扒哥吃瓜

IN THE NORTH WEST TRAFFIC AREA

EAST LANCASHIRE MOTORS LIMITED 鈥� PC2018449

Transport Manager Mr. Steven Whitehurst

RED ROSE TRAVEL (LANCASHIRE) LTD 鈥� PC1133454

Transport Manager Mr. Lee Collard

Transport Manager Mr. Stephen Haydock

WRITTEN DECISION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER

CONJOINED PUBLIC INQUIRY HELD IN IBIS HOTEL, ST HELENS ON 02 June 2026

The Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 (鈥渢he 1981 Act鈥�)

East Lancashire Motors Limited (鈥淓ast Lancs鈥�) holds a Standard International PSV Operator鈥檚 Licence authorising six vehicles. The directors are Mr. Steven Whitehurst and Mrs. Sarah Collard. Mr. Whitehurst is also the approved transport manager. The licence was granted on 27 December 2018 and has no previous adverse history recorded.

Red Rose Travel (Lancashire) Ltd (鈥淩ed Rose鈥�) holds a Standard International PSV Operator鈥檚 Licence authorising twelve vehicles. The directors are Mr. Lee Collard and Mr. Stephen Haydock. Both Mr. Collard and Mr. Haydock are also the approved transport managers on the licence. Since this licence was granted in December 2014 the operator has attended a Preliminary Hearing; has had specific undertakings added to the licence; and has had a variation application, to increase vehicle authorisation, refused in 2022.

The following facts are of relevance:

• The directors of Red Rose (Mr. Haydock and Mr. Collard) are father and son;
• Mrs. Collard (East Lancs) and Mr. Collard (Red Rose) are married;
• The directors of East Lancs, Mr. Whitehurst and Mrs. Collard, are also employees of Red Rose (Mr. Whitehurst is Operations Manager, and Mrs. Collard is Office Manager); and
• Both East Lancs and Red Rose share the same establishment address and operating centre.

Background

On 15 December 2025 a DVSA Vehicle Examiner made an unannounced visit to the operating centre registered by both East Lancs and Red Rose. During his investigation he identified an issue of licence lending, in that vehicle licence discs, issued in the name of East Lancs, were actually being used by Red Rose. Further it was identified that whilst East Lancs had an operator鈥檚 licence, the company was in fact dormant. As such it did not have a bank account and was not yet trading or operating.

The findings of the examiner were immediately accepted by the directors of both East Lancs and Red Rose. Accordingly, due to the seriousness of the licence lending issue, and the links between the two licence-holders, a conjoined public inquiry was convened to consider (i) the issue of licence-lending; (ii) whether undertakings and conditions were being complied with; and (iii) whether the mandatory and continuous requirements to hold an operator鈥檚 licence continued to be satisfied.

Additionally, all transport managers involved, being responsible for ensuring effective and continuous management of transport services, were called to the inquiry to determine whether they continued to satisfy the requirement to be of good repute.

The Public Inquiry

Notices calling all parties to the public inquiry were issued on 08 April 2026, by both post and email, to the given addresses. Those letters set out the date, time and location of the hearing and included case management directions to be complied with ahead of the inquiry.

I am grateful to all parties for complying with those directions and for the very helpful written submissions I received in advance. These clearly set out the history of the businesses and how each related to the other.

The public inquiry took place on Tuesday, 02 June 2026. East Lancs was in attendance through its directors Mr. Whitehurst and Mrs. Collard and Red Rose was in attendance through directors Mr. Collard and Mr. Haydock. Messrs Whitehurst, Collard and Haydock were each in attendance in their individual capacity as an authorised transport manager. All parties were represented by Mr. Mark Davies, Counsel, of Six Pump Court.

Evidence

Relationship between the legal entities

Despite the close links, the two licence-holders, East Lancs and Red Rose, are separate and legally distinct corporate entities. Red Rose was incorporated on 11 August 2014, has two directors and two persons of significant control (PSC). East Lancs (previously named M G Recovery Services) was incorporated on 20 July 2018 and renamed on 28 March 2019. It also has had two directors and two PSCs. None of the directors or PSC are common to both companies.

Red Rose was the first to obtain an operator鈥檚 licence. It had been established by Mr. Haydock primarily as a coach tour and private hire operation. With the involvement of Mr. Collard this expanded into school transport. Mrs. Collard works as the office manager, and Mr. Whitehurst was headhunted to provide operational support.

