扒哥吃瓜

IN THE NORTH WEST TRAFFIC AREA

IAN HYATT TRANSPORT LTD 鈥� OC1050284

&

Transport Manager Mr. SHAUN RANDLE

WRITTEN DECISION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER

PUBLIC INQUIRY HELD IN St. HELENS ON 10 JUNE 2026

Ian Hyatt Transport Ltd (鈥淚HTL鈥�) holds a Standard National Goods Vehicle Operator鈥檚 Licence authorising one vehicle and one trailer. The directors are Mr. Ian Hyatt and Mrs. Julie Hyatt (nee O鈥橦ara).

The operator鈥檚 licence record lists a single operating centre, recorded as Altham Freight Services, Accrington, BB5 5WG. Preventative maintenance inspections are said to be carried out by Spectrum Auto Services, at 6-weekly intervals for vehicles and 12-weekly intervals for trailers. 聽

Until 24 April 2026 the only listed transport manager was Mr. Shaun Randle. On that date he was removed by a person using the VOL User Account for Mr. Ian Hyatt at Mr. Randle鈥檚 request. Mr. Randle also wrote to the Office of the Traffic Commissioner, and the DVSA, notifying that he had resigned from the role of transport manager.

Background

IHTL has held its operator鈥檚 licence since September 2005 with no previous regulatory or enforcement history. The licence-holder came to the attention of this office following a DVSA encounter with vehicle L14 NHT on 12 January 2026. An S-Marked Prohibition was issued on account of the placement of masking tape on the registration plate leading to the obscuring / hiding of the first three digits of the vehicle registration number (鈥淰RN鈥�). The driver of the vehicle at the time was the director of the licence-holding company, Mr. Ian Harry Hyatt, and he received a 拢100 fixed penalty.

This event triggered a DVSA Desk Based Assessment which was concluded on 04 February 2026 with an overall rating of 鈥淯nsatisfactory鈥�.

Of thirteen areas assessed only three were considered 鈥淪atisfactory鈥�. Nine areas scored as 鈥淯nsatisfactory鈥�. Concerns were raised with regard to systems for compliance in relation to: (i) Inspection / Maintenance Records; (ii) Driver Defect Reporting; (iii) Inspection Facilities & Maintenance Arrangements; (iv) Vehicle Emissions; (v) Wheel & Tyre Management; (vi) Load Security; (vii) Driver Training Records; (viii) Maintenance Compliance; and (ix) Transport Manager / Responsible Person. Many of the shortcomings relate directly to areas critical for road safety.

The operator provided a response to the DVSA findings but did not support that with evidence. Additionally, the S-Mark Prohibition raised significant concerns as to the good repute of director Mr. Hyatt. It was noted that there was no response from Mr. Randle in respect of the desk-based assessment which raised concerns as to his fulfilment of the role of transport manager.

Accordingly, the public inquiry was convened to consider whether this operator has failed to comply with the conditions and undertakings of its operator鈥檚 licence and whether the licence holder continues to satisfy the mandatory and continuous requirements to be of good repute, professionally competent and of the necessary financial standing.

Additionally, the inquiry would consider whether, on account of the concerns raised, the nominated transport manager, Mr. Randle, continues to be of the required good repute, and whether he is capable of ensuring continuous and effective management of transport services.

Pre-Hearing

Calling in letters were issued, by post and email, to both the operator and the transport manager on 16 April 2026. Both set out case management directions including: (for the operator) to provide maintenance records; drivers鈥� hours records; evidence of financial standing; and (for the Transport Manager) maintenance records; and evidence of systems for the management of drivers.

On 28 April 2026 this office received this notice from Mr. Randle 鈥渢o inform you that I am terminating my position as Transport Manager for Ian Hyatt Transport Ltd OC1050284 with immediate effect from 27th April 2026鈥�. Communication followed confirming that Mr. Randle would attend the public inquiry and ensuring that he was provided with access to the bundle of papers for the hearing.

Despite this, the case management directions issued to Mr. Randle were not complied with ahead of the inquiry.

