PG电子

IN THE NORTH WEST TRAFFIC AREA

WRITTEN DECISION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER

PUBLIC INQUIRY HELD IN GOLBORNE 01 APRIL 2025 at 10.30am

A O鈥橦ara TV & Filmset Construction Ltd OC2052453

A O鈥橦ara TV & Filmset Construction Ltd (鈥淥鈥橦ara TV鈥�) holds a Restricted Goods Vehicle Operator鈥檚 Licence authorising 2 vehicles. The Director is Mr Liam O鈥橦ara. The licence was granted on 22 February 2022.

The Operator has a single operating centre, recorded as Unit 4 Park Court, Sherdley Business Park, Sullivans Way, St Helens, WA9 5GZ. Preventative Maintenance Inspections are said to be carried out by Prescott鈥檚 Independent Site Services and K&R Engineering at 8 weekly intervals.

Background

This licence came to the attention of this office as a result of an unsatisfactory DVSA Maintenance Investigation Visit Report (鈥淢IVR鈥�) dated August 2023, and an unsatisfactory follow-up Desk Based Assessment (鈥淒BA鈥�) of their maintenance systems dated October 2024. That DBA was largely deemed to be unsatisfactory as the records requested by the DVSA were not provided.

On 25 November 2024 a letter was issued by the Office of the Traffic Commissioner requesting an explanation of the circumstances surrounding the unsatisfactory assessments and requesting confirmation that the company did have access to the documents which were absent from records to be provided to the DVSA for assessment.

As the company failed to provide a response to those inquiries a letter was issued advising that this office was proposing to revoke their operator鈥檚 licence. The Operator, requested a Public Inquiry as is their right.

Pre-Hearing

A letter calling the Operator to a Public Inquiry was issued to the given correspondence address of 22 Sandra Drive, Newton-le-Willows, WA12 8QA. This set out the location, date and time of the Public Inquiry. It also provided a number of case management directions which included (i) the need to respond to this office to confirm who will be in attendance, (ii) a requirement to provide evidence of available finances 14 days prior to the Hearing date and (iii) a list of documents to be provided to the DVSA for assessment 14 days prior to the Hearing date. None of these case management directions have been complied with.

Public Inquiry

The Public Inquiry took place on Tuesday 01 April 2025 at the Golborne Hearing Centre. The Operator was in attendance by its Sole Director, Mr Liam O鈥橦ara, although, as noted above, this office received no response to the calling-in letter, nor a returned attendance sheet as directed.

Issues

The issues set out within the call-up letter are:-

a. That the Operator may have breached conditions on the licence, namely the requirement to notify changes to maintenance arrangements (once change not notified within 28 days, and another still not notified as at the date of the Hearing), and a change in business name;

b. That the Operator, on application, made statements which were either false, or have not been fulfilled, namely:

i. that vehicles would be inspected at 8 week intervals;

ii. that safety inspections, maintenance and repair work would be carried out by named providers;

iii. that the Operator would abide by the conditions of the licence.

c. That the operator has not honoured the undertakings they signed up to when applying for the licence, namely:

i. that vehicles would be kept fit and serviceable;

ii. that the operator would have appropriate systems in place to ensure vehicles would not be overloaded;

iii. that records would be kept for 15 months (to include driver defect reports, safety inspections and routine maintenance and that these would be made available on request);

iv. that drivers would report promptly any defects, or symptoms of defects in writing.

d. That since the licence was granted there has been a material change in the circumstances of its holder, namely that they no longer had access to sufficient financial resources and, on account of the above, that they were no longer not-unfit to hold an operator鈥檚 licence.

Summary of Evidence

In evidence I found Mr O鈥橦ara to be honest, genuine and reliable. He held his hands up to the lack of knowledge and the failure to provide records to this Inquiry. He advised that the only reason he attended was because a friend advised him that he should. That was sound advice, it is disappointing however that the advice didn鈥檛 go further and recommend provision of the records requested in advance of the Public Inquiry, including maintenance records and evidence of financial resources.

