°Ç¸ç³Ô¹Ï

WEARETRANSPORT LTD (OH2063566)

And

TRANSPORT MANAGER – JOHN WILLIAM LESLIE WELCH

DECISION OF THE DEPUTY TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER

The Licence

The operator holds a standard national goods vehicle operator’s licence authorising 2 vehicles and 2 trailers. The Operator currently has 2 vehicles in possession. The licence was originally issued 05 April 2023. The sole director is Mr Sorin Foleanu.

The operator has no previous compliance history and has made an application to increase authority on the licence from 2 vehicles and 2 trailers to 4 vehicles and 4 trailers.

The Transport Manager is Mr John Welch who was appointed and specified on the licence on 05 April 2023. The Transport Manager is external and provides 8 hours per week on Mondays. He has no other employment declared.

Background to the Public Inquiry

The operator came to the attention of the DVSA following the issue of an s-marked prohibition and fixed penalty notice for a defective braking system namely that the EBS and ABS warning lights indicated faults.

This led to a maintenance investigation which was carried out by Vehicle Examiner (VE) Adrian Williams. VE Williams found the following shortcomings:

• Operator not using the listed operating centre on the licence when vehicles not in use
• PMIs are carried out late 30% of the time
• Inspections not fully completed 48% of the time
• Driver reportable defects found on inspection sheets
• Ineffective VOR system and ineffective safety defect and recall system
• No driver walk-around checks seen for vehicles LT72HVL or LN25NKG
• System for assessing and repairing defects ineffectively managed
• Ineffective system for wheel security in place
• No training records for load security seen belonging to the operator
• Transport manager has not shown effective and continuous management

The operator responded to the shortcomings in a letter; not all the shortcomings were addressed in the response and only assurances were provided without evidence.

Additionally, I noted an interim authority had been granted for the use of 4 vehicles and 4 trailers.

The Call to Public Inquiry

The call up letter dated 26 March 2026 was sent to the operator. The call up letter specified the following issues:

• Your vehicles or drivers have been issued with prohibition notices by DVSA or the police in the past five years.

• You or your drivers have been issued with relevant fixed penalty notices in the past five years.

• The following statements you made when applying for the licence were either false or have not been fulfilled:

That your vehicles would be inspected at the 6-week intervals you promised they would be,

That safety inspections and/or maintenance and repair work would be carried out by Clyst Motors.

You have not honoured the undertakings you signed up to when you applied for your licence, namely,

• That your vehicles and trailers would be kept fit and serviceable;
• That you would keep records for 15 months of driver defect reports, safety inspections and routine maintenance and make them available on request;
• Drivers would report promptly any defects or symptoms of defects that could prevent the safe operation of vehicles and/or trailers, and that any defects would be promptly recorded in writing;

Since the licence was issued, there has been a material change in the circumstances of its holder.

The operator was also notified that due to the matters listed above, the traffic commissioner was also concerned that the company may not be of the appropriate financial standing to hold an operator’s licence for the number of vehicles authorised.

The Operator was informed that in order to satisfy the financial standing condition they would need to show access to an average of £12,500 over the last 3 months, increasing to £21,500 taking into account the additional vehicles applied for (and granted in the interim). Advice as to how this could be evidenced was contained in the call up letter.

The call up letter also informed the operator that if the Traffic Commissioner concludes that they are not complying with the laws, undertakings and conditions relevant to the licence, a range of powers are available including the revocation of the licence.

Separately, Mr Welch was sent a call up letter dated 26/03/2026 requiring him to attend Public Inquiry in relation to his good repute and professional competence. The letter also advised Mr Welch that the Traffic Commissioner may determine the case in his absence should he fail to attend and that should the Traffic Commissioner find him to have lost his good repute or to be no longer professionally competent, there is a mandatory requirement to disqualify him from acting as a Transport Manager.

I noted from the bundle that Mr Welch had sent an email to the OTC informing them of his intention not to attend the PI as he would be going on holiday. He also indicated his resignation as TM for the operator. There was no request for an adjournment and no detailed submissions contained for me to consider.

The Public Inquiry & DCH

The Public Inquiry was scheduled to be held at the Office of the Traffic Commissioner for the West of England, Jubilee House, Croydon Street, Bristol, BS5 0GB on 07/05/2026 commencing at 2pm.

Mr Foleanu attended in good time for the PI and the vehicle examiner Mr Williams was also in attendance. As anticipated Mr Welch did not attend.

I explained that the purpose of the PI and outlined my concerns. I also indicated that the evidence relating to finance appeared to be satisfactory therefore I would not be spending time asking any questions about that.

The Public Inquiry - Evidence

I commenced by going through my concerns with the operator. Mr Foleanu explained the business model and how it operated. This was important evidence as I wanted to know why vehicles had been parked at the Lidl site and not the operating centre. I was also interested to know about the company RJ Morgan and sons which I had seen mention of.

