扒哥吃瓜

IN THE EASTERN TRAFFIC AREA

INDIG LTD - OF2039597

AND

MIHAELA INDIG 鈥� TRANSPORT MANAGER

TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER鈥橲 DECISION

Background

Indig Ltd holds a Standard International Goods Vehicle Operator鈥檚 Licence authorising 6 vehicles and 6 trailers. The Director is Flaviu-Dorian Indig. 聽The Transport Manager is Mihaela Indig who was appointed on 29 May 2023 after queries raised about her full-time employment elsewhere.

There is one Operating Centre at Skilletts Hill Farm, Waltham Abbey EN9 3QUs. Preventative Maintenance Inspections are said to be carried out by Hunter Vehicles Ltd, HYC Hemel DAF, Volvo Enfield, Independent Fleet Care Ltd, Carey Commercial Repairs Ltd, and Delurintu Ltd at 8-weekly intervals.

A Traffic Examiner visit report on 4 March 2024 was marked as mostly satisfactory with no referral by DVSA.

Mihaela Indig is also listed as the Transport Manager on OH2043855 held by 19S46 Ltd to which she commits 10 hours per week. She is said to commit 8 hours per week to this licence as well as a part time retail job.

The Public Inquiry was initially listed for 4 March 2026, in Tribunal Room 1 of the Office of the Traffic Commissioner in Cambridge. The operator was present in the form of Flaviu-Dorian Indig and represented by Patrick Boyers of JMW solicitors. The Transport Manager failed to appear (see below) but was also represented by Mr Boyers.

The hearing was reconvened on 14 May 2026, by which time the operator had decided not to continue with the licence. On 11 May 2026, my office was informed that JMW solicitors were no longer instructed to represent the company or Transport Manager.聽聽

Issues

The public inquiry was called following notice that I was considering grounds to intervene in respect of this licence and specifically by reference to the following sections of the Goods Vehicle (Licensing of Operators) Act:

• 26(1)(a) 鈥� use of an unauthorised site as an Operating Centre.
• 26(1)(b) 鈥� conditions on licence to notify changes to licence requirements, in this case relating to the above and to a Transport Manager meeting Scjedule3.
• 26(1)(c)(iii) 鈥� Prohibitions
• 26(1)(ca) 鈥� Fixed Penalties
• 26(1)(e) 鈥� statements relating to inspection intervals, by the specified contractors, where vehicles would normally be kept and to abide by conditions on the licence
• 26(1)(f) 鈥� undertakings (vehicles to be kept fit and serviceable, effective driver defect reporting, complete maintenance records, drivers鈥� hours and tachographs)
• 26(1)(h) 鈥� material change:
• 27(1)(a) 鈥� repute, financial standing and a Transport Manager meeting Schedule 3.
• 28 鈥� Disqualification.

Ms Indig was also called to consider whether she had exercised effective and continuous management and therefore whether I should make a finding under section 27(1)(b) preventing her from relying on her Certificate of Professional Competence.

The operator was originally directed to lodge evidence in support including financial, maintenance and other compliance documentation. Compliance documentation was to be submitted to DVSA by no later than 19 February 2026 with finance and any representations to be sent to my office by 26 February 2026. Copies of the financial evidence were received in the afternoon of 3 March 2026, whilst they disclosed sufficient funds by way of average to meet the prescribed sum. The operator then failed to produce the originals or verified copies at the hearing. I was persuaded to allow a Period of Grace following a finding under section 27(1)(a) to show financial standing at the reconvened hearing. Those statements suggested an established relationship with the transport consultant at Logico, but there were no identifiable payments to drivers. The documents received on the morning of the hearing named drivers as: Mr Indig, Dorin Indig, Emil Ionut Dinca, Constantin Ponut, Paul Arcaleanu, Nicolae Aghenie, Adrian-Doru Anghel. I made directions that the operator must produce to the tribunal: evidence of driver payments and engagement, with proof of PAYE and NI deductions by 7 May 2026

Given the operator鈥檚 earlier response, I was surprised that the operator had to be chased by email of 6 January 2026 regarding the request for a Public inquiry and for financial evidence. On 25 February 2026, my office received an email from a consultancy, Logico, suggesting that JMW solicitors might have been instructed. Access to make additions to the digital bundle had expired and I had yet to hear directly from anyone with locus.

