Decision for Hard Concrete Ltd (OK2012880, OH2017026 and OF2067675)
Source: gov.uk (2025-06-27)

Written confirmation of the decision of the Traffic Commissioner in the South East and Metropolitan area for Hard Concrete Ltd

IN THE SOUTH EAST AND METROPOLITAN TRAFFIC AREA

HARD CONCRETE LTD – OK2012880 AND OH2017026

AND

APPLICATION – OF2067675

CONFIRMATION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER’S DECISION

Background

Hard Concrete Ltd holds two Restricted Goods Vehicle Operator’s Licences: OK2012880 authorising 1 vehicle only, and OH2017026, also authorising 2 vehicles The Director is Jatinder Singh Dhillon, who is said to be a driver (page 135). He gained a Certificate of Professional Competence in 2019.

The Operating Centres are: OK2012880 - 1-3 Bulls Bridge Centre, North Hyde Gardens, Hayes, UB3 4QR, and OH2017026 - Euro Storage, Station Yard, Station Road, Slough, SL2 6ED, which is subject to conditions. The entity was originally called Dhillon D Haulage Ltd, which made applications to downgrade those licences to Restricted licences. That name change was noted on the Companies House register on 22 June 2021 (page 48) but not notified to the Traffic Commissioner until 26 January 2022. Preventative Maintenance Inspections are said to be carried out by ‘Cammercial Care Service’/ J S GIL on both licences, at 8 weekly intervals. It was late into the evidence when it was suggested that these are two different contractors. Mr Gil worked at the site in Hayes which has become a testing facility. That was never notified. OH2017026 was subject to an undertaking for a compliance audit by 18 April 2024.

My records still suggest that the grant of OH2017026 was considered at Public Inquiry due to concerns arising from OK2012880. This was confirmed during this hearing. The presiding Commissioner granted the application with a warning upon the acceptance of an undertaking to commission an audit by 30 November 2019. That date was subsequently extended on request to 31 May 2020, but no audit was received as it had only completed on 23 May 2020. The Traffic Commissioner issued a warning, apparently arising from the auditor’s findings. A variation application was lodged on 19 August 2022, seeking to increase authority from 1 vehicle to 3. DVSA was prompted to carry out a maintenance investigation on 1 December 2022 and found that preventative maintenance inspection records were missing, with only 10% showing metred brake performance testing, poor planning with no VOR, safety defect recall or Adblue management systems, weak driver defect reporting, poor maintenance for test, no wheel and tyre management systems. However, the presiding Commissioner granted the variation with a formal warning proposing an undertaking for a further audit by 30 August 2023. The operator failed to confirm acceptance of the undertaking until formal notice was served. Correspondence dated 5 September 2023 suggested that the operator then wanted to surrender OH2017026. The operator was advised in an email dated 13 September 2023 that the audit would still be required. On receipt, an undertaking for a further audit was sought, and the operator agreed to supply by 18 April 2024. That also had to be chased. On appeal, Mr Dhillon appeared to question the formal warnings.

In August 2023, the operator lodged an application, OF2067675, for a new licence with authority for 3 vehicles at an Operating Centre proposed at Imperial Truck & Bus, Thorney Lane, South Iver, SL0 9LR, with Commercial Care Service to undertake Preventative Maintenance Inspections every 8 weeks. Mr Dhillon confirmed that were the application to be granted, the other two licences would be surrendered.

Hearing

The Public Inquiry was listed for today, 11 June 2025, in Tribunal Room 1 of the Office of the Traffic Commissioner in Cambridge. The operator was present in the form of Mr Dhillon, represented by Georgina Power of Rothera Bray, solicitors. Parveen Iqbal attended at the request of my office to interpret in the Punjabi language.

Issues

The public inquiry was called following notice (page 135) that the Traffic Commissioner 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)(b) – conditions on licence to notify changes, in this case relating to maintenance and to meet the licence requirements.

• 26(1)(c)(iii) – Prohibition Notices

• 26(1)(e) – statements relating to maintenance by Commercial Care Services/ RS Gill, inspection intervals, and to abide by conditions on the licence

• 26(1)(f) – undertakings (vehicles to be kept fit and serviceable, effective driver defect reporting, complete maintenance records, drivers’ hours and tachographs)

• 26(1)(h) – material change in fitness to hold the licence and in the availability of finance required.

• 28 – Disqualification.

On appeal, the operator’s Counsel acknowledged that it remains for the applicant to persuade a traffic commissioner that the relevant requirements of sections 13 to 13D of the 1995 Act are satisfied. I therefore took Mr Dhillon through those areas where I had particular concern and specifically the following sections of the above Act:

• 13B – fitness to meet the licence requirements.

• 13C(2) – satisfactory arrangements for complying with drivers’ hours requirements.

• 13C(3) – satisfactory arrangements to ensure vehicles are not overloaded.

• 13C(4) – satisfactory arrangements and facilities for maintaining vehicles in a fit and serviceable condition

• 13D – available finance so that maintenance for the total authority is not prejudiced.

The operator was directed to lodge evidence in support by 26 May 2025, including financial, maintenance and other compliance documentation by 19 May 2025. Ms Power notified my office in an email dated 28 May 2025, that the operator had been advised that original bank statements would need to be produced and brought to the hearing.