Effectively, the operator gave evidence that the only work conducted by the company was for Lidl however it is difficult to obtain contracts to provide transport services to Lidl for a new operator therefore they had subcontracted the work. As the company only worked on Lidl transport, it was more efficient to park the vehicles there. I explained that this was not permitted and gave some reasons why it was not appropriate. Mr Foleanu fully accepted this and informed me that they are now only kept at the operating centre although negotiations are ongoing with Lidl regarding an official arrangement however he would ensure the Traffic Commissioner is informed of any changes.

In relation to the company RJ Morgan and Sons Ltd, it was explained to me that this used to be owned by Mr Morgan who wished to retire. A strategic decision was made by Mr Floreanu and his wife that they would agree to take the business over and in pursuance of that, Mr Floreanu’s wife now owns shares in the business. The main reason for this was RJ Morgan already has a transport account with Lidl. The future plan is for Mr Floreanu to continue owning and running WeAreTransport whilst his wife owns and runs RJ Morgan. A subcontracting arrangement can then be made for the mutual benefit of both.

I then moved on to explore the reasons for this matter to come to Public Inquiry which started with a DVSA encounter on 17/05/2025. This resulted in an immediate prohibition owing to EBS and ABS warnings and some collision damage to the front. A full explanation was provided which involved a collision with deer which caused the damage. As a result, the driver removed the EBS sensor equipment which he feared would fall off if left on the vehicle. This led to the faults showing.

The subsequent maintenance investigation carried out on 19/11/2025 had revealed multiple shortcomings which I asked Mr Floreanu about next.

He had experienced difficulties with the maintenance provider in that they were unable to fit the vehicles in for scheduled maintenance and inspections. To resolve this, he had now changed provider and has a shared planner and app with reminders with the new provider which is working very well. He fully accepted that he had not kept on top of this previously and the TM had not been checking and picking up on issues such as missing brake tests.

In terms of the missing or inadequate systems such as VOR, safety defect and recall and wheel security he fully accepted that he had not implemented sufficient systems but once again, the TM had not raised any concerns.

I explained it was concerning that there had been no driver walkaround checks evidenced particularly as some driver detectable defects had been found on inspection sheets. Mr Floreanu explained that he was not fully aware at the time but knows what to look for now and explained that he had had no assistance from the TM who had a responsibility for drivers including checking they were conducting effective walk around checks.

Before moving on I had noted concerns regarding lack of training particularly on load security. Mr Floreanu explained that training was provided however it was through Lidl and not bespoke to the operator. They now have training from the RHA delivered to drivers.

The operator had commissioned an independent audit of its own volition in December 2025 and I had reviewed this prior to the hearing. Whilst it showed substantial improvements in most areas, I highlighted that the operator still had a few areas where improvements were required.

Mr Floreanu fully accepted this. He explained that since then he had been taking a proactive approach, involving himself in many of the duties which should have been carried out by the TM as he was rarely on site. He had also had a meeting with the Southwest regional manager of the RHA and had since implemented a range of their recommended systems and templates (evidence of which I was shown).

Mr Floreanu added that he had now undertaken the OLAT course which he had found helpful and from which he had learned a lot.

I then asked the vehicle examiner Mr Williams if he had any further evidence to assist in the hearing. He was satisfied that he had covered all relevant evidence in his pre-PI report and re-stated that the operator had been lacking in numerous areas however in a relatively short space of time had made improvements in most.

It had become clear to me that many of the shortcomings and areas for concern fell under the responsibility of the TM. I had concluded that it was appropriate to consider these matters in absence as Mr Welch was obviously aware of the hearing and had made no application for an adjournment. He had, in my opinion, voluntarily absented himself from a hearing which he had been adequately warned could adversely affect his future as a TM.

Mr Floreanu had explained to me that Mr Welch had agreed to take on the role however his attendance was infrequent and certainly not at the agreed level. He also described Mr Welch’s involvement as being advisory not action taking and Mr Floreanu now realised this was not appropriate and was in fact wholly insufficient. As a result, he had been looking for a new TM and was hopeful he had identified one.

Having considered the evidence in the bundle and now the evidence provided by Mr Williams and the operator, I had no hesitation in concluding that the Transport Manager had an almost complete lack of continuous and effective control of this operation. He had failed to attend the operator’s operation as agreed, he had no control over the drivers and had no supervisory structure in place. He had failed to check walkarounds, load security or carry out any other part of his role. In effect, although the operator had candidly accepted all the shortcomings, I had formed the view that the TM was, at least, equally responsible.

Unlike Mr Floreanu who had admitted his failings, I had seen no such admission from Mr Welch. I also noted that none of the improvements I had seen had been contributed to by Mr Welch.

Before concluding the evidence, I raised the issue of Mr Welch’s very recent email in which he notified his resignation as this left the operator without a TM. I explained that an operator holding a standard national goods vehicle licence could not operate without a TM. Mr Floreanu accepted this and requested a period of grace to allow him to get the new TM in place. He explained he was in the advanced stages of securing this and did not anticipate requiring more than 6 weeks. As he had now improved his own knowledge and secured the assistance of the RHA he would take personal responsibility for all TM duties during the period of grace.

