扒哥吃瓜

IN THE SOUTH EASTERN & METROPOLITAN TRAFFIC AREA

T & T CARS LTD PK2075073 (1)

MARK JOHN FOLEY - TRANSPORT MANAGER (2)

MARK RICHARD COLEMAN - FORMER TRANSPORT MANAGER (3)

PUBLIC PASSENGER VEHICLES ACT 1981

TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER鈥橲 WRITTEN DECISION

PUBLIC INQUIRY HEARD AT IVY HOUSE, IVY TERRACE, EASTBOURNE ON 6 MAY 2026 & 15 MAY 2026

REASONS

Background

Licence PK2075073 is a standard national licence granted on 23 July 2024 authorising the use of 08 vehicles with 08 discs issued. It previously held a Restricted PSV licence which was surrendered upon the grant of this Licence. OTC were informed that the said Restricted licence was never actually utilised. An encounter with vehicle GY67 FND on 09 April 2025 revealed that the vehicle did not have a tachograph installed - the driver explained that she normally worked school runs, which were exempt, but was picking up passengers from the airport and assumed this was also exempt.聽A prohibition was issued for tachograph not fitted but with a 24hr exemption to allow the vehicle to return to base.

On 07 May 2025 a notification was received from Mark Coleman of the prohibition, and an explanation of the circumstances and remedial actions taken.聽A DVSA Traffic Examiner visit was conducted on 30 June 2025. The outcome was reported to OTC with a score of 29.

The following were given an adverse marking on the report:聽

• Driver licensing and training
• Drivers鈥� hours/ record keeping
• Working time directive

A DVSA maintenance investigation was conducted on 01 December 2025 鈥� the primary reason was that DVSA found that vehicles were Class 5聽tested, with no PSV tests. The Vehicle Examiner (鈥榁E鈥�) investigation sought to establish why the tests were Class 5. It was noted that the vehicles that were MOT tested to the wrong class were subsequently corrected and a recent fleet change had occurred. Of 13 assessed areas, 7 proved satisfactory, 1 mostly satisfactory, and 4 unsatisfactory. The following were marked on the report:

• Inspection/Maintenance records 鈥� Unsatisfactory 鈥� including several months of missing records.
• Inspection facilities & Maintenance records 鈥� Unsatisfactory
• Wheel & tyre management 鈥� Unsatisfactory
• Prohibition Assessment 鈥� Unsatisfactory

DVSA received responses from Mr Hall and Mr Foley. Mr Coleman was contacted by the VE and also provided a response in regard to the prohibition and events following. The VE was also in contact with 鈥楰risty Newtons鈥� regarding the missing records as she was previously the general admin secretary. Ms Newtons told the VE her perspective of the events, and was willing to provide a report, however none has been received. 聽

As a result, the Operator, its current Transport Manager Mark Foley and former Transport Manager Mark Coleman were called to a public inquiry.

The Hearing

The hearing commenced in the Public Inquiry Room Ivy House, Ivy Terrace Eastbourne BN21 4QT on 06 May 2026. With all parties鈥� consent, the hearing concluded virtually on 15 May 2026. The Operator and its current Transport Manager were represented by Mr Scott Bell, Solicitor. Mr Coleman was represented by Mr Simon Clarke of Counsel. At the conclusion of the evidence and closing submissions, I gave my decision in relation to Mr Coleman, which was a strong formal warning. I will confirm the reasons in writing for him as part of this decision so that he has a formal record. In terms of the Operator and current Transport Manager I determined that a short period of reflection was required and that I would issue this written decision the following week, but there has been a short slippage for which I apologise.

Approach

There is clear and consistent case law from the Upper Tribunal that a Traffic Commissioner is entitled to treat the conduct of a sole director effectively as the conduct of the Limited Company and good repute or fitness is determined accordingly. Such an approach has received approval from the appellate tribunal on several occasions, such as 2013/008 Vision Travel International Limited and T2013/61 Alan Michael Knight.鈥�

As well as the operator licensing obligations, a company director must exercise his or her statutory duties of demonstrating independent judgement, reasonable skill, care and diligence, as per sections 173 and 174 Companies Act 2006.