I was advised that, in 2019, the offer of school contracts led to the purchase of a company, renamed East Lancs, with a view to separating tours from school transportation. The intention had been to open a bank account, apply for a PAYE reference and move school contracts to East Lancs. The proposed contract didn鈥檛 materialise, and the licence was not used. As the licence was not being used the bank account and PAYE account were no longer a priority and, as it transpired, fell by the wayside.

East Lancs therefore remained, and remains today, a dormant company. I discovered that the licence had been granted following the provision of a statutory declaration from Mr. Whitehurst using his personal finances. The licence also passed its five-year renewal in November 2023 following a declaration of financial standing signed by Mr. Whitehurst, again relying on his personal finances. This is despite a statutory declaration not being an appropriate mechanism for demonstrating financial standing for a limited company, and the declaration of financial standing referring to funds held by the licence-holder, not those held personally by a director. In each case the declaration was, therefore, not valid but the 2023 statement that East Lancs had appropriate financial standing was, in particular, a false statement by Mr. Whitehurst 鈥� knowingly or otherwise 鈥� in so far as it misrepresented that the licence-holder itself met financial standing.

Licence Lending

I was advised that, in July 2024, on the expectation of school transport contracts, six vehicles were moved from the Vehicle Operator Licensing (VOL) record for Red Rose to the VOL record for East Lancs. These vehicles were not immediately used, but in July 2025 the vehicles, carrying discs for East Lancs, were then put to use. The issue was that, as East Lancs was a dormant company, the vehicles belonged to Red Rose, the contracts were held by Red Rose, drivers were employed and controlled by Red Rose, insurance was paid by Red Rose, and vehicles were maintained by Red Rose.

I was told that, once the issue of licence lending was identified by the DVSA Vehicle Examiner in December 2025, the East Lancs discs were removed.

There are a number of issues with the chronology of events. Firstly, I was concerned as to why Red Rose would, in essence, allow a separate legal entity to take control of a large part of its business. I was advised that this was because Mr. Collard wished to avoid significant insurance costs. He had felt that a separate entity, with no links to himself, would be a way to achieve savings.

The businesses were, I was told, essentially held by Mr. & Mrs. Collard, however the Companies House records do not support this. In March 2019 it was Mr. Whitehurst that was established as the PSC and a director for East Lancs. Mrs. Collard had been appointed as a director but was only added as the sole PSC in May 2026 in preparation for this inquiry. I remind myself that the finances relied upon belonged to Mr. Whitehurst.

Additionally, once the proposed method to save insurance costs was found to be poor advice, there is no good reason to continue with the separation of the two workstreams by way of separate legal entities.

The most significant concern, however, remains the failed application to increase the vehicle authorisation for Red Rose.

In February 2022 Red Rose applied to increase the number of vehicles authorised by its operator鈥檚 licence from 12 to 18. This was refused in July 2022 due to the absence of evidence to demonstrate financial standing. That decision was not appealed. When asked why the discs for East Lancs were used in 2024/2025 instead of reapplying for an increase Mr. Collard stated that using the existing discs of East Lancs was 鈥渆asier鈥�.

I was further advised that the period in question was a challenging one for the Collard/Haydock family, and for Red Rose. Mr. Haydock suffered a period of ill health which took him away from the business for a number of months. It was accepted that this resulted in him not fulfilling his TM responsibilities and whilst he could be criticised for not stopping / preventing the use of East Lancs discs on his return, the decision to use the East Lancs discs was taken by Mr. Collard during his absence. Notwithstanding his absence, statutory responsibility remained with him, particularly as this office was not notified that he was no longer fulfilling his role.

It was accepted by those in attendance vehicles used by Red Rose had been displaying the licence discs of East Lancs and, further, resulted in Red Rose using more vehicles than were authorised by its licence at any given time. In mitigation I was asked to consider: (i) that this was for a relatively short period of time; (ii) the exceeding of the Red Rose authorisation was occasional rather than routine; and (iii) that it was not an intentional breach. Rather, it was asserted, this all stemmed from an innocent failure to pursue the bank account for East Lancs.

Other Matters - East Lancashire Motors Limited

As East Lancs remains a dormant company it does not file audited accounts, and it does not hold a bank account. It is not trading and has no capital or reserves to rely upon. As such, there is no evidence that it has appropriate financial standing.

