4 vehicles to 2 x 32 tonnes to reduce our administration and running costs, increase productivity and concentrate maintenance requirements. A wall planner was developed and added to the office wall along with a defect board. The board now shows inspection dates, annual tests and insurance and vehicle excise renewals, with entries signed and dated. A defect reporting procedure has been produced, training has been given and the training pack signed to confirm understanding. I saw evidence of undated toolbox talks apparently prepared with the assistance of Mr Armstrong.
Mr Farmer had changed the maintenance provider but on examination of the records he accepted the need to revisit those arrangements, to make sure that up to date standards are applied and records properly complete. He also accepted that the intervals between inspections needed to be reduced, given the age of vehicles. He indicated that he has asked for Preventative Maintenance sheets to be updated and commissioned laden brake testing – at 80%. Mr Farmer indicated that he was working to produce policies covering but not limited to wheel security, tyre management and defect reporting, safe systems of work including loading and unloading of vehicles, working in noisily or dusty environments. From my questioning, it was obvious that he required assistance to implement the basic systems required of an operator’s licence.
I heard that both Drivers Crowe and Hatch are now employed and subject to PAYE. Ms Lumley remains as a shareholder and her resignation as Director represents her minimal role.
Determination
The operator and specifically Sophie Lumley and Stuart Farmer, were put on notice that I wished to consider whether they had fulfilled the duties of Directors or whether they had acted in name only - by reference to the Upper Tribunals guidance in 2011/034 Utopia Traction Ltd; and 2012/071 Silvertree Transport Ltd. In evidence, I was told that Ms Lumley was only ever appointed to protect the financial interests of Mr Crowe and had never acted as a Director, despite the statutory requirements of the Companies Act 2006. Her resignation meant that it was not necessary for me to record a formal direction, but I have recorded this fact in case she is minded to make a similar application in future. The Senior Traffic Commissioner usefully refers to the decision in 2003/350 Al Madina Transport Ltd in Statutory Document No. 5 on Legal Entities: “Directors have collective responsibility for the company that they manage. It is their responsibility to set the standards that employees are expected to meet; it is their responsibility to ensure that those standards are actually met, and that undertakings and promises made in their name are complied with”. A person should never allow themselves to be appointed in name only.
The operator sought to rely on the Upper Tribunal decision in 2012/046 Pradeep Kumar Sharma t/a RS Fruitstore, to apparently argue that I should not require the operator to produced original financial evidence for the purposes of this public inquiry. On appeal of my decision, the Tribunal indicated that a traffic commissioner only has to consider section 13D if he “thinks fit”. In other words he has discretion as to whether or not it is appropriate to take this provision into account. The terms of section 13D apply to both standard and restricted licences:
“The requirement of this section is that the provision of the facilities and arrangements for maintaining the vehicles in a fit and serviceable condition (see section 13C(4) is not prejudiced by reason of the applicant’s having insufficient financial resources for that purpose”.
The Tribunal was critical on that occasion that I had not explained the relevance of section 13D to that particular case. I do so now for the purposes of this hearing by reference to my observations on the state of maintenance documentation. It assumes greater importance when questions arise as to the management of the entity. It had only recently come to Mr Farmer’s attention as he was not responsible for selecting the financial provider. It is important to avoid contortions in trying to distinguish too much between restricted and standard licences as the decision in 2023/255 Kevin Roy Griggs t/a KDP Skips and Waste Removal helps to illustrate. In the end, the Tribunal concluded that fitness requirement for a Restricted Licence was not markedly different or less than repute. The case was not fully argued and omits reference to section 8. 2018/010 Ingram t/a T.I.P. Skips in which the Tribunal pointed out that the Act does not draw a watertight distinction between good repute and fitness considerations, since fitness is an integral part of good repute. That is reflected in 2013/082 Arnold Transport. Even where the Tribunal questioned the helpfulness of the Priority Freight question, it supported the DTC’s application. The impact of non-compliance presents an “equal menace to public safety”.
The operator’s representative then referred to its application in a different jurisdiction in NT2015/015 Peter Martin Haughey, where that particular Bench appeared more concerned with the transition to the new licensing regime within that constituent country, which has been a recurring subject for comment. That is in marked contrast to the long-established jurisdiction in Great Britain and the additional statutory provisions to which I refer below. The successful ground related to the question of a material change of circumstances and the state of knowledge when the licence was issued. In that case, the court was apparently unclear as to the appellant’s financial position as of the date of the grant of the licence because the Department in Northern Ireland had relied on a self-declaration to that effect and did not, at that stage, actively pursue the issue.
