PG电子

IN THE NORTH WEST TRAFFIC AREA

CLM Haulager Services Limited OC2073595

& Transport Manager Mr Celio Negrelli

WRITTEN DECISION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER

PUBLIC INQUIRY HELD IN GOLBORNE ON 01 APRIL 2025 at 2:00pm

---

鈥楥LM Haulager Services Limited鈥� (鈥淐LM鈥�) holds a Standard International Goods Vehicle Operator鈥檚 Licence authorising 2 vehicles. The Director is Mr Elliot Randle.

The Operator鈥檚 licence record lists a single operating centre, recorded as 480 Hawthorne Road, Liverpool, L20 9PP. Preventative Maintenance Inspections are said to be carried out by Tameside Truck & Trailer and AP Fleet Services at 6-weekly intervals.

Until 20 February 2025 the only listed Transport Manager was Mr Celio Negrelli. On that date Mr Negrelli removed himself from the Operator鈥檚 licence using the VOL self-service functionality.

Background

This Operator had their licence granted on 20 June 2024, over 7 months ago, and since that date has never specified a vehicle on the licence. In addition, this office was informed by the owner of 480 Hawthorne Road, the given operating centre address, that the Operator never had access to that site. The letter stated 鈥淐LM Haulager Services Limited has never been authorised to use my premises as their Operating Centre and the company is not registered to park any vehicles at this address鈥�. The Operator provided, in response to this office, a copy of an invoice from the owner which clearly sets out that any arrangement was subject to an initial payment. No evidence of payment is provided.

Subsequently, a letter proposing to revoke the licence was issued, dated 19 September 2024. The Operator replied to the letter and advised that he was in the process of securing a new operating centre. On that basis the revocation proceedings were ceased, allowing until 30 November 2024 for matters to be resolved.

As the position remained unchanged a further propose to revoke letter was issued on the 01 December 2024 highlighting, further, the failure to specify a vehicle on the licence since it was granted in July 2024. A lengthy, but unclear, response was provided which confirmed that a new operating centre had not been applied for, that no vehicles were specified and that a Public Inquiry was requested.

Throughout this time Mr Negrelli remained listed as Transport Manager.

Pre-Hearing

Separate letters were issued calling the Operator and the Transport Manager to a Public Inquiry. Each confirmed receipt of those letters.

On 20 February 2025, after the call-up letters were issued, Mr Negrelli resigned from his position as Transport Manager.

The Operator subsequently applied for a period of grace until 01 April 2025 in order to allow time for an alternative Transport Manager to be nominated. A period of grace was granted.

Public Inquiry

The Public Inquiry took place on Tuesday 01 April 2025 at the Golborne Hearing Centre. The Transport Manager, Mr Negrelli, was in attendance. The Operator did not attend, however, the sole Director, Mr Elliot Randle, had made contact with my office earlier in the morning. He advised that due to a personal issue he was unable to attend. He emailed records and a written statement for my consideration at the Hearing. He did not ask for an adjournment but my office did ask if he was content for the statement to be put to me in lieu of his attendance, and for a decision to be made based on the evidence and statement in his absence. Mr Randle responded in the affirmative.

On account of Mr Randle鈥檚 circumstances and correspondence I first considered whether it was appropriate to proceed with the Hearing. I took account of the guidance issued by the Senior Traffic Commissioner at paragraph 27 of Statutory Document 9, which states

The Traffic Commissioner is entitled to expect that the party called to a Hearing will submit any application for an adjournment.

It is noted that Mr Randle, well aware of the Hearing and the issues, did not ask for an adjournment. I was also mindful that this was a conjoined Hearing and the other party, Mr Negrelli was in attendance. Finally, I was also mindful that my Public Inquiry room is scheduled for Hearings until late June, therefore any adjournment would not be brief.

I consider that the written statement provided for the purposes of the Public Inquiry - and provided on the morning of the Hearing after confirming he would not be in attendance - was intended by Mr Randle to be considered at the Hearing. He also supplied the additional records in the knowledge that he would not be attending. Finally, I consider his communication to my team at 14:11 on 01 April 2025 as being an acknowledgement to continue.

On consideration of the above, I proceeded with the Hearing.