As a holder of a standard PSV licence East Lancs must have an effective and stable establishment, the requirements of which include access to vehicles, and to be in a position to conduct, effectively and continuously, its transport operations. East Lancs currently does not have access to such vehicles and is not conducting any operations.

The Maintenance Investigation Visit Report conducted by the DVSA on 15 December 2025 gave a rating of 鈥淪atisfactory鈥� for all but one area. In each section the examiner recorded that no assessment was made, and therefore 聽聽鈥淪atisfactory鈥� was recorded in order to allow the completion of the form. I consider this to be flawed logic. The undertakings of a PSV Operator鈥檚 Licence require the licence-holder to make proper arrangements so that laws and rules are observed, records are kept, and safe operation is maintained. Where a licence-holder is dormant and not operating any vehicles it cannot satisfy that proper arrangements are in place. Whilst the DVSA report gives the impression of satisfactory systems of compliance, the reality 鈥� and my conclusion 鈥� is quite different.

Transport Manager - East Lancashire Motors Limited

Mr. Whitehurst, as the approved transport manager for East Lancs, has a statutory duty to ensure continuous and effective management of transport operations for East Lancs. I note that he is operations manager for Red Rose, and through that he tells me that he ensures vehicles were being inspected and tachograph analysis was being done. Those tasks, however, were undertaken for Red Rose and are separate and distinct from his responsibilities for East Lancs.

As a CPC qualified transport manager for East Lancs Mr. Whitehurst ought to have been alive to the fact that vehicles carrying licence discs for East Lancs were placed on vehicles held by Red Rose, were put to use on Red Rose contracts; were driven by drivers paid and controlled by Red Rose, and were insured and maintained by Red Rose. He should also have been alive to the concept of licence-lending and aware of the volume of vehicles being put onto the road each day. As the director and TM for East Lancs, and the operations manager for Red Rose, he was in a position to be aware and therefore had knowledge of the licence lending. When asked why he allowed it to happen he stated that he had no explanation to offer, other than to say it was not driven by any intent to deceive.

Other Matters - Red Rose Travel (Lancashire) Ltd

This case commenced with a DVSA maintenance investigation. Whilst the issue with licence discs was identified, resulting in unsatisfactory responses to some areas of the investigation report, the majority of that report was, in fact, favourable. Of thirteen areas assessed only two were considered unsatisfactory. The first related to issues identified with the completion of maintenance records and a misinterpretation of the brake testing requirements. Whilst these items are not insignificant, a pre-PI report conducted by the examiner ahead of public inquiry concluded that these matters had been largely addressed.

The second area of concern was the examiner鈥檚 assessment of the Transport Manager / Responsible Person. This was marked unfavourably due to the licence lending issue. I note, however, that in drawing this conclusion the examiner felt it necessary to state the following:

鈥淎ccording to the guidance notes attached to this report for section 13c to be marked as 鈥榠ssues of integrity鈥� there would need to be evidence of the operator or TM providing false or misleading information or evidence of obstruction. I have found none of these to be the case. On each occasion that I have dealt with Lee Collard and Stephen Haydock they have been helpful and answered any questions put to them.鈥�

The unsatisfactory marking was made as 鈥渋t appears that obvious problems are being ignored by the transport manager鈥�.

Transport Managers - Red Rose Travel (Lancashire) Ltd

The statutory responsibility to ensure effective and continuous management of transport services for Red Rose was shared between Mr. Collard and Mr. Haydock. I was advised that Mr. Haydock focused his attention on maintenance arrangements, whilst Mr. Collard stretched himself across a wider range of responsibilities. In evidence Mr. Collard described his role as including responsibilities as a director, transport manager and driver. He had felt that his capacity had reached its limit, stemming from a fear of delegating. He wished to in control so that should something go wrong, it would be his error and no one else鈥檚. He accepted, therefore, that the licence lending was his call, and his mistake.

In recognition of the overburdening on Mr. Collard, an undertaking to engage an external transport manager was offered by the licence-holder.

Findings 鈥� East Lancashire Motors Ltd

Having considered the evidence and submissions I make adverse findings against East Lancs under the provision of the following legislation:

• Section 17(1)(a) 鈥� that the licence-holder no longer satisfies the requirements of section 14ZA(2); namely (a) to have an effective and stable establishment; (b) be of good repute; (c) to have appropriate financial standing; and (d) to be professionally competent

• Section 17(1)(b) 鈥� the transport manager designated in accordance with Article 4 of the 2009 Regulation no longer satisfies the requirements of section 14ZA(3), namely to be of good repute.