On 17 May 2026 this office received a request from Mr. Hyatt requesting the termination of his operator鈥檚 licence by way of a surrender of the licence. This was followed on 25 May 2026 by a VOL message stating that 鈥淒ue to event on 25th April 2026 where I was gassed and had my trailer broken into and also ended up spending the day in hospital I made the final decision to surrender my licence.
The company Ian Hyatt Transport is due at a public enquiry on 10-06-2026 and I am more than happy to attend if still required, could you please me on this situation鈥�.

In consideration of that request to surrender the licence I had regard to section 16(4) of the Act and the directions and guidance of the Senior Traffic Commissioner at paragraph 32 of Statutory Document 10 (鈥淪D10鈥�). I noted that section 16(4) of the Act directs that 鈥淎 traffic commissioner may refuse to comply with such a request [Surrender] if he or another traffic commissioner is considering giving a direction in respect of the licence under section 26 or 27.鈥� Additionally, paragraph 32 of SD10 states: 鈥淎 traffic commissioner is not bound to accept the surrender of an operator鈥檚 licence. An operator can only be disqualified once an operator鈥檚 licence has been revoked, the power to refuse surrender is therefore essential if the worst offenders are to be prevented from avoiding disqualification.鈥�

Accordingly, as the licence holder and transport manager had been put on notice of potential action against this licence, under section 26 & 27, and of potential disqualification, I refused the request to surrender the licence. This decision was notified to Mr. Hyatt as a VOL message at 10:24 on Thursday 28 May 2026.

Further, Mr. Hyatt was notified that the public inquiry would proceed, and further that (1) the licence-holder is welcome to reinstate the request to surrender before the traffic commissioner at the inquiry; and (2) if the case management directions set out in the calling-in letter have not been complied with, a written explanation outlining the reasons for non-compliance must be submitted in advance of the Public Inquiry.

No further correspondence was received, and the case management directions were not complied with ahead of the public inquiry.

Public Inquiry

The public inquiry took place on Wednesday 10 June 2026. The operator was in attendance through statutory director Mr. Ian Hyatt, and Mr. Shaun Randle was in attendance in his capacity as transport manager. I was advised that the other named director, Mrs. Julie Hyatt (nee O鈥橦ara) was the wife of Mr. Ian Hyatt and was a silent director with no active role in the management of the business.

Following the introduction Mr. Hyatt made me aware that he did not have sight of the bundle of papers provided ahead of the inquiry. Subsequent review identified that he had received the calling in letter 鈥� hence he knew that he was called to attend the public inquiry and the reasons why the inquiry was convened. Additionally, it was concluded that the call up letter did contain the case management directions and that he had considered that he did not need to comply with them on account of the surrender request.

It was also confirmed that whilst Mr. Hyatt was provided with a link to the bundle of papers via the Case Centre systems used for public inquiries, he had not accessed it. Whilst he blamed his lack of awareness of information technology, it was accepted that he did receive the letter and link. This was, I consider, akin to receiving the bundle of papers in an envelope and not opening the envelope 鈥� accepting, however, that the process of opening an envelope is somewhat easier to accessing the Case Centre system.

Mr. Randle, by contrast, also had difficulty accessing the case management system but contacted the Office of the Traffic Commissioner for assistance and was provided with a copy of his bundle of papers which he brought with him to the inquiry.

A short period of time was allowed in order for papers to be printed and provided to Mr. Hyatt. As the hearing progressed, I sought to ensure that any documentation referred to was already known to Mr. Hyatt and, at the conclusion of the hearing, I confirmed that I would be prepared to allow additional time for consideration of any papers that he was not previously aware of. Mr. Hyatt confirmed that this was not necessary and that all documentation reviewed during the hearing was previously known to him.