Issues

The issues set out within the call-up letter for the licence holding company are:

鈥� Operating Centre - that since the operator licence was granted on 20 June 2024 this Operator has never had access to the listed operating centre;

鈥� Establishment - that since the operator licence was granted on 20 June 2024 this Operator has never listed a vehicle against the licence;

鈥� Financial Standing - As the Operator does not have access to vehicles, and is listed on Companies House as a business engaged in 鈥淔reight Transport By Road鈥�, I was no longer satisfied that they met the requirement to have appropriate financial standing;

鈥� Professional Competence - the Operator no longer had a transport manager, and the period of grace had expired.

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

鈥� TM Good Repute - that Mr Negrelli failed to notify this office that the operating centre was no longer available and that the licence did not have access to a vehicle, and failed to ensure that this was corrected;

鈥� TM Genuine Link - that despite, seemingly, no work to do, Mr Negrelli continued to be paid as a transport manager to have his name attributed to the licence.

Summary of Evidence

Operating Centre

On application the Operator listed 480 Hawthorne Road as the operating centre. Subsequently it was never used. Mr Randle blamed the landlord and states in correspondence that the details of the arrangements weren鈥檛 clear. I disagree. The evidence before me is an invoice which offers the space subject to payment. Mr Randle has provided no evidence of that payment.

Mr Randle was put on notice of this issue back in October 2024. He was allowed a period of time, until 30 November 2024 to make an application for a new operating centre. He failed to do so.

In evidence Mr Negrelli provided copies of WhatsApp conversations with Mr Randle across a range of dates starting in October 2024. There are multiple promises made by Mr Randle that this was 鈥榖eing taken care of鈥�. He had instructed 鈥淐ompass鈥� to do this, and was insistent of that, despite assurances from Mr Negrelli that it was an easy process and could be quickly done

As at the date of the Public Inquiry, the Operator had still failed to make any application to change the operating centre.

Establishment

In his written statement Mr Randle states he had been advised not to add any vehicles to the licence until he had an operating centre. I understand this advice, as any such vehicle would not have had an approved parking location.

Initially I was confused as Mr Randle鈥檚 statement seemed to suggest that this office had somehow prevented him adding a vehicle. Mr Negrelli clarified that the advice came from what he described as Mr Randle鈥檚 鈥渟olicitor鈥� and referred to 鈥淐ompass鈥�. I note that this office has never received any communication from persons pertaining to be Mr Randle鈥檚 legal representatives. I therefore apply little weight to that but take from it that there was no obstruction to the Operator updating their records. VOL user access was in place and had been used as recently as 20 February 2025 by Mr Negrelli to remove himself from the Operator鈥檚 licence. Any failure to add vehicles to the licence was the Operator鈥檚 failure alone.

The obstruction to that, being the availability of a suitable operating centre, was also the Operator鈥檚 failure.

Mr Negrelli advised me that whilst they did have an early business plan, the business has no access to vehicles that he is aware off. This is supported by the WhatsApp messages where this point is referenced more than once.

Financial Standing

In evidence the Operator provided three separate bank statements 鈥� for December 2024, January 2025 and March 2025. As February 2025 was missing it was not possible to complete an assessment of available finances over a three month period in line with the guidance set out by the Senior Traffic Commissioner at Statutory Document 2.

Professional Competence

On 14 March 2025 the Operator emailed my office 鈥渞equesting a period of grace to appoint the new transport manager up until 1st April when we attend the public enquiry鈥�. I approved that period of grace on the basis that this Inquiry was upcoming. I note that, as at the date of the Inquiry no application has been submitted to nominate a Transport Manager.

Transport Manager Good Repute

Mr Negrelli advised me in evidence that the first he was aware that the operating centre was unavailable was the notification from this office dated 19 September 2024. This is supported by the WhatsApp messages which evidence him querying the position with Mr Randle, and receiving assurances that the issue is being resolved. Those assurances continued for some time. When I challenged Mr Negrelli as to how an employed Transport Manager could avoid visiting an operating centre for so long, he advised that there was no need as there was no work for him to do on account of no vehicles being used.

The same position applies in regard to the vehicles. I am advised that initially Mr Randle had to work a period of notice for a previous employer. This affected the commencement of transport operations and obtaining vehicles. That was then followed by a family tragedy which again delayed matters. There were then a number of promises that matters would be resolved imminently, and those promises repeated themselves, with further assurances of assistance from solicitors and 鈥淐ompass鈥�. Mr Negrelli advised that it was only after the call-up letter and further inaction by Mr Randle that he decided to withdraw his services as Transport Manager.