Operators and Transport Managers are deemed to have knowledge of the advice and guidance in the public domain, as per the Upper Tribunal in 2012/030 MGM Haulage & Recycling Limited.聽聽In terms of MOT Classes this is found at /guidance/mot-testing-guide/a-introduction, an extract of which DVSA included in the e mail dated 2 May 2025 to Mr Coleman (see page 97).

Prior to completing this decision, I have re-read the complete electronic case management bundle and my contemporaneous handwritten notes. I have not set out all the evidence as it is a matter of record in the papers and by way of transcript.鈥� I have referred to material evidence relevant to my findings.鈥�聽

The Issues

The Operator no longer meets financial standing but if the Licence continued, I would have granted a period of grace. The DVSA TE and VE evidence is not materially challenged. All their reports formed the basis for the public inquiry. Within those reports 3 areas fall for particular consideration because of the seriousness, namely:

• the vehicles originally having the wrong Class of MOT
• failure to produce a complete set of maintenance and other records; and
• use of a vehicle for private hire without any of the necessary systems in place.

Consideration & Findings

In terms of trust, the above three areas are key for me. It was the original encounter on 09 April 2025 that brought the class of MOT to DVSA鈥檚 attention. Whilst the business of T & T Cars Ltd is predominantly a taxi operation, the Operator Licence was required for some of the Kent County Council SEN contracts. For the record, T & T Cars Ltd is a commercial organisation. Shortly after the encounter there was correspondence between the Operator, Mr Coleman and DVSA and the vehicles were put through the correct class of MOT. However, the mischief in this case is how the vehicles came to be tested as class 5 rather than class 6 and to the varying version from Mr Hall and Mr Foley especially as to how that came about. Until the hearing Mr Hall鈥檚 communications were that prior to April 2025 Kent Council and DVSA both confirmed Class 5 but when DVSA started asking questions in April 2025, he had no written proof. 聽聽

At the hearing Mr Hall told me that he had asked Kevin Williams at Kent Council, but he was unsure. At some point he spoke to 鈥淛anine West鈥� at DVSA, and she had confirmed Class 5 was appropriate. Mr Hall further acknowledged that Mr Coleman did raise concern about the correct class and Mr Coleman was told that Kent County Council Class 5 correct and DVSA had agreed. I pointed out to Mr Hall that he, whether directly or through his staff, told Mr Coleman untruths because as of 06 May 2026 we know that the Council were unsure and the name Janine West had only recently come up. I told Mr Hall that Ms West was a caseworker with the licensing team for the Office of The Traffic Commissioner in Leeds at the time of his applications in 2024 and not a DVSA Examiner. There is no evidence on VOL that Miss West had any involvement on this Licence after 14 August 2024. It is also unlikely, I cannot accept that a licencing administrator would offer any advice of a topic so entirely outside their role. Mr Hall conceded that he must have been mistaken.

It is a similar position in relation to the missing vehicle maintenance records and training records. 聽At the outset of the hearing Mr Bell on behalf of the Operator said that it was not the Operator鈥檚 case that Mr Coleman removed the records at the time that he resigned as the Transport Manager. Both Mr Clarke and I required clarification because that is not how we had read the DVSA reports and written representations. Whilst not directly alleged, the statements made to DVSA had left a distinct overall impression that Mr Coleman was culpable. Upon questioning by me, the Vehicle Examiner confirmed that was the unequivocal impression that he was left with at the conclusion of the maintenance investigation. The pre-hearing written representations did not diminish that suggestion. Para 6.5 of the said representations state 鈥淚t remains the Company鈥檚 position that they were unable to locate any records upon Mr Coleman鈥檚 departure, including any training records.鈥� Paras 7.5 and 7.6 include 鈥淚n the main, this is because of the lack of records available as all records went missing around May/June 2025鈥�..The Company remains unclear on what happened around May/June 2025 with regard to the missing PMI sheets from when they were granted an operator鈥檚 licence on 23 July 2024. The breakdown in relationship between the Company and former Transport Manager Mark Coleman meant that there was a loss of control, and internal transport manager Mark Foley inherited the position at a that point.鈥�

Mr Clarke on behalf of his client said that if Mr Coleman was no longer being accused, he was entitled to have that set out. After a break, the Operator confirmed it is accepted that at the point Mr Coleman ceased to be the Transport Manager, all the records were in place and that there is no suggestion that Mr Coleman removed them.聽 The Operator accepts that during Mr Coleman鈥檚 tenure PMIs were being undertaken and records kept at the operation centre. Mr Clarke stated that it is encouraging that the concession has been made but sad that it was so late in the day.

