扒哥吃瓜

SOUTH EASTERN AND METROPOLITAN TRAFFIC AREA

DECISION OF THE DEPUTY TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER

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

KING CONCRETE PUMPING LIMITED OK2075460

Background

King Concrete Pumping Limited holds a restricted Operator鈥檚 licence authorising six vehicles granted on the 28 August 2024. The directors shown on Companies House records from the date of grant until the 13 February 2026 were Nigel Leach and Nicola Adams. On the 20 January 2025 Simon Sparkes and Holly Sparkes were added as directors.

Nigel Leach and Nicola Adams were directors of King Concrete Limited from 31 October 2008 and are shown as active directors on Companies House records. That operator held a restricted licence authorising twelve vehicles and a report was received in March 2025 from a traffic examiner regarding an investigation which found incidents of failure to use tachograph cards. Checks found that the company went into liquidation on 22 May 2025 and had failed to notify the Traffic Commissioner. As no response was received to letters sent to the company and the Liquidator, the licence was revoked on 24 July 2025. It is noted that the company King Concrete Pumping Limited failed to declare their links to King Concrete Ltd, OK1083180 on the GV79 when making the application for this licence and the bank statements showed a number of payments between the companies.

On 7 July 2025 a letter was sent to the operator requesting an explanation why the liquidation of King Concrete Ltd, OK1083180, had not been notified, and for three months bank statements to be supplied. In an email dated 8 July 2025 the operator explained that the company had a weighbridge installed in 2023 and found they were being overcharged. This was reported to Trading Standards but nevertheless King Concrete Limited was taken to court in respect of monies owed to the company at fault. The decision was taken to close the business and enter into liquidation.

Checks found that vehicles LK66 FNM, LM68 XFK & LL68 UUP were previously specified on the licence held by King Concrete Ltd had been transferred to the licence held by King Concrete Pumping Limited on the 14 April 2025 raising concerns in relation to the purchase of assets of a company which had gone into liquidation.

A DVSA visit was made to the operator on 24 October 2025 by Vehicle Examiner Marshall and Traffic Examiner Lorden. The examiners were advised that the company use the services of an external transport manager, Ray Gambling. The traffic examiner highlighted a variety of issues including, driver training records predating 2025 and showing the name of King Concrete Ltd, no records of driver CPC modules kept, no evidence of a system in place to collect and keep print outs of printer rolls, driver infringement reports were in the name of King Concrete Ltd, no system was in place for regular analysis of drivers hours and driver card data missing for drivers Michal Kaczmarczyk and Simon Sparkes. The examiner did not receive a response from the operator in respect of the shortcomings.

Vehicle Examiner Marshall 聽highlighted shortcomings including, PMI 聽intervals 聽聽exceeded and forms not fully completed, no brake tests carried out, no evidence of first use PMIs, no evidence of a system for safety defect & recall,
driver daily walk round checks ineffective, AdBlue system ineffective, tyre management system ineffective, no load security training provided to the driver, 聽and a prohibition was issued at inspection.

In his response to the vehicle examiner, Mr Leach stated that PMIs would be 聽carried out by Iveco Croydon in future and they will carry out Roller brake tests. He admitted the failure to conduct first use PMIs was his error. The late PMIs were due to the fitter being off sick. The wall planner will be moved to the main office. The DDR system has improved so that the defects rectifications are recorded.
Nicola Adams and Nigel Leach are also the directors of Kingspit Transport Ltd, OK1124915 a Standard National licence authorising four vehicles and two trailers. Raymond Gambling is the designated transport manager for that licence. 聽Mr Gambling was called to the inquiry as the transport manager for Kingspit Transport Ltd and Deadcert Recovery Ltd and to consider his role as the external transport consultant for King Concrete Pumping Ltd and King Concrete Ltd.

In light of the DVSA findings and the surrounding circumstances the Traffic Commissioner decided to call the operator to a joint public inquiry to be held with the licence held by Kingspit Transport Ltd and the standard national licence held by Deadcert Recovery Ltd, OK2078662 authorising four vehicles and one trailer, for whom Raymond Gambling is the nominated transport manager.
## The Public Inquiry

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

Evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Findings and Decision 鈥� King Concrete Pumping Limited

Whilst the inquiries for each of the operators detailed above were conjoined, I am issuing separate documents detailing my findings and decisions. In relation to the operator King Concrete Pumping Limited I find that there are grounds for regulatory action 聽to be taken under Section 26 (1) (b) 鈥� change of maintenance provider not notified (c) 鈥� prohibition issued at DVSA inspection (e) 鈥� statement of expectation that vehicles would be inspected every six weeks not fulfilled and (f) 鈥� undertakings in relation to maintenance and driver鈥檚 hours requirements not complied with.

In deciding what action to take I need to balance the negative aspects of the case with any positives I identify. On the negative side the grounds detailed above are added to by the inadequate response given to the DVSA officers following their visit and the fact that the issues found then continued to be present in early April 2026 when the officers compiled their follow up report.
On the positive side neither Mr nor Mrs Sparkes had any official role in the management of transport at the time the DVSA visits took place. Whilst Mr Sparkes was site manager at the time and met with the officers, he was not a transport manager or director of the company. Positive action to improve has been taken by engaging Mr Miles and as a result new systems are in place, and training has been undertaken by both directors and the employed drivers. Whilst the pending public inquiry was the catalyst for this change, I do not underestimate the improvements that have been made. I have looked through the additional documentation submitted to the Office of the Traffic Commissioner before the inquiry by Mr Sparkes and acknowledge that it does lessen the impression that no improvements had been made between the initial visits and the public inquiry.

Having considered all aspects I conclude that I can step back from considering revocation or a suspension of the licence and determine that the seriousness level of the case for this operator is in the moderate category. As a consequence, I can deal with the case by ordering a curtailment of the licence together with attaching undertakings subject to them being agreed.
The curtailment will be to four vehicles and three trailers. Whilst this will not impact on the business now as it reduces the margin on the licence. I believe it is appropriate because it limits the scope for additional vehicles to be added to the licence without a variation application being made. If this was to happen, I anticipate that the Traffic Commissioner would require evidence of fully compliant transport management systems before agreeing.
I also seek agreement to the following two undertakings:

a) the operator shall engage the services of a transport consultant approved by the Traffic Commissioner for not less than one day per month on an ongoing basis.聽 (I anticipate that more than one day per month will be required initially but will leave the operator and transport consultant to determine this). For the avoidance of doubt, I confirm that A S Miles Consultant is an approved provider.
b) An independent audit of the transport operation shall be carried out in November 2026 and a copy of the audit with the response from the operator shall be sent to the Office of the Traffic Commissioner within 14 days of receipt. Full details of the undertaking to be included in the decision letter.

John Baker

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

1 June 2026