The letter of 2 March 2026 from JMW indicated that there had only been recent instructions and acknowledged the failure to comply with Case Management Directions. For some reason it limited the reference to vehicles FG17 WLO, FG66 ECN and AV68 KPU only and not trailer records. The solicitors suggested that 鈥渄ue to a busy schedule with additional childcare responsibilities, they were unable to comply with the direction. We understand that the documents have been served on the Office of the Traffic Commissioner after the deadlines set out in the case management directions.鈥� That was incorrect as no compliance documents were received by either DVSA or the tribunal.

The operator鈥檚 legal representatives sought an adjournment of the public inquiry, which was refused. I referred to Statutory Document No. 9 and noted that the solicitor apparently wished to argue that the operator should be allowed to present evidence, without being in a position to do so. 聽 I had not even received the financial evidence or any reason as to why the case could not proceed as listed, except that the operator has not prepared. As the Director and Transport Manager are separate individuals, I did not understand why the case had not been prepared. Financial evidence was previously chased by email. Both operator and TM were contacted on 12 February 2026 noting that neither party had accessed the bundle and reminding them to submit the documentation as request to DVSA and to submit finances and representations to the OTC by 18 February. 聽I indicated that the solicitor was at liberty to renew the application in person and at the hearing, as listed.

Summary of Evidence

On 9 May 2025, DVSA Examiners issued Prohibition Notices, one 鈥楽鈥� marked in respect of NG15 YCL for 2 x tyre tread worn and trailer C274585 for the tyre being devoid of tread. The vehicle was being driven by the Director. The walk round record showed no defect. The photographs were truly alarming.

DVSA was prompted to conduct a maintenance investigation visit. The Examiner, Mr Abbott, identified the following shortcomings:

• records did not conform to current standards (Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness)
• records not completed properly,
• extended Preventative Maintenance Inspection intervals,
• Poor planning with no VOR or safety defect/recall systems in place,
• ineffective driver defect reporting,
• ineffective wheel and tyre management.
• it was noted that the agreement to use the operating centre was due to expire on 30 November 2025.

Mr Abbot assessed the operator鈥檚 response. The operator was said to have changed the service provider to Independent Fleet Care for all the inspections, using up to date RHA 2024 inspection pro-formas. Copies of the signed maintenance contract were said to be available. The operator suggested that the 鈥淭ransport Manager now verifies and signs every PMI sheet before filing鈥� but no evidence was provided and no other reply was made with respect to the inspection reports. There was no response regarding the inspection intervals. The operator indicated that it had moved to a digital system which was shared with the relevant staff and will show the Preventative Maintenance Inspection dates, annual test and brake check schedules. Evidence of this system was not provided. The operator claimed that a Vehicle off road register had been created, but no evidence was provided. The operator stated that 鈥渁ll recall checks are now logged monthly using the manufactures databases鈥� with no evidence. The operator had replaced 鈥榁ehicle Check鈥� with an unnamed system which would allow the driver to take photographs of any defect found. These shortcomings raised serious concern as to the control of the nominated transport manager, who was unavailable due to her other employment

I asked that the operator be put on notice of the potential consequences for this licence under cover dated 3 December 2025. The operator and Transport Manager responded on 21 December 2025. The operator requested a Public Inquiry. The Transport Manager indicated that, following the DVSA investigation they have undertaken a full review of the operation and implemented new systems with regards to the completion of records, inspection frequency, VOR system, safety recall system, driver walk round checks and monitoring, wheel and tyre management and tachograph compliance. The Transport Manager also confirmed that the Operating Centre contract has been addressed:

Preliminary Issue

The call-up letter was dated 20 January 2026. As is standard procedure across all traffic areas, and for virtually all public inquiries, the call-up letter was accompanied by standard case management directions. The case management directions directed that, by 11 February 2026 compliance documentation be lodged with DVSA and by 18 February 2026, the operator must send to the Traffic Commissioner鈥檚 office: evidence showing the availability of finance as set out in the call up letter, and any representations that they wish the Traffic Commissioner to take account of, statements of any witnesses they wish to call, and any expert report or audit they wish to submit.

I noted an apparent misunderstanding relating to access to the digital bundling application. I advised that he should have now served paginated hard copies of any evidence to be relied upon. 聽聽聽

For some reason, it was thought appropriate to try to dictate to the tribunal, suggesting that the operator was entitled to ignore Case Management Directions, citing a decision in respect of the Northern Irish jurisdiction: SCA Haulage Ltd, as authority.聽聽 That case is easily distinguishable. There, the advocate attempted to ignore Directions and use Dropbox to serve documents, the Friday before a Monday Public Inquiry. The Transport Regulation Unit of the Northern Irish Department was unable to open the documents. The Presiding Officer then refused to consider them due to the late service. The appellate decision suggests that all lodged documents should have been considered but centred on the fact that only 21-days鈥� notice was given of the hearing, unlike the notice given by Traffic Commissioners and in this case. The proper approach is therefore that described by the Senior Traffic Commissioner, in Statutory Document No. 9 on Case Management. The index event dates to 9 May 2025.