Issues

The issues considered at the public inquiry, and set out within the calling in letters, were dealt with in the following order:

• Failure to comply with the case management directions
• The S-Marked Prohibition dated 12 January 2026
• The Unsatisfactory Desk Based Assessment (鈥淒BA鈥�) dated 04 February 2026
• Financial Standing
• Professional Competence
• Surrender Request
• Transport Manager Mr. Randle

Summary of Evidence

Failure to Comply with Case Management Directions

Mr. Hyatt was unable to provide any reasonable explanation for the failure to comply with the case management directions. He initially advised that he believed that the need to comply was not required on account of the surrender request. This is contradicted by the VOL message dated 28 May 2026.

Mr. Randle, later in proceedings, confirmed that he was unable to provide any records as he did not have any. This matter is dealt with in greater detail below.

Accordingly, as materials were not provided in advance of the public inquiry for assessment by the DVSA, a 鈥淧re-PI Report鈥� on compliance systems could not be compiled by the DVSA vehicle examiner.

S-Marked Prohibition

The S-marked prohibition issued on 12 January 2026 related to the placement of masking tape on the front registration plate which hid the first three digits of the vehicle registration number (鈥淰RN鈥�). Mr. Hyatt was asked at the time of the stop if he had anything to say about the matter. He simply replied 鈥淣o, not really鈥�. Mr. Hyatt received a 拢100 fixed penalty.

In evidence Mr. Hyatt advised me that he clearly could not have obscured the VRN as he would never be 鈥渟o stupid鈥�. He claimed that such an act would be easily detectable and would obviously result in being directed to have a vehicle check and a penalty. Whilst this seems somewhat obvious the fact of the matter is that some people do take steps to obscure VRNs for the purposes of avoiding ANPR, parking fines, speeding fines and so forth. This includes the use of grease, ANPR resistant number plates or 鈥� despite the obvious look 鈥� tape.

Mr. Hyatt stated that he could have been the victim of someone else placing the tape whilst he had been parked up for the night. He advised that he did not notice it during the walk around check.

I do not accept his version of events. Firstly, the claim that he may have been a victim of an overnight action was not provided at the time to the DVSA examiner who made a contemporaneous note of the conversation (signed by Mr. Hyatt). Further, the statement that this would be an obvious and easily detected offence does not stop it happening elsewhere. Finally, it is the job of the driver to conduct a full and proper first use check of a vehicle before setting off for the day. This includes, at Item 24 of the Gov.UK guidance Carry out HGV daily walkaround checks - 扒哥吃瓜, checking that the number plate is not 鈥渃overed over by anything鈥�.

When considering this matter I am required to determine whether 鈥� on the balance of probability 鈥� Mr. Hyatt had purposefully obscured the number plate, or whether he failed to adequately conduct his driver walk-around check.

The Unsatisfactory Desk Based Assessment

Mr. Hyatt confirmed that he enlisted the services of a well-known and established road transport compliance consultant to assist with the response to the DVSA. As such I am satisfied that the failures were not merely a misunderstanding on how to respond to the questionnaire.

Of thirteen areas assessed only three were considered 鈥淪atisfactory鈥�. Nine areas scored as 鈥淯nsatisfactory鈥�. At the hearing Mr. Hyatt was asked to provide further information in regard to all unsatisfactory items.

He advised that the maintenance inspection records would be improved through the establishment of a contract with a new maintenance provider. A contract was provided to the DVSA as part of the response. That change in maintenance procedures was not notified to this office within 28 days as per the conditions of the operator licence. Mr. Hyatt confirmed that the finding of the DVSA examiner was otherwise correct. 7 of 9 inspections lacked any evidence of a brake test or assessment, there was no effective forward planner, an ineffective VOR system and no evidence of a safety defect and recall system.

Driver defect reporting was also ineffective. IHTL had no system for the recording of defects identified by drivers and no system to ensure that these were appropriately assessed and repaired. Mr. Hyatt conceded that records were not retained, but stressed that the vehicle was checked and maintained.