Transport Manager Genuine Link

Mr Negrelli and Mr Randle each provided separate copies of a contract for transport manager services and evidence of payment. Mr Negrelli explained to me that he reduced his rate by half as he wasn鈥檛 active on the licence. When I challenged him as to why he took any payment at all, he explained that, as he could only be listed on four licences as an External Transport Manager, he required a retainer (although he didn鈥檛 use that word).

I queried whether that might be interpreted as receiving payment to have his name used to legitimise a non-compliant Operator. Mr Negrelli assured me that this was not the case. Since the agreement he was always assured that live operations would commence imminently 鈥� but something always cropped up, such as the working of Mr Randle鈥檚 notice, family circumstances and personal issues. Mr Negrelli took Mr Randle on his word that operations would be commencing 鈥渟oon鈥�.

Findings

Having listened to the evidence from Mr Negrelli, I conclude that much of it is largely aligned to the communications, evidence, and statement of Mr Randle. It is unfortunate that I was unable to cross examine the statements but, in the main, I consider the issues to be straightforward.

Operating Centre

Section 13(5) of the 1995 Act sets out that all Operator licences 鈥渕ust specify at least one place, in the traffic area concerned, as an operating centre of the licence-holder, and each place so specified must be available and suitable for use as an operating centre of the licence holder鈥�. I conclude, on the balance of probability, that the initial application was genuine but failure to pay the invoice resulted in any agreement failing. The evidence before me is such that I find to the civil standard that the notified operating centre is not available to the licence holder and never has been.

I therefore make adverse findings under :

鈥� Section 26(1)(h) - that this represents a material change in the circumstances that were relevant to the issue of the licence;

鈥� Section 26(1)(b) - that a condition has been breached, namely the requirement to notify this office of such a change within 28 days;

鈥� Section 26(1)(e) 鈥� that the licence holder made, for the purposes of the application for the licence, a statement of expectation that has not been fulfilled.

Establishment

Section 13A(2)(a) of the 1995 Act sets out that a requirement for a standard licence is that the applicant has an effective and stable establishment in GB as determined in accordance with paragraph A1 of Schedule 3. Paragraph A1 of Schedule 3 includes the requirement that the Operator 鈥渉as access to one or more goods vehicles that are authorised to be used under the person鈥檚 operator鈥檚 licence鈥�.

The facts of this case are that, since the grant of the licence, this Operator has never had a vehicle authorised for use under the licence. Whilst I understand the 鈥渃atch 22鈥� scenario of being unable to specify vehicles without having a suitable and available operating centre in which to park them, any failing in that regard is of the Operator鈥檚 own doing. The result is that the establishment criteria is not satisfied, and has not been satisfied since the licence was first granted.

In NT/2013/82 Arnold Transport & Sons Ltd v DOENI we are reminded that such requirements are continuous and mandatory and must be satisfied at all times:

鈥淭he grant of an operator鈥檚 licence does not mean that an operator can then proceed on the basis that the requirements that must be met in order to obtain a licence can thereafter be disregarded鈥�these are continuing obligations, which an operator is expected to meet throughout the life of the licence鈥�.

The point was further endorsed, specifically in respect of failure to specify vehicles, in UA-2022-000480-NT Mr Mark McBurney t/a MMB Haulage where the Upper Tribunal stated at Paragraph 15 :

鈥�The Appellant had not had access to a vehicle and had taken no positive steps towards gaining access to one even when he was warned that failure to make use of it could result in the licence being revoked鈥�As was stated in the case of 2009/225 Priority Freight Ltd & Paul Williams 鈥渁ctions speak louder than words鈥� and had positive actions been taken after the warnings, even if they had not resulted in immediate access to a vehicle, the DfI may have been able to take a different view on this matter but unfortunately the regulations are clear. There must be access to a vehicle in order to hold an operator鈥檚 licence and the Appellant鈥檚 failure to do this means that the regulatory requirements were not being met. Consequently, the Central Licensing Office within the DfI had no choice but to revoke the Appellant鈥檚 operator鈥檚 licence. Unfortunately for the Appellant, the hands of the UT are also tied in this regard. The decision of the DfI to revoke this licence is not 鈥減lainly wrong鈥� and the decision must stand.

In respect of establishment I make an adverse finding under Section 27(1)(a), that the licence-holder no longer satisfies the requirement to have an effective and stable establishment.

Financial Standing

The calling-in letter set out the requirement for the Operator to provide evidence of financial standing. This requested 鈥渙riginal bank statements for the last three months鈥�. The Operator failed to provide the past three months as February 2025 was omitted, therefore the Operator has failed to provide acceptable evidence of financial standing.