• Section 17 (3)(aa) - that any undertaking recorded in the licence has not been fulfilled, namely that the licence-holder shall make proper arrangements so that (a) vehicles, including hired vehicles, are kept in a fit and serviceable condition; and (b) that the laws relating to the driving and operation of vehicles would be complied with.

Licence lending in the PSV operator licensing regime is an extremely serious matter as it fundamentally undermines the framework designed to ensure that only fit, competent and financially sound operators are authorised to carry passengers. When a licence-holder allows another party 鈥� even one with close personal connections 鈥� to operate vehicles under their licence, the enforcement and regulatory bodies lose visibility and control over those who are actually responsible for critical obligations such as vehicle maintenance, driver control, and compliance systems.

Furthermore, it has the effect of distorting fair competition and, in worst case scenarios, creates an unacceptable risk to road safety. In the case at hand the loanee, Red Rose, had previously failed to increase its authorisation due to an absence of financial standing. The lender, East Lancs, facilitated a bypassing of the important application process and denied this office the opportunity to undertake its gatekeeper role. Whilst perhaps not intended, in allowing its discs to be used by Red Rose, East Lancs has compromised fair competition which, in turn, erodes trust within the licensing regime.

Decision 鈥� East Lancashire Motors Ltd

On consideration of the facts of this case I am satisfied that East Lancashire Motors Ltd did knowingly allow its discs to be used by Red Rose Travel (Lancashire) Ltd, and I consider this to be a matter which affects the good repute of the licence-holder and both directors who were each complicit in the lending.

This is a significant negative feature, and I have few positives against which to balance. Any benefit to be gained from the positive findings of the DVSA audit are undone as the systems belong to Red Rose, not East Lancs. I do recognise that Mrs. Collard and Mr. Whitehurst have been open and honest with this inquiry about their failures. This was also the case during the DVSA investigation, after which the examiner commented on their honesty and stated that they had been helpful, answered any questions put to them and seemed receptive to any advice.

I found Mrs. Collard to be much more remorseful than Mr. Whitehurst, although I accept that, when considering both cases together, she likely has more to lose from adverse findings. Mr. Whitehurst accepted that there had been failures but was unable to offer any rationale or reasoning as to his thought process or for his complicity.

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鈥�. This has been a deliberate act which has provided a clear commercial advantage to a third party in disregard of the licensing requirements.

I consider the question posed by the Upper Tribunal in 2009/225 Priority Freight namely: 鈥渉ow likely is it that this operator will, in future, operate in compliance with the operator鈥檚 licensing regime?鈥� I answer in the negative. The evidence before me, and my conclusions as set out, lead me to find that this is not an operator who I can trust to comply.

I go on to consider the question posed by the Upper Tribunal in 2002/217 Bryan Haulage namely, is the conduct such that the operator ought to be put out of business? I answer this in the positive. The issues of this case are well laid out above and, in considering the proportionality of a decision to revoke this licence, I have further regard to its compliance with other continuous and mandatory requirements

• As no evidence of financial resources has been forthcoming, I find that the East Lancs no longer satisfies the requirement to be of appropriate financial standing.
• I also find that the conditions relating to the requirement of establishment are no longer satisfied. Specifically, the requirements set out within paragraphs 1(b) and 1(c) of Article 5 of 1071/2009, being the requirement to have one or more vehicles at its disposal, and to conduct effectively and continuously one鈥檚 transport operations.

Accordingly, any decision other than revocation would be irrational in the circumstances. As the company is dormant, not trading and not utilising the operator鈥檚 licence I consider the immediate revocation of the licence to be necessary and appropriate.

Decision 鈥� Transport Manager Mr. Stephen Whitehurst

Mr. Whitehurst was appointed transport manager for this licence on 02 April 2019. Since that date he has been inactive, undertaking none of the responsibilities of a transport manager. Retaining nominal responsibility without exercising real oversight undermines the integrity of the licensing system and is indicative of a failure to properly discharge statutory duties. He should have removed himself from the licence, and ensured it was properly surrendered.