Unsatisfactory scores were recorded for Inspection Facilities and Maintenance Arrangements; Vehicle Emissions, Load Security, Driver Training, Wheel Security, Tyre Management and compliance assessment. As before, Mr. Hyatt鈥檚 position remained that he was unaware of the need to have systems or procedures in place. He relied on others 鈥� giving the example of the tyre fitters who would attend roadside to replace a tyre. When pressed, however, Mr. Hyatt conceded that those fitters would not remain to undertake a re-torque which he would personally do using a non-calibrated wrench. He understood and accepted that this could result in over or under tightening.

On the positive IHTL had responded to the DVSA examiner to state that it had introduced an updated inspection frequency, would be purchasing a planner, was using the 鈥淐heckedSafe鈥� app for walkarounds and VORs, and that the TM would be carrying out random checks. Limited supporting evidence of these improvements was presented, and in some instances no further evidence was provided at all.

The failure to comply with the case management directions denied the DVSA and this inquiry from being able to determine whether the stated improvements were put in place or were effective.

Financial Standing

The calling in letter required the provision of financial records to allow a determination as to whether financial standing was satisfied. No evidence was provided and I was further advised that IHTL has sold its vehicle and has stopped trading.

Professional Competence

As set out above, transport manager Mr. Randle had been removed from the operator鈥檚 licence on 27 April 2026. He was the sole transport manager, and no further application has been made nor has a period of grace been requested. Further, I have been advised that IHTL has ceased trading therefore a period of grace would not be an appropriate consideration as there is no tangible evidence that professional competence would be regained within the six months maximum period permitted under the circumstances.

Surrender Request

Mr. Hyatt had stated again that he wished to surrender the licence. When asked whether this was an attempt to avoid regulatory action, he sought to assure me that it was not. He referenced being gassed and robbed at an overnight stop in April 2026. I asked whether there was evidence to support his claim such as an insurance claim or a police report, Mr. Hyatt was unable to produce anything and stated that he did not consider obtaining such evidence for the purposes of today鈥檚 inquiry.

Transport Manager Mr. Randle

Having taken Mr. Hyatt through the evidence I then turned to Mr. Randle and asked how many hours he worked as transport manager 鈥� as the DBA questionnaire suggested 4 hours per month which is significantly below the recommended hours. Mr. Randle stated that the answer on the questionnaire was incorrect as he had, in fact, worked zero hours as a transport manager. He confirmed that this had been the case for approximately two years.

He went on to clarify that would be unable to comment on the prohibition or the DBA as he was completely unaware of either until he received the calling in letter and bundle of papers. He received payment, equivalent to 拢25 per week, to have his name added to the licence (拢1300 paid each Christmas) but he did not undertake any work.

Without any sense of the seriousness of this matter, Mr. Hyatt then confirmed 鈥� in case there might be any doubt 鈥� that he had the bank statements to prove that Mr. Randle had been paid. Some disagreement then ensued as to whether Mr. Randle had refused to work for IHTL, or whether Mr. Hyatt had refused to let Mr. Randle get involved. I find that this is largely academic considering the acceptance by both parties that (1) payment was made for the purposes of having Mr. Randle recorded as the transport manager; and (2) that Mr. Randle had not undertaken any work as transport manager for at least two years.

The matters were further compounded when Mr. Hyatt stated that it would be more accurate to conclude that Mr. Randle had been an absent transport manager for the past twenty years; and Mr. Randle claimed that 拢25 per week was underpriced, believing that he would command more money if he was asked to fulfil the duties of a transport manager.

When I asked Mr. Randle why he did not previously remove himself from VOL he stated that it was because Mr. Hyatt needed to have a transport manager specified. He only did so recently following notice that IHTL were considering the appointment of a new, alternative transport manager (as stated to the DVSA during the desk-based assessment).

Findings

Having considered the evidence contained within the bundle of documents, together with the evidence presented at the public inquiry, I make the following findings on the balance of probabilities, being the applicable standard of proof in such proceedings.

S-Marked Prohibition

The evidence provided invites me to conclude either: (1) that Mr. Hyatt has purposely hidden part of his registration number; or (2) that Mr. Hyatt failed to correctly complete his driver walkaround checks on the day the prohibition was issued.