In terms of regulatory outcome, I explained my options and asked if Mr Floreanu was willing to offer any additional undertakings. He confirmed that he could offer to have an independent audit carried out within 6 months.

Analysis of the Evidence & Findings of fact

Considering the evidence contained in the bundle, I had reached a preliminary conclusion that this may be an operator of some concern however as I had been presented with full explanations including evidence of the positive changes made, I was re-assured that the operator could be trusted to run a compliant operation in the future.

I had seen evidence of robust systems which were now in place and were clearly making a marked difference. Some of these changes had only recently been implemented therefore I was concerned to see evidence of long-term change.

I found Mr Floreanu to be an honest witness who accepted the operator’s shortcomings without excuse.

I had not had the benefit of hearing evidence from Mr Welch however I had been able to make an assessment based on the evidence contained in the bundle, the evidence of the operator and that of the Vehicle examiner.

At the conclusion of the hearing therefore and having heard and considered all available evidence including the Operator’s admissions I made the following findings of fact on the balance of probabilities:

• The Operator’s vehicles or drivers had been issued with prohibition notices by DVSA or Police in the past five years (section 26(1)(c)(iii) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995).

• The Operator or drivers have been issued with relevant fixed penalty notices in the past five years (section 26(1)(ca) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995)

• The following statements made when applying for the licence were either false or have not been fulfilled (section 26(1)(e) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995):

Vehicles would be inspected at the 6-week intervals promised

Safety inspections and/or maintenance and repair work would be carried out by Clyst Motors Ltd.

The Operator has failed to honour the undertakings signed up to when applying for the licence (section 26(1)(f) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995), namely:

• Vehicles & trailers would be kept fit and serviceable;

• You would keep records for 15 months of driver defect reports, safety inspections, routine maintenance and make them available on request;

• Drivers would report promptly defects or symptoms of defects that could prevent the safe operation of vehicles and/or trailers & that any defects would be promptly recorded in writing.

I also made a finding that the Transport Manager Mr Welch had failed to exercise continuous and effective control of the operation and in light of the wide-ranging omissions and the effect they had had on the operation I found that his good repute had been lost.

As the statutory requirement is for me to disqualify the TM upon a finding of loss of repute, I considered whether it was appropriate to include any rehabilitative steps required before repute can be re-gained. In this case, I had a wealth of evidence that the TM had failed to exercise the required continuous and effective control however this appeared from the evidence to be simply through his lack of presence and involvement and I had no evidence to conclude he actually lacked the knowledge required. For this reason, I decided to make the disqualification for 12 months without conditions.

Assessing my Findings

I considered my findings in conjunction with the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document 10 and found the following to be positive features:

• Isolated incident with no previous offending history.
• Sufficient and effective changes made with tangible evidence in support to ensure compliance.
• Operator cooperated with enforcement investigation

I found the following negative features:

• Ineffective management control and insufficient systems and procedures to prevent operator licence compliance failings
• Ineffective driver training with insufficient monitoring and disciplinary procedures in place.

Balancing these factors, I concluded this case fell into the moderate to low category for regulatory action and taking account of the improvements I concluded a formal warning would be proportionate.

In reaching this conclusion, I considered the question How likely is it that this operator will, in future, operate in compliance with the Operators’ Licensing regime? (the ‘Redsky Wholesalers’ question – 2013/086 Redsky Wholesalers Ltd), answering this question with – ‘likely’.

Moving on to the ‘Priority Freight’ question [2009/225 Priority Freight Ltd & Paul Williams] – Is this an operator I can trust to be compliant in the future? I concluded the answer was ‘yes’.

Finally, having answered the above questions in the affirmative, I found it unnecessary to answer the ‘Bryan Haulage’ question [2002/217 Bryan Haulage (No.2)] – Is the conduct such that the operator ought to be put out of business.

Decision

The operator WeAreTransport Ltd (OH2063566) to be issued with a formal warning.

Mr Welch’s good repute as Transport Manager is lost. Mandatory disqualification effective for a period of 12 months from the date of PI.

Undertakings

I was offered and accepted the following undertaking:

The operator undertakes to identify an independent body to carry out an audit of transport safety and compliance systems.  The audit will assess the systems for complying with maintenance and driver’s hours 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: www.gov.uk/government/publications/operator-compliance-audits

A copy of the report together with the operator’s detailed proposals for implementing the report’s recommendations 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 by 07/11/2026 as set out in TC’s decision.

Final Considerations

I considered the application to increase the authorised number of vehicles on the licence from 2 vehicles and 2 trailers to 4 vehicles and 4 trailers. I was aware that an interim authorisation had been granted therefore I concluded that the decision should be deferred until the results of the independent audit had been considered. The interim authorisation to remain until 07/12/2026 to allow time for the audit results to be received and examined.

Rakesh Sharma

Deputy Traffic Commissioner

03/06/2026