扒哥吃瓜

IN THE EASTERN TRAFFIC AREA

KTAURUS LTD 鈥� OF2014453

AND

ANDRIS ASERMANIS 鈥� TRANSPORT MANAGER

AND

DRIVER: LUKAS NOREIKA

CONFIRMATION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER鈥橲 DECISION

Background

Ktaurus Ltd holds a Standard International Goods Vehicle Operator鈥檚 Licence authorising 8 vehicles and 8 trailers. The Director is Kristine Asermane. The Transport, Manager, Andris Asermanis, has been named on this licence since August 2018. There is a history of the directorship alternating. between Mrs Asermane and Andris Asermanis (most recently on 6 April 2023). Written representations referred to Mrs Asermane as the founding director and confirmed the relationship with Mr Asermanis. He was said to manage the day to day running of the Operator鈥檚 Licence, whilst she was responsible for the financial aspects of the business and general management. He holds a class 1 HGV licence and acts as a relief driver when required.聽 He previously held a Latvian qualification but obtained a UK Transport Manager CPC on 22nd May 2023.

There are three Operating Centres: 61 Station Road, Peterborough PE6 0QE; Alconbury Services, Maritime Transport Ltd, Alconbury, Huntingdon PE28 4WD; and Harwich Transport, West Dock Road, Parkeston CO12 4SL. Preventative Maintenance Inspections were said to be carried out by Pete Bradshaw at Manchetts (tachograph calibration), Ford and Slater, and Chassis Cab Ltd at 6-weekly intervals for vehicles and 13 for trailers (but see below). Representations referred to 44-tonne articulated vehicle and trailer combinations but third-party traction of trailers primarily those of Maritime Transport throughout the United Kingdom. These are skeleton trailers fitted with shipping containers, which are secured using twist locks. The 8 full-time drivers engaged under the PAYE scheme are expected to tramp but there is no current international work.

Following an encounter, DVSA commenced inquiries and alleged shortcomings that included: driving licences not checked; little training; no system of checking records and data; infringement reports not printed or signed; no Working Time Directive systems in place; no disciplinary procedures. The Traffic Examiner was concerned that Mr Asermanis had not been bringing driver hours infringements to drivers鈥� attention or challenging them. He admitted he was worried they would leave if he attempted any discipline.聽 Both the operator and Mr Asermanis were called to Public Inquiry commencing on 27 June 2022, and concluded on 24 August 2022, which examined the management of third-party traction. I found breaches under section 26(1)(f), in that the undertakings, relating to vehicles and trailers being kept fit and serviceable, to employ an effective driver defect reporting system, to ensure and retain complete maintenance records for the required period, and to ensure drivers鈥� hours and tachograph compliance, were not met. Those shortcomings did not amount to continuous and effective management and the statement to that effect, under section 26(1)(e). The commitment to quarterly driver licence checks was treated as a statement of intent. I accepted additional assurances in the form of undertakings:聽

• All vehicles and trailers will undergo a laden roller brake test as part of every Preventative Maintenance Inspection, in line with current DVSA guidance. The results will be recorded, and the records will be kept for at least 15 months.

• The operator will arrange an independent audit to be carried out by the RHA, Logistics UK, or other suitable independent body, to assess the systems for complying with the operator licence requirements, and the effectiveness with which those systems are implemented, with particular emphasis on the findings in this document and the employment and control of drivers. The audit should cover at least the applicable elements in the annex to be supplied by the Office of the Traffic Commissioner. A copy of the audit report, together with the operator鈥檚 detailed proposals for implementing the report鈥檚 recommendations, must be sent to the Office of the Traffic Commissioner in Cambridge, no later than 6 months from the date of the final hearing.

I found that Mr Asemanis鈥檚 failure to manage meant that his repute was tarnished and specifically referred to brake testing. The operator鈥檚 licence was suspended for a period of 5 days commencing at 23:45 on 24 August 2022.

Hearing

The Public Inquiry was listed for today, 9 June 2025, in Tribunal Room 1 of the Office of the Traffic Commissioner in Cambridge. The operator was present in the form of The Kristine Asermane, Director, with Andris Asermanis, Transport Manager, represented by Chris Harrington, solicitor of CE Transport Law, and accompanied by Ian Chennell, transport consultant. The driver failed to appear. It was suggested that he may not have appreciated the seriousness of the situation. He is not currently driving for the operator.聽聽聽

Issues

The Public Inquiry was called at the request of the operators and 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:

• 路聽聽聽聽聽聽 26(1)(b) 鈥� breach of the condition to notify matters going to repute and the ability of the Transport Manager to meet Schedule 3.
• 路聽聽聽聽聽聽 26(1)(c)(iii) 鈥� Prohibition Notices
• 路聽聽聽聽聽聽 26(1)(ca) 鈥� Fixed Penalty Notices
• 路聽聽聽聽聽聽 26(1)(e) 鈥� statements of expectation relating to inspection intervals, the Transport Manager, and to comply with conditions.
• 路聽聽聽聽聽聽 26(1)(f) 鈥� undertakings (vehicle to be kept fit and serviceable, driver defect reporting, complete maintenance records).
• 路聽聽聽聽聽聽 26(1)(h) 鈥� material change.
• 路聽聽聽聽聽聽 27(1)(a) 鈥� whether the licence holder is of good repute, has the appropriate financial standing and with a Transport Manager meeting Schedule.
• 路聽聽聽聽聽聽 28 鈥� disqualification.

Mr Asermanis was called in his own right to determine whether I should make a direction under section 27(1)(b) preventing him from relying on his Certificate of Professional Competence and by reference to the requirements of Schedule 3.

Driver Noreika was also called to a conjoined Driver Conduct Hearing to consider whether he should be permitted to continue to rely on his vocational driving entitlement. I was satisfied that notice had been served and that the case should proceed in his absence.

The operator was directed to lodge evidence in support including financial, maintenance and other compliance documentation (MT69 EBJ, FN68 HXW and DK18 HRN and 3 trailers from 28 January 2026). Compliance documentation was to be submitted to DVSA by no later than 19 May 2026 with finance and any representations to be sent to my office by 26 May 2026. The operator accepted that the financial evidence would not satisfy financial standing on an average balance over a 3-month period. The prescribed sum of 拢39,500 was only available as of 26 May 2026. This was said to be a loan聽 from the Director, to be 鈥榙educted as a dividend from company profits鈥�. This only followed the call to Public Inquiry. Representations dated 7 June 2026 were similarly late and demonstrated the same approach to the directions of the tribunal.

Summary of Evidence

On 7 November 2025, an S-marked roadworthiness Prohibition Notice was issued against vehicle MT69 EBJ whilst being driven by Lukas Noreika, for the following defects: 鈥榖raking system warning gauge not visible, and only one such device is fitted, driver removed fuse as coolant warning constantly buzzing鈥� and 鈥楨BS warning lamp not working, MIL inoperative, driver removed fuse as coolant warning constantly buzzing鈥�. A delayed roadworthiness Prohibition Notice was issued for defects that included: 鈥楳ain beam tell- tale, inoperative, driver removed fuse as coolant warning constantly buzzing鈥� and 鈥楻ear fog lamp tell- tale, inoperative, driver removed fuse as coolant warning constantly buzzing鈥�.

Driver Noreika was subsequently issued with 2 Fixed Penalty Notices (dangerous use and braking system warning device missing). In evidence, I was told that the driver was on the way back to the yard when the dash warning indicated an issue with coolant. The driver stopped and reported to the Transport Manager by telephone. Mr聽 Asermanis commented that sometimes this issue will disappear if the engine is allowed to cool. In this case it did not. The driver was said to have taken a photograph which Mr Asermanis then forwarded to the contractor (Burdalls) to identify which fuse to change. He was unable to produce that text message at the hearing but was adamant that the driver had not been told to operate with no fuse. He acknowledged that he had failed to tell the Vehicle Examiner this either at the time or during subsequent inquiries. However, Mr Chennell was able to offer some corroboration as he had tried to assist on the day. He suggested that there were language challenges and that the driver did not fully understand the Examiner鈥檚 questions. I therefore accepted the operator鈥檚 version but was left with no explanation as to why the driver operated the vehicle for approximately an hour with a fuse missing from the dashboard display.聽聽聽聽

The above events prompted DVSA to commence a maintenance investigation. Vehicle Examiner Gary Thomas conducted a maintenance visit on 27 January 2026. His findings have been summarised as follows:

• Inspection/Maintenance records 鈥� records not properly completed, with one instance of no brake tests carried out, tyre pressures not checked, and declaration not signed. Occasional extensions of inspection intervals into the next ISO week. No evidence of previous VOR, but operator is aware of the process.
• Driver defect reporting - inconsistent evidence that effective walkaround checks are being carried out. Operator only provided a sample of driver defect reports and could not show driver defect records for vehicle MT69 EBJ. Examiner requested a week of defect reports prior to the PG9 being issued to vehicle MT69 EBJ - the operator did not have these records available. Little evidence of defects appropriately assessed and repaired.
• Inspection facilities and maintenance arrangements 鈥� no evidence of contract with any of the specified contractors.
• Load Security 鈥� 聽no evidence of load security system and no evidence of staff training.
• Prohibition Assessment was unsatisfactory 鈥� DVSA recorded that 鈥渄river removed fuse re coolant warning continuously operating stated boss told him to remove vehicle going for service had checked water level stated it was ok鈥�. A review of inspection records and submitted evidence (Job cards) showed that the issue was ongoing, as far back as 6 September 2025 鈥� suggesting that there was an ongoing coolant leak and the levels were being topped up at inspections rather than the problem being investigated and repaired.
• Inspection recorded for vehicle MT69 EBJ dated 18 October 2025 had no brake test carried out and the declaration was not signed.

The operator鈥檚 response (from Mr Asermanis) provided assurances and details of measures subsequently implemented that included: 4 maintenance contracts; load security policy; tyre and wheel policy; clarified systems regarding walkaround checks defect identification and rectification; drivers stated to receive verbal load security instructions and to have received 鈥淢aritime training for loading and unloading the shipping containers on and off skeleton trailers.鈥�

In respect of the absent brake test on 18 October 2025, Mr Asermanis claimed that the contractor (Burdall) failed to provide an explanation for why a brake test was not conducted. He also appeared to rely on sub-section 5.3 of DVSA鈥檚 鈥楪uide to maintaining roadworthiness鈥�, and he stated, 鈥淭o satisfy the requirement for 4 break tests evenly spaced throughout the year the operator carries out a laden test at least every other safety inspection鈥� and reiterated that it was a one-off incident. In addition, it was stated that a late PMI was due to 鈥淐hristmas back log鈥�. In respect of the Prohibition Notice dated 7 November 2025, it was denied that the driver had been instructed to remove the fuse, and that after the prohibition was removed the vehicle went to service, and a new header tank and sensor were fitted.

However, the update report from Mr Thomas dated 28 May 2026 disclosed the following:

• Vehicle MT69 EBJ - inspection dated 27 February 2026 reported to have a braking imbalance of 37% recorded on axle 2 but was passed on locks, with no supporting evidence seen showing the imbalance being investigated.
• Vehicle FN68 HXW - inspection dated 25 February 2026 records defects: Axle 3 Offside outer tyre worn below legal limit, Axle 1 nearside tyre large split to cords. A drivers defect report dated 24 February 2026 showed no defects were found raising concerns raised as to the quality of the walk round by the driver.
• The Examiner found a satisfactory wall planner in place and up-to-date, colour coded stickers marking inspection and annual test dates. The tyre report showed tyre date codes and tread depths, but tyre pressures and serial numbers were not monitored. Detailed wheel torque records with wheel torque specification were present.
• Roller brake testing is now being carried out at all inspections however braking imbalances were not being investigated, despite the warning at the last Public Inquiry.
• It was noted on inspection record dated 25 February 2026 for vehicle FN68 HXW tyre defects were found which were not found on the drivers walk around check the day before, improvement/training needed for driver checks.

Written representations were signed by Mrs Asermane on 7 June 2026 but referred to her in the third person. The identified failings were accepted. The operator sought to distinguish between levels of compliance in 2023 and 2026. It was claimed that there had been some misunderstanding of the requirements, despite the previous intervention but it was accepted that regulatory action was likely. It was accepted by the Transport Manager that he had not been full effective and continuous management, although he had taken some steps to address those failings which centred on the traffic compliance side.

I was told that the operator had given instructions to the maintenance provider to conduct a laden brake test at every Preventive Maintenance Inspection. The Transport Manager had sought an explanation from the maintenance provider (W A Burdall by telephone), but no satisfactory explanation was provided, other than that the brake testing equipment may not have been operational at the time. The provider maintained that tyre pressures had been checked but omitted from the record. The Transport Manager failed to record the conversation but will not make the same mistake聽 The operator has decided to move away from W A Burdall and a new contract is in place with Lucas Truck Ltd.

A VOR procedure was said to be in place, using the wall planner, and vehicles are 聽parked separately and clearly identified by a notice in the vehicle window. Vehicle keys are removed and secured at the home office. A record is kept with the vehicle file and a first use inspection completed before a vehicle is returned to the road.聽

It is claimed that the Transport Manager failed to supply the Examiner with driver defect reports stored on his computer. The app means that, if a check is not completed, he is informed automatically. If a defect is recorded. He will assess the defect with the assistance of the maintenance provider. Notes of the rectification are recorded and signed off by him with an invoice to evidence the repair. He undertakes random gate checks each month and uses the same app. Toolbox talks have been conducted to train drivers. The Transport Manager checks the inspection records to identify driver detectable defects. I was told that persistent failure may lead to disciplinary proceedings.