The pressures on our public services are well known. To ensure that funds generated through operator licence fees are used to best effect, this tribunal allocates time within busy diaries to allow for the preparation of cases. That requires parties to comply with Directions. There is nothing unfair in that process and, when it comes to this Public Inquiry, notice was given well in advance. The Directions ensure that all the factors contributing to a fair hearing are properly balanced and, in this case, were directed to the operator.

The approach of Traffic Commissioners and staff to Case Management Directions is guided and dictated by the Senior Traffic Commissioner鈥檚 Statutory Documents, relying on principles from relevant case law. Section 4C of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 provides that the Senior Traffic Commissioner may give to the Traffic Commissioners guidance, or general directions, as to the exercise of their functions under any enactment. Directions include the procedure to be adopted in conducting inquiries under Section 35 of the 1995 Act. Indeed, under Section 1(2) of the 1995 Act, a Traffic Commissioner shall聽 act under聽the general directions of, and shall have regard to any guidance given by, the Senior Traffic Commissioner.

Statutory Document No. 9 is entitled 鈥淐ase Management鈥�, and includes:

The principles of case management, the 鈥榦verriding objectives鈥� and the Procedure Rules of other courts and tribunals are referenced in paragraph 88 of Statutory Document No. 9. The First-tier Tribunal is plainly entitled to refuse to accept the submission of any such material placed before the tribunal in contravention of directions without good reason. A similar rule assists with the management of work before the Upper Tribunal. There is nothing inherently unfair. The approach adopted by Traffic Commissioners reflects that approach. In giving undertakings, operators accept the basic obligations of an operator鈥檚 licence when the application is made. Traffic Commissioners do not seek to treat operators as children but recognises the complicated nature of transport businesses and that a competent operator should be able to supply its own documents, which should already have been monitored by the Transport Manager. It is simply not possible to deal with complex cases expeditiously, efficiently, fairly and justly without such powers being applied proportionately. That recognises the clear duty to cooperate on all parties. Routine failure to comply with, or then consistently enforce, lawful case management directions will serve only to devalue the case management system as a whole and undermine its essential credibility and practical effectiveness.

The expectation of cooperation was acknowledged by the Upper Tribunal in Stephen Mcvinnie t/a Knight Rider [2010] UKUT 358 (AAC) when, at paragraph 13, the tribunal said:

The overall sense we have of this case is of an operator failing to adhere to the process and timescales as determined by the Traffic Commissioner and seeking, instead, to determine for himself the timeframe for the submission of evidence and the determination of matters. The public inquiry process cannot function in this way. In this day and age, and especially in the essentially inquisitorial framework of the public inquiry system, there is in our view a clear duty on operators to help the Traffic Commissioner deal with cases fairly and justly 鈥� and to avoid delay, so far as compatible with the proper consideration of the material issues. The modern trend is to expect parties to tribunal proceedings (and, by analogy, operators) to co-operate generally.

In order to support Traffic Commissioners in actively case managing cases in the build-up to a Public Inquiry, tribunal staff follow approved Operating Instructions. This ensures a consistent approach. Currently, the Traffic Commissioners鈥� offices use a digital 鈥淐ase Center鈥� to which operators and other parties can be given access to upload documentary material. Where case management directions fix a deadline, the system freezes at that point. This ensures parties can upload documents in advance of the hearing, but if a party wishes to submit additional documents after the freeze date, they must contact the caseworker and send the material independently. It will be for the Traffic Commissioner to determine how they wish to receive that material. Amongst other things, the caseworker will request an explanation from the submitting party as to the reason why they failed to comply with the case management directions and why the apparently late material could not have been submitted on time.

Upon receipt of a response, the case worker will forward the explanation to the presiding (or available) Traffic Commissioner for a decision on whether the evidence should be accepted and, if so, in what format. Following a request or attempt to submit late documentary material, the case management regime involves (if there is time) a pre-hearing decision from the presiding (or other) Traffic Commissioner as to whether the late material is to be accepted, and such a decision will usually necessitate consideration of the reason given for lateness and the explanation as to why the material could not have been submitted on time.