I do balance that with the specific statements made by Mr Hall and Mr Foley to DVSA in 2025 regarding these two matters. Relevant extracts from the investigation show Mr Hall and Mr Foley shedding responsibility for both aspects like teflon. The maintenance investigation report includes the following extract at page 130 鈥淔urther investigations highlighted that another two vehicles on the fleet at the time also had class 5 tests. Mr Hall stated that Mr Coleman had arranged the MOT tests with the testing station direct. As a result of these findings a TE and VE investigation was created to find out why, what and when things went wrong. Mr Hall has since stopped using the services of Mr Coleman around May/June of 2025 as a result of this case being created due to the wrong tests being carried out on several vehicles and the lack of confidence he had in his external Transport Manager. Mr Hall has now employed a new internal Transport manager Mr Mark Foley.鈥�

DVSA required Mr Foley, Mr Hall and Mr Coleman to respond to the MIVR findings. In his reply at page 154, Mr Hall says 鈥淎fter employing Mr Coleman to be my transport manager I put my full trust in him to Keep running the school transport. As I was new to this work, I was looking for an experienced transport manager and he came highly recommended. Things were running smoothly until one of聽vans聽was stopped and things began to unravel. The vans were being incorrectly聽MOT聽and I knew things聽couldn鈥檛聽carry on so eventually we parted ways.鈥� Further, Mr Hall makes no reference to the missing maintenance records despite DVSA requiring a direct explanation.

Mr Foley directly lays the blame with Mr Coleman as to both the class of MOT and missing records with the following extracts included at page 156 of the bundle 鈥淎s previous transport manager was running as a class 5 mot instead of PSV for school contracts which has now been rectified, the whole fleet was changed to meet PSV regulations. The then transport manager liaised with the council and stated that they could be run on class 5 mot as a non-registered local bus service, this is what he led us to believe and we trusted him in doing so as we were new to running this service鈥�regarding the missing paperwork, upon inspecting the filing cabinet a number of vehicle records and PMI were missing, only a few of the vehicles that were sold were still there, we have no idea where they went. We trusted the previous manager that things were being done correctly but found out too late that it was not.鈥�

In light of what is now known in terms of the missing records, it is challenging to accept any suggestion of an honest mistake about the possible involvement or timing correlation with Mr Coleman鈥檚 resignation as a Transport manager. Mr Foley said in his oral evidence that he became aware of missing records when he took over. This cannot be right as we know they were scanned after Mr Coleman鈥檚 resignation and Mr Foley was already an integral part of the business, Mr Hall said that he was not aware until December 2025. The latter cannot be right if Mr Foley was truthful that he, Mr Hall and Mr Munday made a positive decision in June/July 2025 not to ask Mr Coleman where the records might be. We now know that at the point Mark Foley took over the role (immediately and before formally accepted onto the Licence), the records were still located in the business premises. The records were only ever in two places, firstly in the cabinet at the operating centre, and secondly at the taxi operation office for scanning. By suggesting that the records disappeared at the same time as Mr Coleman resigned as a Transport Manager in May 2025 was simply not true.

The incrimination of Mr Coleman was convenient to Mr Hall and Mr Foley but unravelled quickly when put under scrutiny for the public inquiry. The evidence of Kirsty Newton and Sharon Hoskins are apposite. Miss Newton has the records clearly within the business premises and available in July 2025. The VE confirmed Miss Newton鈥檚 statement to the Inquiry is in line with what she told him on the phone, Miss Hoskins describes the period starting January 2025 where she persuades Mr Hall that there needed to be proper digitisation and storing of records in the cloud which included not only financial and business records, but also the vehicles files. Miss Hoskins would not have continued as consultant without this approach and Mr Hall relied on her. This project of digitisation encompassing the Operator licensing record coincided with the original Traffic Examiner investigation and the follow up. I contrast the approach of Mr Hall and Mr Foley with that of Mr Coleman in relation to the maintenance investigation and the statements that he made which remained consistent throughout the investigation and hearing. Even in the lead up to the hearing, Mr Hall and Mr Foley continued with their finger pointing by reference to paragraph 3.7, 3.9, 6.5. 7.5 and 7.6 of those representations. Mr Foley told the Inquiry that they made a positive decision not to ask Mr Coleman as to the location of the records. However, there were several other individuals who could have been approached. Miss Hoskins confirmed that the records found were on a server which everyone has access to 鈥� including Mr Hall on the office desktop and Mr Foley on his work laptop. 聽Miss Hoskins is rightly held out as the consultant transforming the business into one of digitised orderliness, but she was not asked to assist until the evening of 6 May 2026 and that was by Mr Austin.