Having gone through the Maintenance Investigation Visit Report provided by the DVSA I accept as fact the findings they made:

e. Inspection/maintenance records were not properly completed;

f. There was no evidence of a safety defect recall system;

g. The driver defect reporting system was considered ineffective;

h. There was a failure to comply with a condition of the licence, namely to notify this office within 28 days of a change to the Operator鈥檚 maintenance providers. (It is noted that as at the date of the Public Inquiry those records were still not accurate);

i. There was no wheel security system, and no system for monitoring vehicle emissions;

j. There was little to no evidence of load security training;

k. The Operator was only able to provide a partial demonstration of Continuous Professional Development

The Operator provided a response to the MIVR which demonstrated a willingness to put effective systems in place, and a follow-up assessment was subsequently undertaken in October 2024 by way of a DVSA Desk Based Assessment.

I accept as fact the findings of that assessment, which was marked as unsatisfactory for the following reasons:

l. No maintenance/inspection records were provided. The company indicated that the Forward Planner was managed by the external maintenance provider;

m. As per the MIVR, the was no evidence of a safety defect recall system;

n. No driver defect reports were provided to the assessment nor were maintenance contracts;

o. As before, there was no evidence of a wheel security system, nor evidence of systems for monitoring vehicle emissions;

p. No response had been provided regarding load security;

q. There was no evidence provided that the previous recommendations were being implemented;

r. The repeated shortcomings suggested the responsible person had no effective control of the operations;

s. The DVSA Examiner stated that the company鈥檚 response to the DBA questionnaire indicated that the driver and/or the maintenance provider were managing most systems, and not the licence holder or it鈥檚 Director.

Mr O鈥橦ara set out that he believed he had, in fact, tried to send the requested documents for the DBA. He advised me that he communicated with the 鈥淥ffice of the Traffic Commissioner and the DVSA鈥� as he had the records requested, but just didn鈥檛 know where to send them. This position is not however supported in evidence. I find, it is more probable than not, that the communication Mr O鈥橦ara refers to is the later January correspondence. The DBA investigation was concluded in October 2024, which led to this office proposing to revoke the licence. There is evidence that the Operator engaged with OTC & DVSA from 20 January 2025 鈥� leading to the request for the Public Inquiry - but this was long after the DBA.

Considering the insistence that the materials were available, I am further confused as to why they were not provided for the Public Inquiry in line with the calling-in letter. That calling-in letter certainly made it very clear where the records were to be sent. Mr O鈥橦ara couldn鈥檛 fully explain why he didn鈥檛 send the materials, indicating that he had hoped matters would somehow resolve themselves.

The findings from the DVSA assessments are very concerning and allow me to conclude that the Operator is failing to comply with a range of undertakings on their Operator鈥檚 licence. The Operator has failed to provide any evidence that systems are now in place beyond assertions made at the Inquiry.

In addition, it has since transpired that the licence holding company has changed its name on Companies House to 鈥淗elloh Limited鈥�. This is a change that has not been notified to this office, nor replicated on the Vehicle Operator Licensing system. Mr O鈥橦ara indicated that he was himself unaware until this office informed him. He had instructed his accountant to make the change, but had not been informed it had been made.

This is consistent with the DVSA view that Mr O鈥橦ara relies on others to manage his systems.

The call-up letter to the Public Inquiry put the Operator on notice that I was concerned that there may be a further material change in the circumstances of the Operator which was relevant to the issue of the licence, namely that the facilities and arrangements for maintaining vehicles in a fit and serviceable condition may be prejudiced by reason of the Operator having insufficient financial resources for that purpose. As set out above, I issued case management directions for financial evidence to be provided ahead of the Inquiry. The failure of the Operator to furnish this Inquiry with those records is such that I make adverse findings in that regard. Mr O鈥橦ara suggested that I look at his personal bank account statements, which would, of course have been irrelevant in respect of the business finances.

Findings

I am satisfied, to the civil standard, that the Operator has breached a number of conditions of the licence, and made false statements for the purposes of obtaining an Operators licence. I make the following adverse findings.