Effective case management becomes untenable if case management directions are ignored. In this case, the solicitor resorted to a much-repeated argument relying on a limited extract from The Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Regulations 1995, Schedule 4, Paragraph 5 which (so far as it is relevant) reads:

Many tribunals have to make contemporaneous and up-to-date decisions, based on the facts as they are at the date of the hearing itself, but they nevertheless need to manage the submission of documentary material in accordance with a firm timetable. The attitude demonstrated in the correspondence from the solicitor treats paragraph 5(4) as an override of the process now widely and routinely applied to all public inquiries. It also seeks to treat a presiding Commissioner as a party to proceedings, which cannot be tolerated. The suggestion is that the operator is not obliged to produce any material prior to the hearing but that a Traffic Commissioner is obliged to consider any material delivered including written submissions right up to the conclusion of the hearing no matter how voluminous the material or how urgent the matters arising, is not what Parliament intended.

Whilst Traffic Commissioners are not currently part of the First-tier Tribunal, this does not mean that they are not a tribunal when exercising their judicial functions under the applicable legislation. Many tribunals have or continue to operate outside of HMCTS. Some are sponsored or administered by government departments, and some by local authorities or other lawfully mandated bodies. Collectively, Traffic Commissioners act as a non-departmental judicial tribunal and an administrative licensing authority, sponsored by the Department for Transport. Appeals from the judicial decisions of Traffic Commissioners usually go to the Upper Tribunal. To that extent, Traffic Commissioners are to be regarded as standing at a level equivalent to a First-tier Tribunal. I do not agree with the suggestion that operators or their representatives are permitted to ride rough-shod over this jurisdiction. There cannot be a complete free-for-all in terms of judicial control of proceedings, case management of documentation, and the timetabling of pre-hearing preparation.

The primary concern of paragraphs 5(2), (3) and (4) is the distinctions between persons entitled to appear at an inquiry on the one hand, and other persons who might attend the inquiry on the other, and also between oral input on the one hand, and written material on the other. They provide who can submit (or seek permission to submit) what. That reflects the pro-active approach now seen in other tribunals, including cases brought before the First tier and Upper Tribunals.聽 In the absence of tribunal rules, Statutory Document No. 9 offers an alternative. The impact was fully explored by the Upper Tribunal in the often-overlooked decision in Morgan J Ltd [2024] UKUT 337 (AAC). Deriving authority from Statutory Document No. 9, case management directions set out a lawful timetable which parties are expected to cooperate with. To apply the highly selective approach suggested would make a nonsense of paragraph 5(5)(c) of the Regulations. It would also be contrary to the intention of Parliament that Traffic Commissioners be permitted to manage their proceedings, as suggested by section 35(1) of the Goods Vehicle (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995:聽聽

A traffic commissioner may hold such inquiries as he thinks necessary for the proper exercise of his functions under this Act聽or the聽2009 Regulation.

The ability to add to the digital bundle (Case Center), is at the Traffic Commissioner鈥檚 discretion. To be clear, when Case Management Directions are not complied with, an explanation is sought before any further material is accepted. It then falls to a Traffic Commissioner to determine whether to admit late material, with regard to the reasons and its relevance, and even then, as to what weight can be attached to it, if the material is only then available. The only explanation referred to them being busy. It has been long established that the interests of justice include the efficient disposal of judicial business where that can be achieved in a fair, balanced, cost-effective and proportionate way. The alternative would be to make adverse findings about repute or fitness because of wilful non-cooperation.

As the Senior Traffic Commissioner reminds us in Statutory Document No. 9: The administration of an effective and efficient system will bring about great benefits to users of the traffic commissioners鈥� tribunals. As stated, there is a considerable public interest in hearings taking place on the date set and so hearings should not be adjourned unless there is a good and compelling reason to do so. As per the appellate Tribunal in 2010/064 JWF (UK) Ltd, a Traffic Commissioner is entitled to take into account the alleged conduct of the operator. Both operator and Transport Manager were contacted on 12 February 2026, noting that neither party had accessed the bundle and reminding them to submit the documentation as requested to DVSA and to submit finances and representations to the tribunal by 18 February 2026. 聽The tribunal received a number of communications indicating that a transport consultant was involved. That consultant also indicated that Mr Afzaal鈥檚 firm would be instructed and yet the tribunal had yet to receive a formal request from JMW for access to the bundle.聽The transport consultant sought access on 25 February 2026. On confirmation that she had authority; access was granted from 26 February 2026 when the operator was said to be in the process of instructing the solicitors. The consultant, Ms Fleming, left it to 8:20 am on 2 March 2026 to view the bundle.聽 Mr Boyers accessed the digital bundle at 23:58 on 3 March 2026. 聽

First Hearing

In that context I was asked to consider the request for an adjournment two days before the hearing, because the Director and Transport Manager had apparently been unable to secure childcare. No other details were provided or any indication as to how childcare is managed on a normal working day. There was no application for any party to attend remotely, only a suggestion that the late documentation should now be considered by DVSA. As above, the Senior Traffic Commissioner expresses caution about such applications being used as a device.