The aggravating feature here is that if Mr Hall and Mr Foley had a genuine belief that the records were missing, whether or not there were scanned versions in the cloud, there was a positive obligation to notify my office. It is a breach of the undertakings on the Licence not to have a complete set of records. By acting in the way that they did, Mr Hall and Mr Foley have shown themselves in the worst possible light all around. What may have started as easy deflection statements of convenience were repeated and perpetuated. They have shown a reckless disregard for Mr Coleman鈥檚 good repute to improve any perception of their own positions and there has been a complete lack of transparency with my office. This is one of those cases were attempts to lay off blame leave them in a worse position than if they had been candid and truthful from the start. If records are missing, were lost, stolen or destroyed, if there is notification to OTC then it is noted and future conduct scrutinised. However, the thinly veiled incrimination towards Mr Coleman and lack of candour with DVSA and OTC goes to the heart of good repute, honesty, trust and integrity. This was not just disorganised chaos. In my judgment it was shambolic in that a convenient early decision to positively lay the blame at Mr Coleman鈥檚 door re missing records and wrong MOT class turned into a concerted effort to perpetuate the myth. Whilst Mr Coleman should have independently verified the correct Class of MOT, Mr Hall and Mr Foley鈥檚 attempts to leave the blame with Mr Coleman with DVSA is disingenuous.

Mr Coleman鈥檚 evidence is consistent from his early engagement with DVSA from April 2025 up to and including the hearings. Mr Coleman was also able to provide some corroborative evidence in terms of messaging. In his response to the VE (Pages 157/8) he stated:

鈥淥n my commencement I was informed by Tony Hall and witnessed by Mark Foley that the KCC had informed him that class 5 MOT vehicles were allowed as this work was only for SEN children to take them to school and home, I questioned this as I was new to minibus work and Council contracted transport operation.聽I have a message from Mark dated 20th August 2024聽stating聽-鈥� Think we might be ok now council have confirmed class 5 only needed now鈥� as I raised it as a concern.聽

I arranged the聽6 weekly聽PMI鈥檚聽with Beautiful Bodywork, I obtained a signed service contract from them set at 6 weekly intervals filed in the cabinet.聽

The PMI聽paper work聽would be returned to the office for me to inspect and ensure that any monitors was actioned accordingly by either me or the engineer and placed in the vehicle file. There was a locked filing cabinet in the office only one key that was hidden at the operating聽center聽which had individual folders of every vehicle, each folder had the following-

1. V5 document

2. MOT

3. Defect paperwork

4. PMI - 1鈥� one used as a first use check before going into service

5. Ramp service Documents鈥� (if聽required) for wheelchair vehicles.聽

When I resigned all the vehicle files were in the office聽located聽at the operating聽centre,聽when i聽commenced聽my Driving duties after resigning there would always been Mark or Andy at the office in the evening when I returned my vehicle. I did聽attended聽a meeting to discuss my driving salary in the other office at聽Cuxton聽with John and I remember seeing vehicle files on the desk鈥檚 at聽Cuxton聽, this would have been on the聽13th聽May 2025.聽

For reference- Defects sheets were either collected by me at the school if they were at the same school (Five Acre Maidstone) or weekly be dropped off at the office for inspection and filing.鈥�

Where there are any doubts as to factual position at any point of time, I prefer the evidence of Mr Coleman. This includes the use of the vehicle on 9 April 2025 and whether private hire work had previously been undertaken with in scope vehicles. Mr Coleman said he was unaware of in-scope vehicles doing anything other than SEN Council work 鈥� straightforward, limited duty/driving and not requiring tachographs. Mr Hall became keen to get a 鈥楶arty Bus鈥� underway and start large private hire, he had given the General Manager a list of requirements but that was it. 聽Mr Coleman鈥檚 oral evidence is that he made his position clear to the Operator that it was not ready to expand operations. This is confirmed in his e mail to Mr Hall, and the General Manager dated 9 April 2025 (page 316/437) and subsequent WhatsApp (page 256). Mr Hall and Mr Foley rely on the fact that private hire work was already being done with in scope vehicle to import knowledge on Mr Coleman, albeit not on 9 April 2025. When Mr Foley asked how many he conceded only 2 or 3 times.聽 He was unclear how Mr Coleman would have deemed knowledge where the driver and vehicle would be allocated from the taxi office on dates and times unknown.

In light of the admissions and evidence analysed above, I make the following adverse findings:

Section 17(a) of the Public Passenger Vehicle Act 1981:

i. that your vehicles would be inspected at the stated weekly intervals you promised they would be 鈥� two vehicles done in the following ISO week.

Section 17(3)(aa) of the Public Passenger Vehicle Act 1981:

• that the laws relating to the driving and operation of vehicles used under the licence would be observed 鈥� 9 April 2025, TE and VE reports.
• that you would observe the rules on drivers鈥� hours and tachographs and keep proper records 鈥� 9 April 2025 and TE reports
• your vehicles would be kept fit and serviceable 鈥� VE reports
• that you would keep records for 15 months of driver defect reports, safety inspections and routine maintenance and make them available on request 鈥� VE reports.

Section 17(b) of the Public Passenger Vehicle Act 1981:

• you have breached the conditions on your licence 鈥� failure to notify you no longer meet the requirement of financial standing as calculated by reference to STC Statutory Document No. 2 (and by reference to section 16A(1)(a) of the 1981 Act)

Section 17(c) of the Public Passenger Vehicle Act 1981:

• your vehicles or drivers have been issued with prohibition notices by DVSA or the police in the past five years 鈥� on 9 April 2025 the Operator was issued with a prohibition for Tachograph not Fitted but granted a 24 hour exemption to return to base.

Section 17(e) of the Public Passenger Vehicle Act 1981:

• since the licence was issued, there has been a material change in the circumstances of its holder 鈥� no longer meets financial standing on average over 3 months.

Conclusion

The reality is that I cannot trust Mr Hall and Mr Foley on the three serious aspects and it undermines their credibility and whether I can trust them overall. Mr Hall mentioned personal and financial stress and staff churn impacting him in 2024/5. However, those are challenges facing all Operators. That is why it is important to have robust systems in place with effective leadership and for transparency with OTC if things go wrong.

In terms of general compliance, I accept the DVSA evidence that the systems are now thereabouts with some room for further improvement. The Operator can be said to 鈥榖roadly compliant鈥�. These improvements were not down to anything particularly wrong that Mr Coleman was doing previously, albeit I did have in the hearing some concerns on his approach to risk which I will come back to. Once Mr Coleman left, through the summer of 2025, there was the move to private hire operations utilising the in-scope vehicles that did require the use of tachographs, etc. There was also an immediate change of maintenance provider which was not effectively managed. The engagement of Mr Stephen Austin as a transport consultant clearly did assist Mr Foley. On the face of the evidence, for me it is Mr Austin and his abilities which are effectively being assessed by the DVSA in the more recent records. It is difficult to correlate what is down to Mr Foley. In relation to Mr Hall, on his own evidence he is effectively leaving everything between Mr Foley and Mr Austin. Mr Hall attends the management meetings and is learning as he goes from those. 聽Mr Hall recalls nothing from the 2024 New Operator Seminar even though the slides and useful links were e mailed to the Operator the following day. It is Mr Austin鈥檚 tenacity that we must thank the production of the scanned version 鈥榤issing records鈥� at the eleventh hour for the hearing on 15 May 2026.

聽In terms of other positives:

• Concession on day one of the hearing that Mr Coleman did not remove documentation and was in no way culpable for the loss of statutory records.

• Scanned copies of some of the missing records were produced at the last second but were incomplete and too late, preventing meaningful assessment.

• This is the Operator鈥檚 first Public Inquiry (albeit that is not a barrier to serious regulatory action in serious cases)

• Mr Hall and Mr Foley will undertake PSV specific operator licensing training.

• Mr Hall will undertake other relevant training as required.