At Paragraph 21 of the Senior Traffic Commissioner鈥檚 Statutory Document Number 2 financial evidence is set out for existing licence holders as being three months of bank statements (with statements covering 28 days allowed for new applicants). The Upper Tribunal has endorsed decisions referring to non-compliance with the requirements set out in Statutory Document 2 at paragraph 21 of 2023/511 Morgan J Ltd

鈥溾��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鈥檚 decision involved no error on a point of law鈥�

I consider the same to be true of the requirement for existing licence holders to provide three months of financial evidence. I therefore make an adverse finding under Section 27(1)(a), that the licence-holder no longer satisfies the requirement to have appropriate financial standing.

Professional Competence

I made a previous finding that this Operator no longer satisfied the requirement commonly referred to as professional competence 鈥� the need to have a Transport Manager who meets the requirements set out in Schedule 3 of the 1995 Act. A period of grace was requested, accepting the finding that the requirement was no longer satisfied, and granted. I allowed until 01 April 2025 for a new Transport Manager to be appointed and approved.

As at the day of the Hearing no application to nominate a Transport Manager was received and the requirement was not satisfied upon the expiration of the period of grace.

As per the Senior Traffic Commissioners Guidance in Statutory Document No. 2 (Paragraph 27) 鈥淚f a period of grace expires without the mandatory requirement being met then the Traffic Commissioner is obliged to revoke the Operator鈥檚 licence鈥�. This position supported by the Upper Tribunal in the ruling of T/2021/52 Ian James Blackmur trading as IJB Transport which states:

鈥渢he operator must satisfy the traffic commissioner of the requirements within the PofG. There is no extension of time in order to supply the necessary evidence鈥� and 鈥淥nce a PofG has expired without the operator complying with its terms, a traffic commissioner shall revoke the licence when the matter is referred to him.鈥�

In the continued absence of any approved Transport Manager I make an adverse finding under Section 27(1)(a), that the licence-holder no longer has designated a suitable number of individuals who satisfy the requirement to be a transport manager.

Transport Manager

I am satisfied that Mr Negrelli was clearly aware, both in evidence and as demonstrated in the WhatsApp messages, of the requirements to have an operating centre and to have access to vehicles. I am also satisfied that he made efforts to ensure this position was corrected. I believe he could have done more and could have been quicker. I do, however, accept his evidence as sincere and it鈥檚 supported by WhatsApp messages.

My concern that he has allowed his name to be added to a licence for convenience isn鈥檛 made out. I consider that both he and the Operator signed the Transport Manager contract in good faith. The fact that no vehicles were added to the licence is such that there was no commercial gain, or risk, associated with him being named as Transport Manager.

I do, however criticise him for not withdrawing his services sooner than he did.

For this, I issue a warning to Mr Negrelli in his capacity as Transport Manager. I take no further action and step back from any finding that good repute was lost.

Decision

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 failed to recognise the problem and failed to put matters right. There were multiple promises to put things right, but no action taken. Even as at the day of the Inquiry these fundamental gaps in the requirement to hold an Operator鈥檚 licence remained. I have no evidence and no confidence that this Operator has any intention to make the necessary changes.

In considering the starting point for regulatory action as set out in the Senior Traffic Commissioners guidance at Annex 4 of Statutory Document No.10, I place this Operator into the category of 鈥淪evere to Serious鈥� as there has been persistent Operator licence failures without adequate response.

I consider the 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鈥檚 licensing regime? I answer in the negative. The evidence before me in respect of this licence 鈥� particularly the consistent failure to resolve the issues at hand 鈥� leads me to conclude that this is an Operator that cannot be so trusted.

I go on to consider the question posed by the Upper Tribunal in 2002/217 Bryan Haulage namely, 鈥渋s the conduct such that the operator ought to be put out of business?鈥� I answer this in the positive. The negative features of this case are well laid out above. The only mitigation I can identify is the unfortunate personal circumstances of the Director, but any positives are far outweighed by the negatives.

I therefore make a direction under provisions of Section 26 & 27 set out above that this licence be revoked. I consider immediate revocation is justified and proportionate as the Operator has no vehicles in use and therefore there will be no impact on lawful operations.

On consideration of the unfortunate circumstances experienced by Mr Randle, I hold back from any direction to disqualify him or the company from holding an Operator鈥檚 licence in the future. I would, however, expect any future application to be supported with a nominated Operating Centre and Transport Manager which will stand up to scrutiny by this office

David Mullan

Traffic Commissioner for the North West of England

02 April 2025