My office proactively contacted the solicitors on the day before the Public Inquiry to ask whether remote attendance was in contemplation, only to receive a different version of events. Accordingly, at 15:59 on the day before the hearing, a Mr Afzaal of JMW indicated that 鈥渢he Transport Manager will not be attending the public inquiry. Mr Flaviu Indig and Mrs Mihaela Indig have a 2-year-old child, and we have been informed that the child is poorly and Mrs Indig will be taking the child to a medical appointment tomorrow.鈥� Based on the approach described above and in the absence of corroborating evidence, I remained to be satisfied that there were good and compelling reasons to adjourn this hearing.

At 10:45 on the day of the first hearing I was provided with a 鈥淪tatement Regarding Missing Documentation at Inspection鈥� signed by Mr Indig and dated 3 March 2026 in which he states:

I would like to sincerely apologise for the fact that some of the requested documents were not immediately available at the time of the inspection.

The records do exist; However, at the time of the visit some of the documents were temporarily unavailable due to an internal administrative reorganisation of our compliance files and documentation systems. Part of the documentation was in the process of being reviewed and organised together with our external advisors, and therefore it was not readily accessible during the inspection.

This situation was not due to any intention to conceal information, but rather the result of an ongoing process to improve our internal record keeping procedures and ensure that all compliance documentation is properly structured and maintained.

Thank you alright so I saw I was like the inspection, we have taken immediate corrective measures to ensure this situation does not occur again. These measures include:

• a full review and reorganisation of all compliance documentation.
• Implementation of a structured filing system for maintenance, tachograph, and drivers鈥� records,
• regular monthly compliance checks.
• Clear allocation of responsibility for document management within the company.

We fully understand the importance of maintaining proper records and ensuring that they are readily available for inspection at any time.

Our company is committed to maintaining the highest standards of operator compliance and we will continue to improve our systems to ensure full adherence to all operating licence obligations.

I then saw records for FG17 WLO, NG15 YCL but no Preventative Maintenance Inspections after 15 September 2025, and FG66 ECH SORN print out, dated 15 August 2025. It emerged that the operator was involved in third-party traction. In answer to my questions, Mr Indig suggested that drivers were not permitted to leave with Amazon trailers if they detect a defect. The operator might be able to access Amazon inspection records (including brake tests) but had not done so. I contrasted that with the DVSA Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness, which advises:

What the traction operator is responsible for

The traction operator is responsible for:

• Carrying out a walkaround check
• Recording any defects and how they were repaired before use.

Also have access to:

• The safety inspection interval
• A copy of / or access to the current safety inspection reports, including brake tests.
• A copy of / or access to current MOT certificate
• electronic braking performance management system (EBPMS) report if applicable

The operator should have in place a contract or written agreement with the trailer owner detailing the safety inspection details, frequency and defect rectification that satisfies an acceptable level of roadworthiness is maintained.

I alerted Mr Boyers to Statutory Document No. 9 and paragraph 61, which refers to the decision in 2012/005 AND Haulage Ltd: The Upper Tribunal declined to criticise a traffic commissioner for suspending a licence pending receipt of appropriate financial evidence. The Upper Tribunal observed that this type of order might be a 鈥減owerful spur to rapid action on the part of an operator who may, up to that point, have appeared to be dragging his or her feet. We can also see how it can provide a measure of protection to the public in cases where it appears, on paper, that there are real concerns as to road safety.

Mr Boyers attempted to argue that I was not permitted to make an assessment of the documents (such as they were) produced on the morning of the hearing. He referred to a decision of the Upper Tribunal in 2022/040 RAM Logistics Ltd. In that case, the Upper Tribunal decision only upheld Grounds 1, 2 and 5 and then to a limited degree. The decision flows from an assessment that the presiding Commissioner decided that the grounds set out in the calling in letter were not made out on the evidence and, but for those grounds, there would have been no Public Inquiry. The grounds for revocation that were relied upon by the presiding Commissioner resulted from her assessment of the documentary evidence and the Appellant persuaded the Tribunal that they did not have the merit which the Commissioner attached.

