扒哥吃瓜

SOUTH EASTERN AND METROPOLITAN TRAFFIC AREA

DECISION OF THE DEPUTY TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER

PUBLIC INQUIRY HEARD AT IVY HOUSE, IVY TERRACE, EASTBOURNE ON 26 MAY 2026

OK2078662 DEADCERT RECOVERY LIMITED

Background

Deadcert Recovery Limited holds a standard national operator鈥檚 licence authorising four vehicles and one trailer granted on the 9 October 2025. The director at the date of grant was Mason Newman although Companies House shows that Gary Newman was added as a director on Companies House records on the 8 September 2025. The transport manager designated on the licence is Raymond Gambling. Gary Newman was the sole director of Deadcert (UK) Limited and Mr Gambling was the transport manager on that licence. The licence was revoked on the 14 April 2026 upon a failure by the operator to respond to requests for information sought by the Traffic Commissioner.

Mr Gambling is also the transport manager on the licence held by Kingspit Transport Limited, whose directors are linked to the restricted licence held by King Concrete Pumping Limited and the revoked restricted licence held by King Concrete Limited. Mr Gambling acted as a transport consultant to those two companies and a DVSA investigation identified substantial and significant compliance failings in relation to King Concrete Pumping Limited.
In light of the DVSA findings and the surrounding circumstances the Traffic Commissioner decided to call the operator to a joint public inquiry to be held with the licence held by Kingspit Transport Ltd, OK1124915, and the standard national licence held by Deadcert Recovery Ltd, OK2078662 authorising four vehicles and one trailer, for whom Raymond Gambling is the nominated transport manager.

The Public Inquiry

Simon Sparkes attended the inquiry as a director of King Concrete Pumping Limited. His wife and co-director Holly Sparkes had written in advance explaining her inability to attend. Mr Sparkes was accompanied by a transport consultant Mr Miles who had written to me in advance of the hearing. Nigel Leach attended as a director of Kingspit Transport Limited and a former director of King Concrete Pumping Limited and King Concrete Limited. He said that his co-director Nicola Adams was unable to attend through ill health. Mason Newman and Gary Newman attended as directors of Deadcert Recovery Limited together with Raymond Gambling who is the designated transport manager on the licences held by Kingspit Transport Limited and Deadcert Recovery Limited. Vehicle Examiner Marshall and Traffic Examiner Lorden attended via Microsoft Teams. In advance of the hearing, documentation in respect of King Concrete Pumping Limited had been sent to the DVSA officers in response to the case management direction issued with the call up letters.

Evidence

I heard evidence from Mr Leach in relation to the background of King Concrete Limited, the company now in the process of liquidation. He said that the cause of the liquidation had been a longstanding fraud by a supplier whereby charges were made for a designated weight of materials when in fact a lesser amount of material was delivered. An attempt was made to recoup the loss from the suppliers, but they refused to pay and this together with an issue in relation to the operating centre led to the demise of the company. Both King Concrete Limited and King Concrete Pumping Limited had been operating for a period concurrently but carrying out different functions.

Mr Sparkes said that he had started working as a driver for King Concrete Limited but transferred to the role of on-site manager four years ago. His role had involved him liaising with Mr Gambling who was engaged as a transport consultant initially for King Concrete Limited and latterly for King Concrete Pumping Limited. He and his wife had taken over as directors for King Concrete Pumping Limited on the 28 January 2026 and evidence of the purchase agreement had been supplied.

Vehicle Examiner Marshall confirmed the contents of his report and summarised the concerns that were contained therein. At the time of his visit, he had spoken initially to Mr Sparkes and later to Mr Leach. His report detailed the failings found and he confirmed that whilst some systems were in place they were ineffective. The response to his report which had been submitted by Mr Leach contained comments and reassurances on the issues raised but there was an absence of evidence in support.

In a report dated 7 April 2026 Mr Marshall analysed documentation which had been sent in response to the case management directions for the hearing. He found that some failings had continued in that PMI dates had been missed on 25% of occasions, most safety inspections were missing, a laden brake test and drivers鈥� walk round checks did not appear to be carried out effectively.
Traffic Examiner Lorden confirmed the contents and read his summary and conclusion which detailed the failings found. He described the documentation which he did see on his visit as 鈥渃haotic and disorganised鈥�. His impression was that if there were systems in place they were ineffective.