As set out in the following paragraphs I make the findings that Mr. Hyatt, as the director in control, had failed to comply with the case management directions for this hearing; had an unacceptable approach to compliance as evidenced by the DBA; had failed to ensure compliance with licence conditions and undertakings; and has fraudulently sought cover of a transport manager in name only in order to give the impression of professional competence. I therefore conclude it more probable than not that he took the risk of covering part of his licence and I find that this is consistent with his overall approach to compliance.

This is further supported by the statement given to the DVSA officer at the time of the prohibition (which was absent any excuse such as that given to the inquiry some months later), the acceptance of the fixed penalty notice, and the failure to take corrective action had any reasonable walkaround check been undertaken.

This is a matter that goes directly to Mr. Hyatt鈥檚 good repute as he was both the driver of that vehicle and the director of the company which holds the operator licence.

The Unsatisfactory Desk Based Assessment

The findings of the DBA were not challenged, but some evidence was provided to set out that improvements were being made. These improvements did not cover all shortcomings, and some proposed improvements were not supported by evidence. The failure to comply with the case management directions is such that a more recent assessment cannot be concluded. I therefore am unable to consider that any improvement is complete, sustained, or effective. Accordingly, I find that the undertakings relating to vehicle maintenance and safety 鈥� as assessed by the DBA 鈥� have not been fulfilled as required by the terms of the operator licence.

Financial Standing

The closure of transport operations, the shortcomings identified, and the failure to provide financial records are all such that I am no longer satisfied that the requirement to be of appropriate financial standing is satisfied.

Establishment

Whilst Mr. Hyatt had confirmed that IHTL had sold its only vehicle, a check of the VOL system showed that the vehicle remained specified. As such the absence of access to a vehicle 鈥� required by the continuous and mandatory requirement of effective and stable establishment 鈥� had not previously been identified by this office.

The evidence introduced by Mr. Hyatt to this hearing was such that I am no longer satisfied that the requirement to have an effective and stable establishment (by way of access to one or more goods vehicles authorised for use) is satisfied.

Professional Competence

There is, currently, no approved transport manager. There are no applications to nominate a transport manager and no reason to consider IHTL has any intention to appoint a transport manager. Accordingly, I find that the requirement commonly referred to as 鈥減rofessional competence鈥� is no longer satisfied.

Surrender Request

The matters raised throughout this public inquiry are such that regulatory action, including consideration of disqualification, is justified and proportionate. My reasons for refusing the original request to surrender the licence remain appropriate and, for the avoidance of doubt, I repeat those reasons here.

Section 16(4) of the Act directs that 鈥淎 traffic commissioner may refuse to comply with such a request [Surrender] if he or another traffic commissioner is considering giving a direction in respect of the licence under section 26 or 27.鈥� Additionally, paragraph 32 of SD10 states: 鈥淎 traffic commissioner is not bound to accept the surrender of an operator鈥檚 licence. An operator can only be disqualified once an operator鈥檚 licence has been revoked, the power to refuse surrender is therefore essential if the worst offenders are to be prevented from avoiding disqualification.鈥� Notice of proposed action under sections 26 and 27 had previously been notified and, on further consideration of the evidence, I find this case aligns with the Senior Traffic Commissioners intention that the most serious offenders are to be prevented from avoiding disqualification.

Transport Manager Mr. Randle

Section 14A(2)(c) of the Act sets out that a transport manager must be 鈥渁n individual the traffic commissioner is satisfied has a genuine link to the operator鈥�. This is further clarified by the Senior Traffic Commissioner at paragraph 6 of Statutory Document 3.

鈥淭he statutory definition of 鈥渢ransport manager鈥� in section 58, by reference to section 13A(5), means 鈥榓n individual employed by an undertaking or, if that undertaking is an individual, that person or, where provided for, another individual designated by that undertaking by means of a contract, who effectively and continuously manages the transport activities of that undertaking鈥�. Paragraph 14A of Schedule 3 refers to that person having a genuine link to the undertaking, such as being an employee, director, owner or shareholder or administering it鈥�. Emphasis is my own.