The Upper Tribunal noted the balancing exercise conducted by the presiding Commissioner. The Tribunal found no merit in the argument that there was an error of law in approaching the balancing of factors as a mathematical exercise. There appeared to be some confusion as to what can be expected of a Director of a transport company. It suggested that a Director is not expected to check every single document, but the Tribunal was not addressed on previous Tribunal decision in 2012/025 First Class Freight, 2018/046 Mark Clinton, to name but a few, which remain good law. In 2014/024 LA & Z Leonida trading as ETS, the Upper Tribunal stressed 鈥溾�� it does not matter whether an operator鈥檚 licence is held by an owner operator, a partnership or a limited company because in each case the person or persons responsible for managing the business bear the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that the road transport aspect of the business operates in compliance with the regulatory regime. That means that they cannot plead ignorance or put the blame on the transport manager because they are required to have sufficient knowledge of the regulatory regime to ensure compliance in general and the proper performance of the transport manager鈥檚 duties in particular鈥�.

The appellant鈥檚 advocate in the RAM case was forced to concede that a Traffic Commissioner is a specialist regulator and is therefore qualified to comment on records in the course of a hearing and come to a view as to the adequacy of records. He sought to advance additional arguments at the appeal hearing, suggesting that Article 6 required a Traffic Commissioner to call a DVSA Officer (as a recognised expert witness). The Tribunal is very clear in paragraph 44 of its decision that its comments are limited to the facts of this particular case. It refers to seeking analysis by DVSA or setting out the grounds for revocation in advance of the hearing. Whilst warning against acting as her own witness in the Public Inquiry, the Tribunal accepted that the Presiding Commissioner was entitled to come to her own view as to the quality of paperwork provided by the Appellant in her role as an adjudicator but that the perceived defects should be notified so that a party has opportunity to address these grounds in submissions and evidence. That of course relies on operators and their representatives to ensure that the documents are provided well in advance of the hearing.

The attempt to suggest that a Traffic Commissioner is not permitted to request the production of documentation in the calling in papers without there being an evidential basis, entirely failed as did the suggestion that this type of request equates to a reversal of the legal onus. The Upper Tribunal found a procedural flaw in the decision to revoke on grounds that were not identified in the calling in letter or in the Public Inquiry Bundle. The Upper Tribunal referred to insufficient time to address the matters of concern. The suggestion that notice be given in writing was inconsistent with long standing case law, on which the Tribunal was not addressed.

The Tribunal at paragraph 32 of RAM, distinguished between the manner in which the appeal was set out in the written Grounds as opposed to the written Skeleton and submissions further illustrates the point which the Upper Tribunal itself made in its decision in 2021/018 Egertons Recovery Group Ltd where the appellant sought to pursue additional grounds, which were not raised before the Commissioner and did not form part of the Ground of Appeal. Accordingly, the Upper Tribunal was not invited to consider the correct statement of the law, as summarised in the Senior Traffic Commissioner鈥檚 Statutory Document No. 9 on Case Management:

1. Call-up letters are not to be viewed as pleadings. The essential requirement is one of fairness but there should be no doubt as to the issues being raised. Some matters are so obviously relevant that they can be included without further justification; others are so obviously irrelevant that they must be excluded. In between there are two categories that require more care:

1) material the relevance of which only becomes apparent when some explanation is given;

2) material where a decision on whether or not it is relevant requires further investigation in the course of the hearing.

A call-up letter may have to be drafted with these distinctions in mind (as per the Tribunal in 聽2007/104 S Lloyd trading as London Skips).

1. 鈥淚n a fluid jurisdiction such as this, where operators continue to operate after the preparation of initial evidence and a call-up letter, it is entirely appropriate that there be scope for raising additional matters, subject to ensuring that an operator has proper notice鈥� -聽 2011/359 Paul Coleman trading as Coach UK Travel. Where new issues emerge during the hearing that have not been raised in the call-up letter this is not fatal to the fairness of the proceedings as long as the relevant party is given time to consider those issues and any new material. It may not be necessary to adjourn to another date (as per 2001/072 Alan R Brooks, 2009/516 Farooq Ahmed & Haroon Ahmed). The position is essentially one of fairness and the Upper Tribunal has held that there is no unfairness in circumstances where it is abundantly clear to the parties what the issues are in the case, despite any omission in the call-up letter - 2016/013 SNE Hire & Sale Ltd. Once a traffic commissioner has received answers which suggest a relevant line of enquiry then it is legitimate for the traffic commissioner to pursue the issue because it raises the question of whether the traffic commissioner should have jurisdiction over the party in the future. The traffic commissioner will consider whether there needs to be a full adjournment to allow time to consider the new material and fresh notification sent to clarify which matters are at issue - 2006/405 Transclara Ltd.