鈥� Section 26 (1)(b) 鈥� that you have breached conditions of your licence namely the requirement to notify change of entity name, and change of maintenance provider (x 2);

鈥� Section 26(1)(e) 鈥� the statement that the vehicles would be given inspections at 8 week intervals has not been fulfilled;

鈥� Section 26(1)(e) 鈥� the statement that the vehicles would be inspected / maintained by the specified maintenance providers has not been fulfilled;

鈥� Section 26(1)(e) 鈥� the statement that the operator would abide by any conditions which may be imposed on the licence has not been fulfilled

In addition the findings of the DVSA audit, which have not been challenged, are such that I find the Operator has failed to comply with undertakings of the licence. I have received no evidence to illustrate what, if any, improvements have been made. I therefore also make the following adverse findings:-

鈥� Section 26(1)(f) 鈥� you have failed to comply with the undertaking on your licence that vehicles and trailers would be kept fit and serviceable;

鈥� Section 26(1)(f) 鈥� you have failed to comply with the undertaking on your licence that you would have arrangements to ensure vehicles and trailers would not be overloaded;

鈥� Section 26(1)(f) - you have failed to comply with the undertaking on your licence that drivers would report any defects in writing;

鈥� Section 26(1)(f) - you have failed to comply with the undertaking on your licence that maintenance records would be kept for 15 months

Finally, I conclude that the Operator has failed to satisfy me that it has, at its disposal, required financial resources and, on account of the wide range of failings above, that it remained fit to hold an Operator鈥檚 licence. I make the following adverse findings:-

鈥� Section 26(1)(h) 鈥� that since the licence was granted there has been a material change in the circumstances of the licence holder, namely that you no longer satisfy the requirement that the provision of the facilities and arrangements for maintaining the vehicles in a fit and serviceable condition is not prejudiced by reason of the applicant鈥檚 having insufficient financial resources for that purpose;

鈥� Section 26(1)(h) 鈥� that since the licence was granted there has been a material change in the circumstances of the licence holder, namely that you no longer satisfy the requirement to be 鈥榥ot unfit鈥� to hold an operator鈥檚 licence.

The findings above are significant, but I am mindful that regulatory action under provision of Section 26 is discretionary. On consideration of the guidance provided by the Senior Traffic Commissioner on starting points for regulatory action, as set out at Annex 4 of Statutory Document 10, I place this case within the category of 鈥渟evere to serious鈥�. There has been persistent operator licence failures with inadequate response. The findings of the DVSA audit include features which I consider to be road safety critical.

In the positive, Mr O鈥橦ara was very honest about his circumstances. He was a joiner by trade and this expansion into road transport had been more complex than anticipated. I was advised that improvement would be sought by way of a new driver, although Mr O鈥橦ara appeared to be relying on engagement with a self-employed driver seemingly against the advice issued by HMRC and the Senior Traffic Commissioner. In addition, I was advised that Mr O鈥橦ara sought to obtain support from others more qualified than himself. Unfortunately, he was unable to explain those qualifications or set out how that relationships would be managed. Mr O鈥橦ara also set out that he is aware of the Operator Licensing Awareness Training (OLAT) and intends to undertake that training. Unfortunately, he had not thought to sign up in advance of the Inquiry.

I am mindful of the helpful guidance provided in the Upper Tribunal decision of NT/2013/82 Arnold Transport which reminds us that actions speak louder than words:-

The attitude of an operator when something goes wrong can be very instructive. Some recognise the problem at once and take immediate and effective steps to put matters right. Others only recognise the problem when it is set out in a call-up letter and begin to put matters right in the period before the Public Inquiry takes place. A third group leave it even later and come to the Public Inquiry with promises of action in the future. A fourth group bury their heads in the sand and wait to be told what to do during the Public Inquiry.

This is an Operator who, I鈥檓 disappointed to say, failed to recognise the problem and failed to put matters right. I received some promise of future action 鈥� without supporting materials to confirm 鈥� but largely this was an Operator who has put their head in the sand in the hope that they could make things right following the Public Inquiry.

In balancing the positives and negatives of this case I find that the negatives, as detailed above, far outweigh the limited positives. Any direction other than revocation would be perverse in the circumstances. I am advised that this business can survive without its Operator鈥檚 licence, although the Operator does see the commercial and organisational benefits of having in-house transport operations.

I therefore make a direction under provisions set out above that this licence be revoked. I allow 28 days for the Operator to bring transport operations to an orderly closure.

On consideration of Mr O鈥橦ara鈥檚 candour at the Public Inquiry I step back from any order of disqualification. Should Mr O鈥橦ara wish to reapply at some point in the future I strongly recommend that the application is supported with evidence of training and the appropriate support he recognised as being currently absent.

David Mullan

Traffic Commissioner for the North West of England

01 April 2025