In a report dated 2 April 2026 Mr Lorden analysed documentation which had been sent in response to the case management directions for the hearing. He said that data requested had not been submitted and there continued to be concerns in relation to missing mileage where vehicles had been driven without tachograph cards being used. His overall impression was that the situation had not improved between his original visit and the date of his second analysis.
Mr Leach said that he accepted that systems had been inadequate when the DVSA officers visited in October 2025 but submitted that the problems were mainly related to 鈥減aperwork鈥� as opposed to vehicles being used when unroadworthy. A prohibition issued on the day of the DVSA visit was in respect of a tyre for which a replacement had already been arranged with a supplier. He hadn鈥檛 understood the full requirements for compliance at the time but arrangements with his company Kingspit Transport Limited were now as they should be. He had three vehicles to manage as opposed to twelve and had enrolled in a Transport Manager CPC course with the aim of becoming more knowledgeable.
I asked Mr Leach a number of questions in relation to possible transfer of funds and other assets from King Concrete Limited to King Concrete (Pumping) Limited and will confine details of this aspect to the decision relating to Mr Leach and Kingspit Transport Limited.

Mr Sparkes said that he had engaged A S Miles Consulting and Mr Miles had assisted him in setting up new and improved compliance systems. He and his wife had attended OLAT courses in March and April 2026 and additional documentation had been sent to the Traffic Commissioner to supplement that sent to the DVSA officers before the hearing. He believed that with the help of Mr Miles he would be able to achieve full compliance and was on the way to doing so.

Mr Miles submitted a report detailing the steps taken by him and his company to date which included correspondence with the designated maintenance provider and training drivers in relation to carrying out daily round checks and complying with drivers鈥� hours requirements.

I asked Mr Gambling why, in his view, the situation had been as it was when the DVSA officers visited in October 2025 and he said that he had given the correct advice to the operator, but his advice had not been acted upon. He was a transport manager of long standing and had a good record apart from one instance of his repute being tarnished. He was suffering a medical issue now but wished to remain as transport manager for Kingspit Transport Limited and Deadcert Recovery Limited.

Mason Newman confirmed the contents of earlier correspondence where he detailed the inclusion of his father Gary Newman as a co-director and said that he was enrolled on the Transport Manager CPC course. He had submitted documentation in response to the case management directions. Gary Newman confirmed that he had held licences previously including a licence for Deadcert (UK) Limited which he believed had been surrendered. I advised him that the record shows this licence was revoked in the absence of an attendance by the licence holder on the 14 April 2026 and he, and Mr Gambling, who was the designated transport manager on the licences said that they had no knowledge of the hearing.

Findings and Decision 鈥� Deadcert Recovery Limited

The main reasons for this operator to be called to inquiry were to explore why Gary Newman had not been included as a director when the application was made, the links to the revoked licence for Deadcert (UK) Limited and to consider whether the compliance failings identified in respect of the operators for whom Mr Gambling was a transport consultant were repeated in relation to this operator.

Having read through the documentation submitted by Mason Newman and heard evidence from him and Gary Newman I am satisfied that the failure to designate Gary Newman on the application was a simple error and not an attempt to mask his involvement. Mason Newman said that his father was neither a shareholder nor an executive director and this was confirmed at the hearing.聽 I am also satisfied that the non-response to correspondence in relation to Deadcert (UK) Limited was a communication error based on a mistaken belief that the licence had been surrendered.

In relation to compliance levels I received copies of the documentation requested in advance of the inquiry and whilst it was not reviewed by the DVSA officers I have checked through and am satisfied that it appears to show that policies are in place, preventative maintenance inspections are taking place at the required intervals and daily walk round checks are being carried out. There is also evidence of downloading of driver tachograph cards and vehicle unit data including analysis of missing mileage information. Mason Newman had also provided evidence that he has enrolled on a Transport Manager CPC course.
聽In the circumstances set out above I am content that no further action is required in relation to this operator. Whilst there were errors when the application was made, I do not believe it would be proportionate to take regulatory action as a result.

Findings and Decision 鈥� Transport Manager Raymond Gambling

In considering Mr Gambling鈥檚 repute as a transport manager, I note that this was considered in respect of an operator Bud Rescue and Recovery Limited in July 2021 when his repute was retained but badly tarnished. The additional negative factor to consider is the unsatisfactory compliance record of King Concrete Pumping Limited and previously King Concrete Limited where Mr Gambling acted as a transport consultant. He said that he had given correct advice, but it had not been acted upon. If this was the case, he should have聽 discontinued his consultancy role. On the positive side the documentation produced for the public inquiry in respect of the two operators where he is the designated transport manager appears to be more acceptable and compliance levels are maintained.

Balancing all the factors together and noting that the previous decision to tarnish Mr Gambling鈥檚 repute was in 2021, I have decided that his repute can be retained and will remain as severely tarnished. He should note that it is unlikely that he will be given a further chance if there are any future instances of noncompliance brought to the attention of the Traffic Commissioner.
John Baker

Deputy Traffic Commissioner聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽

2 June 2026