I referred to the dicta at paragraph 37: If the evidence produced by the Appellant itself had given rise to substantive grounds for revocation in breach of section 26, then the procedural irregularities identified might have been immaterial. Nothing in that decision detracts from the important statement in 2011/025 Asset 2 Asset Ltd and subsequently adopted in 2014/077 Leedale Ltd: The role of any traffic commissioner is essentially a judicial one, but a public inquiry is an inquiry and a traffic commissioner has a public duty, as regulator, to inquire carefully and diligently. It is a pro-active role, although the traffic commissioner must always be careful to maintain an open mind until the conclusion of evidence and submissions, and must never assume the role of prosecutor. Nevertheless, the duty of the traffic commissioner will often involve ascertaining the true facts, which means exploring and testing the evidence, and resisting so far as practicable those witnesses who attempt to pull the wool over his or her eyes鈥�. In the absence of full argument, the decision in RAM Logistics Ltd is dependent on its facts with limited relevance to the existing body of case law. I therefore rejected Mr Boyers鈥檚 argument.

At Mr Boyer鈥檚 invitation, I heard evidence from Mr Indig going to the 3 questions arising from the decision in AND Haulage Ltd. He confirmed that the operator is engaged in pulling Amazon trailers. There are currently only two vehicles in operation. Maintenance is undertaken by Independent Fleet Care at 8 weeks, but there were no up-to-date records to confirm this. Sometimes the completed records are handed back with the vehicle but on other occasions they are emailed. He referred to a loaded trailer being available at the contractor鈥檚 premises, for brake testing. He wished to move to a digital system to avoid the risk of losing records. He was unable to identify where the records from September 2025 onwards might be. It was accepted that inspection intervals had been missed in the past, 鈥淚 will look again鈥�. I contrasted this with the content of his statement from the day before. 聽He could offer me no explanation for what occurred on 9 May 2025 when he was driving, whilst at the same time telling me of plans to adopt a different defect reporting app. He could offer no explanation as to why he completed a 鈥楴il鈥� return but admitted that he was aware of the tyre defects. I asked for evidence of retorquing 鈥� two records were produced dating to 2024 and 2023. The older record showed a retorque, but Mr Indig was unable to confirm the operator鈥檚 policy. He confirmed that there had been no check of the records for trailers operated under this licence. He appeared not to appreciate the responsibility. He appeared to suggest that he and his wife, the Transport Manager, struggle to balance compliance with childcare responsibilities, and her other employment.聽 聽

I proceeded to consider the questions suggested by the Upper Tribunal:

• is it necessary to compel the party to do something? Yes, given the repeated failure by the operator to produce documents.
• is the threat to road safety so serious that suspension pending action on the part of the party is essential? Again, I referred to the evidence summarised above. The Prohibition represents the risk, and that had continued.
• is suspension to prompt the party to do something proportionate to the situation? Given the risk to road safety and the suggestion that basic operator licence requirements had not been met, I found this to be entirely proportionate

Accordingly, I suspended the operator鈥檚 licence until such time as the operator served all maintenance records for FG17 WLO from September 2025 onwards and AY68 TGN from its specification on 27 November 2025, and all trailers operated since September 2025,聽 to include all relevant Preventative Maintenance Inspection records, driver defect reports with rectification, all wheel-off and tyre records, and drivers鈥� hours records, raw data infringement reports, disciplinary action, training records and missing mileage reports, on DVSA for assessment.

Second hearing

Due to the operator鈥檚 approach, I ran out of time to complete this Public Inquiry on 4 March 2026. I made a finding of material change under section 26(1)(h) arising directly from the failure to comply with Case Management Directions. In the meantime, the operator allowed the operator鈥檚 licence to lapse by not seeking continuation (without lifting the suspension), leaving the position of the Transport Manager to be considered.

The Transport Manager was not present at the first hearing, but she was represented and her partner was also present. I was satisfied that she was on notice of today鈥檚 hearing, but out of a surfeit of caution, I asked the tribunal office to email her yesterday, as we had heard nothing. That communication used the address record on the VOL record and used in connection with her appointment on OH2043855, held by 19S46 Ltd. 聽She failed to appear.

