扒哥吃瓜

IN THE EASTERN TRAFFIC AREA

TRANSRIKY & SON LTD - OF2052975

AND ANDREI-ALEXANDRU DUMITRU 鈥� TRANSPORT MANAGER

CONFIRMATION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER鈥橲 DECISION

Background

Transriky & Son Ltd holds a Standard National Goods Vehicle Operator鈥檚 Licence authorising聽 1 vehicle and1 trailer. The Director is Aurel Tauteanu. Andrei-Alexandru Dumitru has been named as the Transport Manager since 4 July 2025

There is one Operating Centre at Riva Transport Ltd, Occupation Lane, Woodville, Swadlincote DE11 8ET. Preventative Maintenance Inspections are said to be carried out by Riva Commercials Ltd at 6-weekly intervals.

On application, Mr Tauteanu informed the Office of the Traffic Commissioner licensing team, that he had previously used this entity as a means of supplying driver services through various agencies and to other companies. The operator applied to add another Transport Manager on 12 January 2026. A request for further information was responded to. The proposed CPC holder provided a proposed weekly schedule showing site visits, travel times and a total of 10 hours per week allocated across four one鈥憊ehicle operators. That application was withdrawn on 9 April 2026.

Following two previous failures at annual test, my office wrote to the operator on 3 April 2025. The operator subsequently offered an undertaking for laden roller brake testing as part of every Preventative Maintenance Inspection.

Mr Dumitru is named on one other licence, Bik Transport Ltd OF2070550, where he is also the sole director.

Hearing

The Public Inquiry was listed for today, 23 June 2026, in Tribunal Room 1 of the Office of the Traffic Commissioner in Cambridge. The operator was present in the form of the Director, Aurel Tauteanu, as was Andrei-Alexandru Dumitru, Transport Manager. Both were represented by Chris Harrington, solicitor, of CE Transport Law. An interpreter in the Romanian language was also in attendance.

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) 鈥撀� use of an unauthorised site as an Operating Centre.
• 26(1)(b) 鈥� conditions on licence to notify changes in the ability to meet the licence requirements, including use of the Operating Centre and the ability of the Transport Manager to meet Schedule3.
• 26(1)(e) 鈥� statements relating to where vehicles would normally be kept, that the Transport Manager would meet Schedule 3, and to abide by conditions on the licence
• 26(1)(f) 鈥� undertakings (drivers鈥� hours and tachographs)
• 26(1)(h) 鈥� material change in the Operating Centre, and ability to hold the licence:
• 27(1)(a) 鈥� good repute, financial standing, Transport Manager meeting Schedule 3.
• 28 鈥� Disqualification.

Andrei-Alexandru Dumitru was also called to consider whether he had exercised effective and continuous management and therefore whether I should make a finding under section 27(1)(b) preventing him from relying on his Certificate of Professional Competence.

The operator was 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 2 June 2026 with finance and any representations to be sent to my office by 9 June 2026. Financial evidence was found to be sufficient. I finally received representation via Mr Harrington, who offered the following explanation: 鈥淧lease pass apologies to the Commissioner for the late service of the material. It was not intended to frustrate the proceedings or evade proceedings. There have been some difficulties in language and provision of material. In my view this has been down to understanding rather than intentionally delaying.鈥� I was told that efforts to serve documents via a drop-box on 10 June 2026 had failed.

Summary of Evidence

On 16 September 2025, whilst visiting Lichfield Industrial Estate, Tamworth, DVSA received information regarding parking around the estate over a number of weeks. DVSA identified that a relevant vehicle was specified on this licence. Observations confirmed that SN15 LXC was parked at Tamworth on multiple occasions between August and October 2025. I was referred to a statement dated聽 17 September 2025.