The primary maintenance provider is Lucas Truck Ltd. It has a large commercial workshop with facilities, a roller brake testing machine and inspection pits.聽 The annual test pass rate was said to be higher than the national average. The failure on 17 February 2025 initially occurred due to a faulty brake test. The vehicle had work carried out on the brakes prior to the test 聽by WA Burdall. An initial brake test was said to have passed. The performance values were not available聽 at the hearing. A further test was conducted without rectification work which passed. The operator suggested that it was the way the test was conducted.聽聽

The app is used to record wheel security. A driver reported the defect on DO69 LPL. The Transport Manager arranged for the wheel to be removed investigated torqued and re-torqued as the operator does not remove any of its own wheels. There is a contract in place with TI Tyres Ltd.聽 Cabs are equipped with a tyre depth indicator and a torch to assist the drivers with the walk around checks.

The containers are sealed at origin prior to being loaded onto the ship. Drivers are not permitted in proximity to the trailer whilst containers are being loaded. Port shunters move the trailers to a separate area for collection by the operator, so the containers are already in situ and securely locked to the trailer. Drivers conduct a walk around check of the trailer and check documentation 鈥� last annual test and Preventative Maintenance Inspection Checks are conducted with a Maritime supervisor and also recorded in the Maritime paperwork. Drivers check that all twist locks are secure and carry out a visual inspection for any external damage or signs of leaning or load shift. Maritime Transport also provides training to drivers, who cannot access the port area until that training has been completed. Regarding the tyre Prohibition dated 29 July 2025, this was on a third-party trailer which was not visible to the driver or port representative during the walk around check.

The issue with MT69 EBJ was an intermittent fault which the Transport Manager assessed as minor. The coolant leak was not a safety critical defect. The operator intended to have it rectified at the next inspection. On 7 November 2025, he was contacted by the Driver Noreika who informed him that the issue had escalated and the truck was now buzzing. A stock of fuses and bulbs are kept in each cab. The Transport Manager instructed Driver Noreika to check the fuses and top up coolant and to complete the delivery before reporting to the maintenance provider for further investigation and repair. He did not tell Driver Noreika to remove the fuse or drive without it. This issue was resolved the following day, 8 November 2025.聽

The operator retracted the comments regarding the number of brake tests required per year and acknowledges that was not the correct position and accepts that the undertaking was not adhered to. In evidence, Mr Asermanis referred to the 鈥榙eal鈥�, i.e. the undertaking given at the last Public Inquiry. He stated that there was just this once occasion where there was no brake test at inspection. However, questions remained about the level of scrutiny exercised.聽 As the representations stated, it is disappointing that the Transport Manager is back at Public Inquiry, as a result. The representations refer to a recognition that compliance cannot be allowed to stagnate, and a further transport manager CPC refresher will be booked. The operator has engaged Ian Chennell, transport consultant to provide external oversight and to recommend further compliance improvements where appropriate but refuted the suggestion that the Transport Manager lacks the necessary knowledge, competence, or capability to fulfil. It was suggested聽 that I might distinguish his previous failure to meet the statutory duty from the current case as a significant period of time had elapsed since the previous hearing, during which steps had been implemented.

Determination

Based on the evidence summarised above, I was satisfied that I should record adverse findings under the following sections of the Act: 26(1)(c)(iii) 鈥� Prohibition Notices, 26(1)(ca) 鈥� Fixed Penalty Notices, 26(1)(e) 鈥� statements of expectation relating to inspection intervals, 26(1)(f) 鈥� undertakings (vehicle to be kept fit and serviceable, driver defect reporting, complete maintenance records), 26(1)(h) 鈥� material change.

The 3-month average of financial evidence was only sufficient to support 3 vehicles. However, the Director had moved to make monies available so that there was tangible evidence to allow a 4-month Period of Grace to show financial standing in the name of the operator. The operator was warned that I had made an adverse finding under section 27(1)(a) and of the consequences if the sum was not met within the period allowed.

The S marked Prohibition Notice inevitably led to DVSA attention, suggesting a failure to manage maintenance, defect reporting and a failure to brake test in breach of undertaking. The Transport Manager denied instructing the driver to remove the coolant warning fuse and blamed the driver. The operator was also unhappy with the former contractor. The inspection records suggested a longstanding defect, which was not rectified.聽The operator鈥檚 response produced maintenance contracts, load security policy, and VOR policy. I took the case in 2022 and was very clear about the undertaking, but the subsequent audit was clear.