• Miss Hoskins and Mr Austin will continue to support the Operator to provide proper governance, ensuring records are complete and kept securely and compliance oversight.

• All monthly management meetings will have proper minutes.

• Audit undertaking offered.

Mr Bell accepted that the starting point for this case per STC statutory Document No.10 Annex 4 is SERIOUS to SEVERE. Whilst this still provides a broad spectrum for regulatory action, if I no longer trust Mr Hall then Mr Bell concedes that revocation is inevitable. From observing Mr Hall and listening to his evidence, I did not find him a credible or compelling witness. Mr Hall was unimpressive, confused, and contradictory. In my judgement his approach was self-serving in trying to diminish the gravity of his actions rather than any incompetence or personal incapacity. For the reasons set out in paragraphs 15 to 25 above, I do not trust Mr Hall to do anything other than act in his own self-interest putting commercial need first and deflecting blame without any consideration for others. 聽Whilst the positives are noted they are far from sufficient to outweigh a significant lack of trust to any material extent. Trust underpins operator licensing to ensure road safety and fair competition. Mr Hall is the sole director, the Licence must be revoked and good repute is lost. I understand that this is unlikely to put the Operator out of business as it retains a substantial taxi operation. However, if that were the outcome it is not unintended or disproportionate on the circumstances of this case. Accordingly, I have reached the decision set out in paragraph 1 above.

Disqualification

As per paragraph 65 of Statutory Document No. 10 鈥溾��.Disqualification is a potentially significant infringement of rights and the Upper Tribunal has indicated that whilst there is no 鈥榓dditional feature鈥� required to order disqualification it is not a direction which should be routinely ordered.聽 There may be cases in which the seriousness of the operator鈥檚 conduct is such that a traffic commissioner may properly consider that both revocation and disqualification are necessary for the purposes of enforcing the legislation. The provisions are in general terms, consistent with the concept of deterrence, but assessment of culpability and use of words such as penalty should be avoided. The case law indicates a general principle that at the time the disqualification order is made that the operator cannot be trusted to comply with the regulatory regime and that the objectives of the system, the protection of the public and fairness to other operators, requires that the operator be disqualified.鈥�

The reasons for disqualification are:

• Mr Hall failed to learn from his early failures in losing KCC contracts by trying to start out when he did not know what he was doing and failed to heed advice.
• On his own evidence he failed to exercise any monitoring or oversight of compliance from day 1. He did not have the knowledge, interest or wherewithal to do so. His abilities and judgement remained deficient even at the Inquiry. This is disappointing have declared in 2022 and 2024 applications that he would meet the conditions and undertakings on a Licence.
• Mr Hall鈥檚 involvement on the PSV side was non-existent save where it impacted cost or commercial need for too long.
• Mr Hall misled DVSA on serious issues which is a gross breach of trust.
• Mr Hall sought to maintain that position until challenged at the Public Inquiry.

In deciding on the appropriate length, I have had regard to paragraphs of the Senior Traffic Commissioner鈥檚 Statutory Guidance Document No 10 鈥淭he principles of decision making and the concept of proportionality鈥�. This states that while 鈥渆ach case must be looked at on its merits, traffic commissioners may wish to use as a starting point for a first public inquiry consideration of a disqualification period of between 1 and 3 years.

I have not given the standard disqualification direction but encompassed management and controlling interests having regard to what was聽stated聽in Leslie John Ings (Appeal 2005/457). Whilst the case considers the disqualification provisions under section 28 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1981 the purpose of the two licensing regimes is identical, In that case the Traffic Commissioner had granted an interim licence to an appellant subject to a condition that his son, who was disqualified, was not to be employed or involved in the business in any way. The then Transport Tribunal upheld the Traffic Commissioner鈥檚 decision and said聽this:

鈥淭he purpose of the Traffic Commissioner鈥檚聽jurisdiction聽is to regulate the conduct of operators聽so as to聽ensure,聽first and foremost, compliance with the legislative framework of operator鈥檚 licensing. When a Traffic Commissioner has exercised his powers under s. 28 of the Act, he must ensure that the purpose of the order is not undermined or defeated by a disqualified person becoming involved with the management of another operator鈥檚 licence. In the event of a disqualified person wishing to be employed by another operator, whomsoever they may be, the Traffic Commissioner must be satisfied that the role that they are to play within the structure of that company would not cause them to be in breach of the order of the disqualification鈥︹��

In closing it was put to me that if I decided on disqualification, then to limit it to Mr Hall and not the company. The company could then have a different constitution with another member of the family. Firstly, considering the case law at paragraph 10, to distinguish Mr Hall and the Company good repute is not compelling. They are indivisible here. It was open for the Operator to amend its office holders prior to a hearing for me to consider that as a reality, but it chose not to do so. 聽Secondly, based on my assessment of Mr Hall鈥檚 moral compass, any such approach would not remove his temptation to become a 鈥榮hadow鈥� director or controlling influence. For those reasons I have made the disqualification order in as broad a term as the legislation and caselaw permit.

The only saving grace for Mr Hall is that I have decided on a period of disqualification at the lower end of the scale. I do so based on: -

• the fact that the Licence was only in place for a relatively short period;
• the terms of the disqualification are strict and any attempt to circumvent them likely to be fatal to any future applications;
• iii聽聽聽聽聽聽聽 it should be sufficient time to reflect on the impact his behaviours have on others; and
• iv 聽聽聽聽聽聽 to gather a body of evidence that he has understood and accepted my disquiet and is able to demonstrate that he can be trusted moving forward.

聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽聽 Accordingly, I have reached the decision set out in paragraph 2 above.

Transport Manager Mr Foley

I have set out my assessment and disquiet regarding Mr Foley鈥檚 involvement on the three serious issues above.聽 I have stepped back from a finding of loss of good repute because:

• He was unduly influenced by his long-term friendship with Mr Hall and failed to exercise independent judgement. Mr Hall was the dominating influence as owner, Mr Hall had been working for him as a driver and only latterly as transport manager. On balance, I do not think he would fall into error in a proper arms-length professional relationship.
• This was Mr Foley鈥檚 first appointment as a transport manager.
• He has had a steep learning curve and the benefit of mentoring from a competent third party, albeit further work needs to be done.

Whilst I have not found loss of good repute the conduct set out in paragraphs 15 to 25 is on record is such that his repute is severely tarnished. Accordingly, I have reached the decision set out in paragraph 3 above.

Mr Foley鈥檚 future appointments as a transport manager will need scrutiny for a period to ensure he has the level of expertise for the proposed operation. I therefore direct that applications to add him as a TM must be referred to a TC/DTC and not decided under delegation until a TC confirms otherwise in writing.

Transport Manager Mr Coleman

Mr Coleman acknowledges he should have been more robust in recording the work he did to protect himself moving forward. He has taken this on board and will be doing so moving forward. Whilst having a long and unblemished history in PSV operations, he had no prior expertise in the SEN work. He fell into error by the apparent ease of it 鈥� morning and afternoon run outs and driving at the same time as the others. He now understands that by failing to check the drivers digi cards and downloading the two vehicles with tachos, he was unable to ensure drivers were not moonlighting and additional out of hours work not happening. The risks arising are unacceptable. Mr Coleman has had his integrity put in the spotlight by Mr Hall and Mr Foley and the way he has dealt with it is a credit to him. I trust Mr Coleman as he is honest with himself as well as others.聽 Accordingly, I have reached the decision set out in paragraph 4 above.

Decision

Pursuant to adverse findings under section 17(3)(a), (aa), (b), (c) and (e) of the Public Passenger Vehicle Act 1981, T & T Cars Ltd no longer meets the mandatory requirements of Section 14ZA(2) of the 1981 Act (good repute). Accordingly, Licence PK2075073 is revoked with effect from 23:45 on 30 July 2026.

T & T Cars Ltd and its sole Director Mr Anthony Hall are disqualified from holding or obtaining an Operator Licence or being involved in the management, administration or control of any entity that holds or obtains such a Licence in Great Britain for a period of 12 months with effect from 23.45 on 30 July 2026 as provided for by Section 28(1), (4) and (5) of the Transport Act 1985.

Current Transport Manager Mr Mark Foley is issued with a strong formal warning, and his good repute hangs by gossamer thread.

Former Transport Manager Mr Mark Coleman is issued with a strong formal warning.

MISS SARAH BELL

TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER FOR GREAT BRITAIN

Issued:聽聽 1 June 2026