Inquiries suggested that the operator had left the authorised site at the Pearl Truck Stop. DVSA therefore commenced additional inquiries with Traffic Examiner Jose Kochakkadan visiting on 13 November 2025. The operator admitted parking at Tamworth for convenience, due to family circumstances and lack of understanding of licence obligations. Mr Kochakkadan鈥檚 findings can be summarised as follows:

• The Transport Manager was not present. Andrei-Alexandru Dumitru was working for 2 to 3 hours, one day per week, but payment was reportedly made to his father鈥檚 account, bringing genuine link into issue. The Examiner requested evidence of payment, but this was not provided during the 聽visit.
• Inconsistent checks of the driver, with training records only available for the period after the DVSA investigation. Toolbox Talks from July 2025 were later supplied.
• Records were available for one driver鈥檚 hours, but other drivers were occasionally using the vehicle without data being retained.
• There was no structured planning for annual test, insurance, tachograph calibration, Preventative Maintenance Inspections, or brake testing. Operator only has reminders set for Vehicle Excise Duty. Operator stated: 鈥淚 have only one truck, so I keep them in mind鈥�.
• The operator was unable to access missing miles report.
• There were no effective systems for ensuring Working Time compliance.

The Traffic Examiner also requested and received a letter of explanation regarding the use of an unauthorised site. The response of 21 November 2025 referred to the personal circumstances of the sole Director/Driver. He wished to park closer to home due to family pressures. It was suggested that this was temporary response to an urgent situation, but no application was made. The letter apologised and assured DVSA that the vehicle would be parked at the authorised Operating Centre, going forward. The Traffic Examiner saw invoices for parking at the Pearl Truck Stop from November 2024 to November 2025. The operator also assured the TE via email that driver checks would be carried out and recorded quarterly going forward. There was no formal response to the TEVR.

Formal notice was sent to the operator and Transport Manager alerting them to the potential consequences. The Transport Manager requested this Public Inquiry. The operator suggested that I might consider a warning or offer of an undertaking for a future audit. Mr Dumitru indicated that he wished to present evidence of his active engagement and continued compliance with professional duties in his management of transport operations. He disputed that the TEVR findings reflected his competence. However, the operator appeared to accept certain of the allegations. The operator acknowledged the seriousness of matters raised and expressed an intention to strengthen compliance through an external audit (proposed).

I was referred to the annual test history from the operator鈥檚 OCRS Report in Enforcement History showing that the operator鈥檚 only vehicle, SN15 LXC, failed annual tests on 3 November 2023 and 27 November 2024 for defects related to brake systems leading to the current undertaking on the licence for loaded roller brake tests. The encounter report shows 0 roadworthiness encounters and 1 traffic encounter on 20 May 2025, when the Director, Aurel Tauteanu, was found driving SN15LXC without evidence of driver CPC training or exemption.

My office was contacted on 3 June 2026 by Vehicle Examiner David Platt to confirm that he had not received any maintenance documents. Mr Harrington was advised and he indicated that he would request these from the operator as a matter of urgency. In the short time allowed to him, having only received the required documents on 17 June 2026, he prepared a brief update report dated 19 June 2026 based on records for the last six months. He commented that the Preventative Maintenance Inspection records disclosed errors such as undated declarations and missing signatures for rectification work, suggesting a lack of scrutiny. Two of the Preventative Maintenance Inspections were conducted outside the declared intervals: 1 December 2025 (a week late) and 31 March 2026 (six weeks late). He noted a brake test report dated 11 February 2026, but with no associated Preventative Maintenance Inspection record. He found the other brake test reports to be satisfactory, as with the wheel removal and re-torque records.

The report from Traffic Examiner Kochakkadan dated 19 June 2026 was based on documentation only received on 18 June 2026, namely six months of tachograph data, infringements report, missing miles records, a certificate of attendance at a Driver CPC - Operator Licence Awareness, dated 11 February 2026. However, only three driving licence checks were provided for Aurel Tauteanu dated 13 November 2025, 21 May 2026, 10 June 2026 (with no consistent pattern). Viorel Cosmin Nedelcu had driven SN15 LXC on 12 February 2026, but the driving licence check was from 10 June 2026.