Determination

The operator was fully on notice of the intention to complete proceedings 聽on 14 May 2026, with all parties to attend. The operator failed to take any steps between the hearings or to challenge the evidence served. On that basis I would have proceeded to make adverse findings under sections 26(1)(a) 鈥� use of an unauthorised site as an Operating Centre, 26(1)(b) 鈥� conditions on licence to notify changes to licence requirements, in this case relating to the above and to a Transport Manager meeting Schedule3, 26(1)(c)(iii) 鈥� Prohibitions, 26(1)(ca) 鈥� Fixed Penalties, 26(1)(e) 鈥� statements relating to inspection intervals, by the specified contractors, where vehicles would normally be kept and to abide by conditions on the licence, 26(1)(f) 鈥� undertakings (vehicles to be kept fit and serviceable, effective driver defect reporting, complete maintenance records, and drivers鈥� hours and tachographs).

The decision of those involved in this operation to allow the licence to lapse, without offering any challenge to the evidence contained in the bundle served by the tribunal office, indicates that the request for a Public Inquiry and its conduct in response to the call up, were simply delaying tactics. As Schedule 4 of the 1995 Regulations provide, it is for the Traffic Commissioner to determine the procedure at an inquiry: the聽 giving of evidence, the calling of witnesses, the cross examination of witnesses. The making of such addresses by other persons appearing at an inquiry is at the Traffic Commissioner鈥檚 discretion. A party is entitled to give evidence, call witnesses, to cross examine witnesses and to address the Traffic Commissioner both on the evidence and generally on the subject matter of the proceedings, but the Traffic Commissioner may refuse to admit that evidence or permit cross examination or the presentation of any other matter, which the Traffic Commissioner considers to be irrelevant, repetitious, frivolous or vexatious. That requires compliance with case management directions in advance of the hearing. It is not for parties to attempt to dictate or manipulate the management of proceedings.

In Samoor Services Ltd [2024] UKUT 292 (AAC), the Upper Tribunal confirmed that traffic commissioners are entitled to draw adverse inference from the way in which parties prepare for a Public Inquiry when making findings about the likelihood of running a compliant transport business. That applies equally to a Transport Manager.聽 In this case there has been a repeated failure to cooperate with the tribunal process. None of the remedial steps promised in correspondence were ever evidenced. None of the Examiner鈥檚 findings have been challenged in evidence, either by attendance in person or after an application to appear virtually. The representations on the last occasion raised very serious questions as to the Transport Manager鈥檚 capacity to deliver the most basic level of compliance. That impression was compounded by the few documents presented at the previous hearing. None of that evidence has been challenged.

Almost inevitably, I concluded that the Transport Manager failed to exercise effective and continuous management during the course of this licence. The lack of response and the approach to my intervention confirmed that this was not a reputable Transport Manager to the point that I must disqualify her from relying on her Certificate of Professional Competence. I therefore recorded a loss of repute under section 27(1)(b).

In the absence of Ms Indig, I was unable to determine the appropriate rehabilitation measure. I have referred to the guidance of the Senior Traffic Commissioner. There is no tariff, but a Transport Manager faces a minimum period of one year. I note that the element of non-compliance in this case point to a level of seriousness where an application to vary that disqualification would not be entertained before 5 years. In order to allow time for communication, that direction will come into effect at 23:45 on 20 May 2026.

R Turfitt

Traffic Commissioner

14 May 2026

Commentary

As per Statutory Document No. 9, traffic commissioners are entitled to employ additional measures to ensure the continued fairness of proceedings. Advocates will strive to do the best for their clients. It is very often the case that instructing a representative is left too close to the date of a hearing. Parties should note that the reason that practising lawyers are permitted to appear as of right is because they are regulated to carry out those reserved legal activities. Professional conduct is initially a matter for the individual lawyer but Principles 1 and 2 set out by the Solicitors Regulation Authority require a solicitor to act in a way that upholds the constitutional principle of the rule of law and the proper administration of justice, and聽in a way that upholds public trust and confidence in the solicitors鈥� profession and in legal services provided by authorised persons. As the Senior Traffic Commissioner highlights: Advocates are reminded of their professional duties not only to their client but also to the tribunal. Professional obligations prevent lawyers from dictating the management of proceedings on behalf of their clients. The Upper Tribunal recently provided a useful indication as to the standards which Traffic Commissioners are entitled to expect from advocates in its decision in Pro-Drainage Ltd & Others [2025] UKUT 397(AAC).