Mr. Randle has not made any attempts to effectively and continuously manage the transport activities of this operation. This is, in itself, a significant failure. The issue, in this instance, goes further. In allowing himself to be specified as a transport manager Mr. Randle has given the impression of professional competence to a licence-holder who 鈥� in reality 鈥� had none. This has three significant impacts. Firstly, it creates a significant risk to road safety as the person with statutory responsibility for effective management is absent. Secondly, it gives the licence-holder a commercial advantage as the money paid for the impression of professional competence is, by Mr. Randles admission, less than one might pay to properly fill the post. Finally, it fundamentally undermines the framework designed to ensure that only those that meet the requirements of paragraph 14A of Schedule 3 are authorised to carry goods. Such practice has the effect of eroding trust within the licensing regime.

The cumulative effect is that any determination which would retain Mr. Randle鈥檚 good repute would be utterly unreasonable and contrary to the purpose of the regulatory process.

Good Repute (Operator)

Whilst I give Mr. Hyatt credit for attending this public inquiry, I do find that this was a late effort to try and minimise the impact of regulatory action. The licence-holder failed to comply with the case management directions; failed to satisfy me that improvements have been made since the wholly unsatisfactory DBA; fails to satisfy any of the four mandatory and continuous requirements to hold a licence; and admits to paying a person to sit as a transport manager in name only for a period of two years or more. Further I find that Mr. Hyatt had, more likely than not, purposefully obscured his VRN in order to avoid detection. I also find 鈥� as the facts are so clear and so negative 鈥� that the request to surrender the licence was more likely than not an attempt to avoid regulatory action.

DECISION - OPERATOR

In conclusion I make adverse findings under the provision of the following legislation:

• Section 26(1)(b) - that there has been a failure to comply with the conditions of the licence, namely (1) to notify this office of events which affect financial standing; (2) to notify this office of events which affect professional competence; (3) to notify this office of events which affect establishment.

• Section 26(1)(c) 鈥� that there has been a prohibition of the driving of a vehicle of which the licence-holder was the owner when the prohibition was imposed.

• Section 26(1)(ca) 鈥� a fixed penalty notice or conditional offer has been issued to the licence-holder in respect of an offence.

• 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, namely that Mr. Shaun Randle would undertake the responsibilities of a transport manager.

• Section 26(1)(f) 鈥� that there has been a failure to comply with the undertakings of the licence namely that the licence-holder would have proper systems in place to ensure: (1) that drivers would report any defects promptly and in writing; (2) that maintenance records would be kept for 15 months and made available on request; and (3) that vehicles would be kept fit and serviceable.

• Section 26(1)(h) 鈥� that since the licence was issued there has been a material change in any of the circumstances of the licence-holder that were relevant to the issue or variation of the licence; namely that business operations have ceased and the licence is no longer required.

• Section 27(1)(a) - that the operator no longer satisfies the requirements of section 13A, namely (a) to have an effective and stable establishment; (b) to be of good repute; and (c) to have appropriate financial standing.
• Section 27(1)(b) - that the transport manager designated by the licence-holder no longer satisfies one or more of the requirements of Schedule 3; namely 14A(1)(b) (good repute) and 14A(1)(d) to be manage effectively and continuously the operator鈥檚 transport service.

The adverse findings under section 26 are discretionary, whereas the findings under section 27 are such that I am obliged to revoke the licence unless such a direction would be disproportionate in the circumstances. I note that the operator has been put on notice, has largely agreed with my concerns and has not provided any mitigation which might lead me to conclude that revocation is not a proportionate outcome.

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-holder includes (1) failure to comply with case management directions; (2) failure to ensure undertakings and conditions are complied with; (3) failure to notify material changes; and (4) conduct raising questions regarding honesty and integrity, I therefore conclude that this is not an operator that I can trust.

Whilst it may be academic on account of the decision by IHTL to close its business, 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. This is a case with a wide range of serious negative features and adverse findings as set out above. The only positive I can identify is the attendance of the director to assist the inquiry.