Analysis of the tachograph data covering the period 1 January 2026 to 9 June 2026 gave cause for significant concern about the record keeping and manual entries:

• 11 February 2026, the driver card for Mr Tauteanu records a daily rest period and yet he was attending operator licence awareness training on that date, i.e. he was at work during a period recorded as rest, with no manual entry made to reflect 鈥渙ther work.鈥�
• There were substantial periods where no tachograph records are present: 26 March 2026 at 11:20 to 1 April 2026 at 19:30 3 April 2026 at 05:26 to 7 April 2026 at 15:43 7 June 2026 at 22:41 to 9 June 2026 at 15:35 These gaps indicate that the driver has failed to produce a continuous record of activities, as required.
• The driver card data indicated that Mr Tauteanu had been driving multiple vehicles, whereas only one vehicle is specified on the operator鈥檚 licence. This raises the possibility that the driver is working for multiple operators, potentially as a self鈥慹mployed driver. DX69 UGO 鈥� PGS Global Logistics Ltd, PO69 XZZ 鈥� Transmanor Ltd, BF72 VXV 鈥� Mobile People.Powered.Logistics Ltd, BV24 DPU 鈥� not specified during the period, DX75 PZL 鈥� Transmanor Ltd, DX25 RYH 鈥� Transmanor Ltd, LT72 GJE 鈥� Transmanor Ltd, LT17 GJK 鈥� not specified, BV70 EBU 鈥� Transmanor Ltd, GN26 VAA 鈥� Transmanor Ltd, WX18 YCB 鈥� Mobile People.Powered.Logistics Ltd, BT18 KFG EBU 鈥� Transmanor Ltd, LT72 GJJ 鈥� Transmanor Ltd, DX25 RYJ 鈥� Transmanor Ltd, DX75 PZJ 鈥� Transmanor Ltd, BL70 EBZ 鈥� EBH Transport Ltd, BL70 XAN 鈥� Transmanor Ltd.

I referred to written representations apparently made on behalf of both the operator and the Transport Manager. The Transport Manager also lodged a bundle containing disciplinary letters sent to the Director dated 30 November 2 December 2025, 3 February, 28 April, 2 June 2026 concerning related infringement reports, also included in his bundle. He also included his invoices for November 2025 to May 2026 for cash and wheel change records for SN15 LXC.

In essence, representations accepted that the operator was parking without authority at the relevant time. It repeats the reference to personal family circumstances but offered no explanation as to why there had been no application or the subsequent change. It was claimed that the report was a misunderstanding over pay. Invoices were provided for parking at Pearl Truck Stop (August to October 2025). The financial evidence suggested ongoing payments during March-May 2026, although there were inconsistencies in the amounts paid. The lack of record keeping was blamed on the operator being the only driver. No reference was made to the occasional drivers identified by the Traffic Examiner. The representations claimed to now have a load security training. The Transport Manager was said to be paid 拢450 per month, but the invoices refer to 拢300 per month that is paid in cash. There appeared to be some equivalent cash withdrawals. In evidence, it was accepted that these would not marry up, as a reflection of the informality which pervaded the compliance systems and which the Transport Manager had tolerated. 聽

In evidence, I heard that the management of trailers was limited to the driver鈥檚 walk round check. He took photographs of the trailer sticker showing the next date for inspection and brake testing, and annual test. Whilst those photographs were shown and discussed as part of the weekly meeting with the Transport Manager it relied on an implication that the last inspection of test had been carried out. There was no effort to access the actual documentation. I contrasted that with the DVSA Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness, which advises:

Determination

Based on the evidence summarised above, I was satisfied that I should record the following adverse findings: 26(1)(a) 鈥撀� use of an unauthorised site as an Operating Centre (historic), 26(1)(b) 鈥� conditions on licence to notify changes in the ability to meet the licence requirements, including use of the Operating Centre and the ability of the Transport Manager to meet Schedule 3, 26(1)(e) 鈥� statements relating to where vehicles would normally be kept, that the Transport Manager would meet Schedule 3, and to abide by conditions on the licence, 26(1)(f) 鈥� undertakings (drivers鈥� hours and tachographs, and incomplete maintenance records), 26(1)(h) 鈥� material change in the Operating Centre, and ability to hold the licence, given the resignation of the Transport Manager (see below).