I turn back to the decision in Sharma, with all respect to what was a strong Bench, that was decided at a time when the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Documents were in their first iteration. It is for that reason that the operator’s representative was directed to the explicit instruction in the call up letter and Statutory Document No. 2, paragraphs 24, 52, 54, 55, and especially 67, Annexes 1 and 5. The impact Morgan J Ltd [2024] UKUT 337 (AAC). That case was also concerned with a restricted licence. It referred to Statutory Document No. 2 and the approach of the Senior Traffic Commissioner, requiring a “certain degree of proven financial stability is necessary in order to be confident that an applicant for an operator’s licence will achieve the relevant regulatory ends (the purpose for which a certain amount of finance must be available), which, in a case such as the present, is the provision by an operator of facilities and arrangements to maintain its vehicles in a fit and serviceable condition. That view is not irrational; in fact, it is the opposite of irrational. Given the vicissitudes of life (and vehicles), it cannot be said with any confidence that effective facilities and arrangements for vehicle maintenance will be secured unless the operator enjoys a certain degree of financial stability. Statutory Document No.2’s direction for financial evidence to cover at least 28 days is not irrational, using that term in its well-established legal sense. It follows from the above that, in following Statutory Document No.2 and requiring the Appellant to provide at least 28 days of financial evidence in an acceptable form, the present Commissioner’s decision involved no error on a point of law.” As a matter of law, I must have regard to the statutory guidance, and I must follow the statutory directions.
Mr Farmer accepted the requirement to produce original or verified bank statements and had recently applied to open a current account with Metro Bank. His very recent attendance on OLAT had made him realise how much there was to do in order to be compliant. I was assured that there would be 28-day downloads of cards and vehicle units with Tachomaster-produced reports to be raised with the drivers.
Based on the evidence summarised above, I was satisfied that I should record adverse findings in relation to the following sections of the Act: 26(1)(b) – conditions on licence to notify changes, in this case relating to management and the availability of finance, 26(1)(e) – statements relating to conditions on the licence, 26(1)(f) – undertakings for vehicles to be kept fit and serviceable, effective driver defect reporting, complete maintenance records, 26(1)(h) – material change in the availability of finance required.
Applying the approach approved in 2013/007 Redsky Wholesalers Ltd, by asking the question: is this an operator capable of ensuring compliance, I advised Mr Farmer that if he were appearing before me seeking a new licence, I would not be minded to grant that application based on his knowledge. I was faced with the prospect of ending a business with good financial prospects. I therefore sought and obtained undertakings which must be stringently complied with, if the operation is to continue. There are unlikely to be any second chances:
• To submit for a finance review 4 months from the date of Public Inquiry where the average over three months of up to date financial statements must meet the required sum in order to support maintenance.
• Within 30 days of the date of the Public Inquiry the operator is to produce and implement policies and procedures in order to meet all the obligations of the operator’s licence.
• The operator will, within that 30-day period, retain the services of a transport consultant for at least 1 day per month to assist and advice on compliance with the operator licence requirements. The services of Prestige were mentioned.
• To identify an independent body (i.e. not an existing consultant to carry out an audit of all licence compliance systems. The audit will assess the operator against the standards published under the DVSA earned recognition scheme: www.gov.uk/government/publications/dvsa-earned-recognition-vehicle-operator-standards A copy of the report together with the operator’s detailed proposals for implementing the report’s recommendations is to be submitted to the Office of the Traffic Commissioner in Cambridge within 6 months of the date of the Public Inquiry. The audit will assess the systems for complying with maintenance and drivers hours requirements, and the effectiveness with which those systems are implemented. The audit should cover at least the applicable elements detailed in the guidance on Operator Compliance Audits at: www.gov.uk/government/publications/operator-compliance-audits
I was therefore able to draw back from revocation of the operator’s licence. However, deterrent intervention was required in order to bring home to this operator and others observing that this type of failure is not acceptable and will not be accepted going forward. The licence was therefore curtailed to 2 vehicles and 1 trailer from 23:45 tonight.
R Turfitt
Traffic Commissioner
27 March 2025