In conclusion I give a direction under the aforementioned provisions of sections 26 & 27 that this licence be revoked. I consider immediate revocation is justified and proportionate as the operator has told me its vehicle has been sold.

Having revoked the licence and found that the operator has lost its good repute I consider whether disqualification is appropriate. In respect of an operator or director the issue of disqualification is a discretionary matter. I am conscious of the Senior Traffic Commissioner鈥檚 guidance at paragraph 65 of Statutory Document 10 that such a direction is a potentially significant infringement of rights and should not be routinely ordered.聽 I must, however, balance this against the multitude of failings identified in this case which I do not repeat here. What is of particular relevance is that the operator has wilfully allowed a transport manager to be established in name only. This is a significant breach of trust and goes to the heart of road safety and fair competition.

I therefore consider a period of disqualification is justified and proportionate. This is the licence-holder鈥檚 first public inquiry, but the wide range of findings are significant and serious. Accordingly, and in consideration of the Senior Traffic Commissioner鈥檚 starting points, I disqualify Ian Hyatt Transport Limited from holding or obtaining an operator鈥檚 licence for a period of three years.

Mr. Hyatt made it clear that he was the director in charge and he made the decisions. Certainly, he was open about the arrangement with the transport manager, and he was the driver of the vehicle which received the prohibition. Accordingly, I make little distinction between Mr. Ian Hyatt and IHTL and order that he is also disqualified from holding or obtaining an operator鈥檚 licence for a period of three years.

During the course of the public inquiry Mr. Hyatt indicated to me that one piece of advice he had been given by someone in the industry was to shut down the company and reapply in a different name. Whilst Mr. Hyatt insisted that he would never do this, I am minded to consider that this opportunity may arise at some point in the future. Mrs. Hyatt (named on the licence as Ms. O鈥橦ara) was not in attendance at the inquiry and, I was told, is not actively involved in the business. Regardless, directors hold joint and several responsibility and Mrs. Hyatt鈥檚 inactivity was such that the mismanagement went unchecked.

Whilst I have no evidence of dishonesty or knowledge on the part of Mrs. Hyatt due to her absence from proceedings, I do consider the passivity to be a matter of relevance. I further consider a risk of future phoenix or fronting applications and therefore direct that Mrs. Hyatt is disqualified from holding or obtaining an operator鈥檚 licence for an indefinite period of time. Unlike a specified timeframe such as three years, it is open to Mrs. Hyatt to apply to have the disqualification lifted at any time but that request, and any associated application, will be subject to scrutiny by a Traffic Commissioner.

DECISION 鈥� TRANSPORT MANAGER

Mr. Randle failed to comply with the case management directions ahead of the public inquiry and admitted to accepting 拢1300 per year to be added in name only and legitimise this operator licence. There is no evidence of effective and continuous management of transport operations. Having found that there has been no intention across recent years to have Mr. Randle act as a transport manager, and he allowed his name to be used for convenience, I believe any finding short of loss of good repute would be perverse in all the circumstances.

I therefore make adverse findings under:

1. Section 27(1)(b) 鈥� the transport manager is no longer of good repute as required by paragraph 14A(1)(b) of Schedule 3 and in accordance with paragraphs 1 to 5 of Schedule 3

Having formed the conclusion that Mr. Randle is no longer of good repute I am required, under Paragraph 16(2) of Schedule 3 of the Act, to order that he be disqualified from acting as a transport manager. In line with the Senior Traffic Commissioner鈥檚 starting points and balancing the serious negatives identified with this being Mr. Randle鈥檚 first public inquiry, I direct that he is disqualified for a period of three years.

Paragraph 17(1A) requires that Mr. Randle be subject to a measure of rehabilitation. This can take the form of re-examination, or three months training. As the TM CPC examination offers a clear, measurable and qualified means of measurement I direct that he is required to retake and pass the TM CPC qualification before he is able to be appointed as a transport manager upon the conclusion of his disqualification period.

David Mullan

Traffic Commissioner for the North West of England

11 June 2026