Representations accepted that there were still shortcomings present but suggested that they were not as pressing. The Transport Manager had been aware that the Director/driver was parking away from the Operating Centre due to family pressures. He had not interrogated the situation sufficiently because of the informal nature of the relationship. That was further reflected in the response to the Traffic Examiner鈥檚 updated findings. I noted the disciplinary letters issued, but also the lack of escalation or follow up. Spreadsheets had now been produced to record driver checks and training, which were previously lacking. Another driver had been engaged to collect the Director and vehicle, when he ran out of hours. That in itself showed a lack of planning. Checks had amounted to taking a photograph of that other driver鈥檚 licence.

It was accepted that the Director鈥檚 knowledge of driver鈥檚 hours requirements was lacking. It was suggested that manual recording would have addressed the significant periods where there had been no record kept. The operator鈥檚 approach was based on the fact that he was the main driver, although he acknowledges that other drivers had been engaged. The list of vehicles he had driven was attributed to periods where work had dropped and he driven for other operators through the 鈥楻eactive鈥� driving recruitment agency. The position had apparently changed by the time of the hearing with 90% of his time spent on Amazon work.

Whilst the Examiners had both recorded some improvement, the Transport Manager, Mr Dumitru took the decision to resign from this licence, immediately prior to the start of the hearing. He concluded that he required more experience before attempting to exercise the Transport Manager statutory duties on this licence and through his other appointment. I agree that the above evidence did not equate to effective and continuous management and, in permitting that non-compliance, the Transport Manager had placed his good repute at issue. Due to his resignation and a personal undertaking not to hold himself out as a Transport Manager on this or any other licence without the express permission of as Traffic Commissioner, I was able to draw back and determine that it would not be proportionate to disqualify him from relying on his Certificate of Professional Competence in the future. His good repute has been severely tarnished by these failures.

The call up letter served as formal notice, but I reserved my position to make a later determination under section 27(1)(a), for the reasons set out below. 聽聽聽

Representations referred to compliance with the undertaking for brake testing. The substantial gap in drivers鈥� hours and other records was attributed in the main to a lack of knowledge, and in the case of the Transport Manager, a lack of practical experience. However, I was asked to give weight to the trajectory towards compliance. That is very different to actually complying with the basic requirements of the operator鈥檚 licence.聽聽

As the appellate Tribunal noted in 2013/082 Arnold Transport Ltd: The grant of an operator鈥檚 licence does not mean that an operator can then proceed on the basis that the requirements that must be met in order to obtain a licence can thereafter be disregarded.聽 In our view it is clear both from the terms of the 2010 Act and from Regulation 1071/2009 that these are continuing obligations, which an operator is expected to meet throughout the life of the licence鈥�The attitude of an operator when something goes wrong can be very instructive.聽 Some recognise the problem at once and take immediate and effective steps to put matters right.聽 Others only recognise the problem when it is set out in a call-up letter and begin to put matters right in the period before the Public Inquiry takes place.聽 A third group leave it even later and come to the Public Inquiry with promises of action in the future.聽 A fourth group bury their heads in the sand and wait to be told what to do during the Public Inquiry.聽 It will be for the Head of the TRU to assess the position on the facts of each individual case.聽 However, it seems clear that prompt and effective action is likely to be given greater weight than untested promises to put matters right in the future.

There had been some movement towards the basic standards accepted at the point of application. I accepted an audit in the following terms, to weigh into the balance:

• 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 the licence requirements 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 full compliance 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 7 months of the date of the hearing.

However, in the absence of a Transport Manager, it was difficult to reach a positive view as to the possibility of future compliance. It was suggested that the operator might renew its application to nominate Adina Fatusan to act in that capacity. There had been no recent contact, so I was unable to satisfy myself of tangible evidence pointing to a resolution, which allow me to grant a Period of Grace.

Having taken evidence as to the nature of the relationship with the Amazon customer and in anticipation of the impact were I to make an adverse finding under section 27(1)(a), I suspended this licence with immediate effect, pending receipt of a full (complete) application to nominate a new CPC holder, allowing me to the consider the application for a Period of Grace made at the hearing. That direction is also intended to provide a deterrence so that the operator is clear that there can be no further instances of non-compliance in the future. Its repute is also severely tarnished by these events.

R Turfitt

Traffic Commissioner

23 June 2026