This position then worsened when East Lancs discs were added to the licence of Red Rose. Mr. Whitehurst may have thought that he retained oversight and control as he was operations manager for the loanee, but the reality is that he effectively abandoned oversight of critical safety and compliance systems passing that responsibility to the approved transport managers for Red Rose. Further, it demonstrated a willingness to misuse the licensing system and strikes at the heart of mistrust.

Accordingly, under the provision of paragraph 7B(1) of Schedule 3 of the 1981 Act I find that Mr. Whitehurst has lost his good repute. Thereafter paragraph 7B(2) requires that Mr. Whitehurst must be disqualified for such a period as the commissioner thinks fit. On balance I find a disqualification period of 12-months to be proportionate. This is at the lower end of the potential disqualification periods and is determined on reflection of the seriousness of the matters, balanced against the open and honest approach to the investigation and inquiry, and that this is Mr. Whitehurst鈥檚 first public inquiry.

Findings 鈥� Red Rose Travel (Lancashire) Ltd

Having considered the evidence and submissions I make adverse findings against Red Rose under the provision of the following legislation:

• Section 17(1)(a) 鈥� that the licence-holder no longer satisfies the requirements of section 14ZA(2); namely to be of good repute.

• Section 17(1)(b) 鈥� a transport manager designated in accordance with Article 4 of the 2009 Regulation (Mr. Collard) no longer satisfies the requirements of section 14ZA(3), namely to be of good repute. Although this is academic as Mr. Haydock鈥檚 repute is retained.

• Section 17 (3)(aa) - that any undertaking recorded in the licence has not been fulfilled, namely (i) that the laws relating to the driving and operation of vehicles used under the licence are observed.

• Section 17 (3)(b) 鈥� that there has been a contravention of any condition attached to the licence, namely that the total number of vehicles used under this licence at any time does not exceed the maximum number of discs issued (being 12)

As set out above, licence lending in the PSV operator licensing regime is an extremely serious matter as it fundamentally undermines the framework designed to ensure that only fit, competent and financially sound operators are authorised to carry passengers. It is relevant that a previous application was refused as financial standing could not be satisfied. In the case of Red Rose it avoided the important application process through the unlawful use of operator licence discs which were not assigned to it. This had the further effect of enabling the maximum number of vehicles authorised to be exceeded and gave an impression of legitimacy to unlawful transport operations.

As with the lender, such practice has the effect of distorting fair competition and erodes trust within the licensing regime.

Decision 鈥� Red Rose Travel (Lancashire) Ltd

On consideration of the facts of this case I am satisfied that Red Rose did knowingly obtain a commercial advantage through the use of discs assigned to East Lancs, and I consider this to be a matter which affects the good repute of the licence-holder.

This commercial advantage gained, and the unlawful use of the licence of a different legal entity is a significant negative feature. Mr. Collard and Mr. Haydock have been open and honest and have not challenged the findings of DVSA. I accept that they show remorse and regret, but it is also the case that Mr. Collard has confirmed that he took the decision knowingly.

In closing submissions, I was asked to consider that the use of the East Lancs 聽discs by Red Rose was for a relatively short period, and the use was occasional rather than routine. Further, it was done for convenience rather than for any mischievous reasons. I only agree in part. Accepting the operator鈥檚 evidence that the use of East Lancs discs was occasional, I do not consider the timeframe to be short, I also note that it was during a peak period for school transport. I also give weight to the fact that this was done knowingly for convenience. The correct path was for Red Rose to reapply for increased authorisation 鈥� it failed to do so. Again, I consider that it remains highly relevant that it had unsuccessfully applied for such an increase two years prior.

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鈥�. This has been a deliberate act which has provided a clear commercial advantage to this licence-holder.

I consider the question posed by the Upper Tribunal in 2009/225 Priority Freight namely: 鈥渉ow likely is it that this operator will, in future, operate in compliance with the operator鈥檚 licensing regime?鈥� I answer in the negative. The evidence before me, and my conclusions as set out, lead me to find that this is not an operator who I can currently trust to comply.

I go on to consider the question posed by the Upper Tribunal in 2002/217 Bryan Haulage namely, is the conduct such that the operator ought to be put out of business? I answer this in the positive. The issues of this case are well laid out above and whilst I note this business relies on its operator鈥檚 licence I cannot in good conscience support its continuation, particularly in its current structure. In reaching that conclusion I have considered whether any lesser sanction, including curtailment, suspension or additional undertakings, would be sufficient. I am satisfied that they would not.