It was suggested that the operator and Transport Manager had been open in their approach, although relevant factors had not been mentioned to the Examiner so as to allow him to follow reasonable lines of inquiry. This might be attributed to language issues.聽 The failings had been accepted, although the attempt to argue in the face of an explicit undertaking did not reflect well on the Transport Manager. The driver was acting under instructions, but the clear misunderstanding led to the unsafe operation of the vehicle. That may have been an isolated incident, but the management of maintenance arose at the previous Public Inquiry. I was properly reminded of the annual test pass rate and the engagement of an external transport consultant instructed to provide additional scrutiny and oversight. This incident pointed to insufficient driver training and discipline.

It was submitted that the appropriate starting point fell within the 鈥淪erious to Moderate鈥� category.聽 The parties accepted that failings had occurred, but I was asked to recognise the commitment to improve since the previous intervention. It was said that the issue surrounding the 鈥淪鈥� marked prohibition arose from a single incident with an intermittent fault, which stemmed from a driver making a bad decision. However, that had caused DVSA to look more closely. I took account of the operator鈥檚 approach to this hearing and the remedial action taken. The Transport Manager needs to ensure much closer scrutiny. He has the involvement of Mr Chennell to assist but he remains the Transport Manager. His repute remains severely tarnished.

It was disappointing to find the operator back at Public Inquiry. Whilst the remedial action taken to date suggested that the operator might be capable of ensuring compliance in the future, I determined that deterrent action was required to ensure that this is sustained going forwards. I accepted the following undertaking:

• to identify an independent body to carry out an audit of transport safety and compliance systems.聽 The audit will assess the systems for complying with maintenance, and the effectiveness with which those systems are implemented. The audit should cover at least the applicable elements detailed in the guidance on Operator Compliance Audits available at: 聽 A copy of the report confirming compliance against the operator licence requirements is to be uploaded to the licence record via the Vehicle Operator Licensing self-service account, or, if the operator does not have a self-service account, emailed to notifications@vehicle-operator-licensing.service.gov.uk聽 within 6 months of the date of the Public Inquiry.

I was then able to curtail the licence by 2 vehicles for a period of 2 weeks commencing 23:45 on 12 June 2926. I made a direction under section 26(6) preventing the operation of MR69 EBJ and DO69 LPL during that curtailment.聽 聽聽聽

Driver Conduct

The relevant legislation is set out in Sections 110-122 of The Road Traffic Act 1988. The legislation draws a clear distinction between Large Goods Vehicle (LGV) licence holders and applicants and Passenger Carrying Vehicle (PCV) licence holders and applicants. Section 112 of the 1988 Act provides that the Secretary of State shall not grant to an applicant a LGV driver鈥檚 licence or a PCV driver鈥檚 licence unless he is satisfied, having regard to his conduct, that he is a fit person to hold the licence applied for. It is section 121(1) which defines conduct - 聽in relation to an applicant for or the holder of a LGV driver鈥檚 licence or the holder of a UK licence for the Community, his conduct as a driver of a motor vehicle.

Mr Noreika holds a substantive LGV entitlement. He was the subject of a warning on 23 August 2024 with 1 offence on record: CU10 - Using a vehicle with defective brakes/ Offence date 鈥� 7 November 2025 (date of the S marked PG9) - 3 penalty points.

As the Administrative Court, on the application of Meredith and Others EWHC 2975 (Admin) 18 explained that, whilst the personal circumstances of the driver are, at the preliminary stage of consideration of fitness, irrelevant to the question whether his conduct as a driver has been such as to make him unfit, save to the extent that those circumstances concern his conduct as a driver. Personal circumstances which go to mitigate the conduct itself (such as illness, or emergency, or momentary lapse of attention, or carelessness) will be relevant, while personal circumstances which would, in the ordinary sentencing exercise by a criminal court go to mitigation of penalty (such as loss of work, or other hardship, or the dependence of others upon the licence-holder) would not.

The Court in Meredith did not go on to consider the applicability of the principle of deterrence, which was considered by the Court of Session in Thomas Muir (Haulage) Limited v The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [1999] SC 86, but regulatory action undoubtedly contributes to achieving of the purpose of the legislation.

I was told that the driver is a new father. I therefore allowed 7 days for the driver to make written representations, based on the facts set out above, as to why I should not suspend the vocational entitlement. The driver should refer to the Senior Traffic Commissioner鈥檚 Statutory Document No. 6 on vocational driver entitlements and the starting points for any action.聽聽

R Turfitt

Traffic Commissioner

9 June 2026