In closing submissions the licence-holder was unable to satisfy me that a period of suspension would have any different effect to revocation, and the suggestion that a curtailment, during school holidays when the impact would likely have little material impact, does not align with the intentions of the Senior Traffic Commissioner鈥檚 guidance for cases within the 鈥淪evere鈥� category.

I find that any decision other than revocation would give the wrong message to the wider industry. The importance of this is set out in the decision of 2006/277 Michael James Fenlon t/a County Skips, where the Upper Tribunal commented:

鈥淚t has been said on many occasions that trust is one of the foundation stones of operator licensing.聽 Traffic Commissioners must be able to trust operators to comply with all the relevant laws, rules and regulations because it would be a physical and financial impossibility to police every aspect of the licensing system all day and every day.聽 In addition, operators must be able to trust other operators to observe the relevant laws, rules and regulations.聽 If trust between operators breaks down and some operators believe that others are obtaining an unfair commercial advantage by ignoring laws, rules or regulations then standards will inevitably slip and the public will suffer.鈥�

I therefore direct that this licence is revoked with effect from 23:45 on 24 July 2026. This extended period is set to allow the orderly cessation of transport operations with minimal disruption to the schools that rely on the service. I set this date acknowledging that the DVSA maintenance investigation, and an earlier traffic Investigation, both found the operator鈥檚 safety systems to be largely compliant.

Having revoked the licence, I go on to consider whether disqualification is required. I, again, take account of the guidance provided by the Senior Traffic Commissioner at Paragraph 65 and 108 of Statutory Document number 10. Disqualification should not be routinely ordered, but there may be cases in which the seriousness of the operator鈥檚 conduct is such that a traffic commissioner may properly consider that both revocation and disqualification are necessary for the purposes of enforcing the legislation.

There is, in the case of Red Rose, a distinction to be made between as regards the knowledge and intent of the directors. I accept that directors hold joint and several responsibility, but it would be remiss of me not to acknowledge that Mr. Collard was the person who decided to use the East Lancs discs. He did so willingly, and knowingly, informing me in evidence that it was 鈥渆asier鈥� than reapplying and that he did so in order that customers 鈥渨ould not be let down鈥�. He placed commercial gain ahead of regulatory requirements. These decisions were taken at a time when his fellow director, Mr. Haydock, was absent from work due to a long and serious illness.

In preferring commercial gain over the regulatory requirements Mr. Collard has committed a significant breach of trust and I consider disqualification as a justified and proportionate means to deter not just him from any future offending, but others that might seek to follow that same path.

In setting an appropriate period of disqualification I find that a 12-month disqualification for Mr. Collard balances his honesty with the seriousness of the shortcomings. I also take account of the fact that this is the first public inquiry.

In disqualifying Mr. Collard only I am making the distinction between his actions and the actions of Mr. Haydock. I find to the civil standard that it was Mr. Collard who took the decision on behalf of Red Rose. He gave his reasons for those decisions, and I am advised that Mr. Haydock had a limited role. Certainly, Mr. Haydock should have done more upon his return to work to change course, but I accept that his transition back into work would have slowed that process.

Accordingly, I do not set an order of disqualification against Mr. Haydock or the corporate entity, Red Rose Travel (Lancashire) Ltd.

Decision 鈥� Transport Manager Mr. Stephen Haydock

For the same reasons I find the good repute of Mr. Stephen Haydock, in his capacity as transport manager, is retained but tarnished.

Decision 鈥� Transport Manager Mr. Lee Collard

Mr. Collard knowingly took advantage of 鈥渁vailable鈥� operator licence discs not authorised for use by Red Rose. He took that decision, in his capacity as director, for commercial gain and without regard to the implications on fair competition. As a transport manager he was well positioned to understand the consequences and yet he took no corrective action until the matter was found out at the unannounced DVSA maintenance visit.

The actions demonstrated a willingness to misuse the licensing system and therefore, I repeat, this strikes at the heart of trust.

Accordingly, under the provision of paragraph 7B(1) of Schedule 3 of the 1981 Act I find that Mr. Collard has lost his good repute. Thereafter, paragraph 7B(2) requires an order of disqualification. I consider a disqualification period of 12-months to be proportionate in consideration of the open and honest approach to this inquiry, and that this is Mr. Collard鈥檚 first public inquiry, balanced against the unacceptable nature of the licence lending offence.

David Mullan

Traffic Commissioner for the North West of England

05 June 2026