Summary of Evidence

As recorded in the Case Summary, I heard this case on remittal from the Upper Tribunal following its decision, cited as [2025] UKUT 071 (AAC), when the operator and its Director were represented by Counsel, instructed by Rothera Bray LLP. The case therefore started again based on the Upper Tribunal’s conclusion that the hearing should have been adjourned to allow the operator opportunity to save up in order to instruct a legal representative. I explained that I had not referred to the transcript of the previous hearing which was, for some unknown reason, included in my bundle. I have referred to the decision of the Upper Tribunal.

I noted that on appeal, Counsel relied on the decision in VST Building & Maintenance Limited [2014] UKUT 0101 (AAC) which informs the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document No. 9. As does the decision of the Divisional Court in R. v. Hereford Magistrates’ Court (ex parte Rowlands) [1998] Q.B. 110 indicating that an appellate court will only interfere with the exercise of discretion in cases where it is plain that a refusal will cause substantial unfairness to one of the parties. The Upper Tribunal accepted that a decision whether or not to adjourn involves a balancing exercise. In this case the Upper Tribunal interpreted Counsel’s reference to the fairness of the hearing in the absence of legal representation as the need for a balancing exercise. Due to the potential for confusion as to where the legal burden might lie, I restate my understanding: having given the operator good notice (which was not discussed in detail) and following previous DVSA intervention, the operator had opportunity to seek advice. A representative may of course be able to marshal proactive arguments on behalf of the client, but there is no automatic right to funding and it is helpful to refer to the Upper Tribunal’s decision in 2013/030 MGM Haulage.

What is particularly relevant to my considerations, is the suggestion in the email of 21 May 2024 from Mr. Dhillon that the operator no longer had the required level of finance to support maintenance and, referring to November 2023 through to February 2024, the operator had failed to notify the Traffic Commissioner of that material change.

“We are going to request you that can you forward PI date. Reason for it, we spend around £17000 money to repair our trucks. We were unable to do work for nearly 3-4 months following months nov 23 dec23, jan 24 and Feb 24 Which cost we paid yard rent 3 months £8100, Truck finance £12600 and insurance £3000. We run a small company so you can understand how difficult it is to manage it. For PI we need legal advice which costs very hard and affordable this time period. We request you please understand our circumstances and give us more time. We shall be really grateful to you.

The Upper Tribunal also helpfully noted that significant distances were recorded by the Vehicle Unit for LJ67 HGP and DX64 BDO in late January 2023, at a time when it appeared that vehicle DX64 BDO was declared off the road and when, according to the application for an adjournment, the operator was not operating. Mr. Dhillon suggested to the Upper Tribunal that this was for road testing, so he was already on notice of the areas of concern, to which I return below.

Given the above, it was surprising to only be served with a statement from Mr Dhillon at 13:56 on 9 June 2025, the day before the remitted hearing. It had apparently been signed at 13:27. That statement fully accepts the unacceptable level of failure at annual test and other shortcomings. This was repeated in submissions.

For completeness, I referred to the maintenance investigation of OH2017026 was completed on 31 May 2023. In summary, the Examiner encountered problems accessing the Operating Centre, apparently the operator had been given 28 days to quit, Preventative Maintenance Inspection records were missing or incomplete (ticking items which were not present), brake performance testing was not completed regularly, no first use check, ineffective VOR, weak driver defect reporting with driver detectable defects left to the inspection and evidenced by a Prohibition Notice, no evidence of a maintenance contract and poor annual test pass rate, inadequate wheel, tyre and AdBlue management, ineffective load security system. The response referred to notice from the landlord to 31 May 2023 and maintenance by Truckmend Ltd ‘on a regular basis’ (not notified). This is a mobile contractor. A maintenance agreement between Truckmend London Ltd dated 5 January 2022 referred to maintenance at the site (Iver) named on the application and after the said move (August 2023). Mr Dhillon could not explain that in his evidence today. The operator referred to use of Tachomaster to ensure a 10-minute driver check but that the driver struggled with written English. The operator had a tyre record and intended to provide training to drivers on re-torquing. There is a more up to date assessment below.

I then referred to the Desk Based Assessment carried out on OK2012880, dated 1 February 2024, which noted unsatisfactory Preventative Maintenance Inspection records, as there was no facility to record tyre pressures or age; Preventative Maintenance Inspections which were not signed off as roadworthy and a generally poor standard of completion and almost illegible handwriting. It found an absence of effective metred brake performance testing, poor forward planning with intervals varying from 38 days to 56 days, only 10 driver defect reports were produced, again they were illegible. There was no evidence of a system for monitoring of AdBlue, inappropriate wheel and tyre management and insufficient evidence of load security systems.

There was no evidence of driver training or forward planning of driver checks. No evidence was provided of compliance with download requirements. Missing mileage reports were submitted and annotated but some incidents (small distances) were ignored, for instance DX64 BDO was driven without a driver card for 165km on 19 August 2023 and 6km on 13 November 2023 of 15 incidents of driving without a driver card. Mr Dhillon had driven on 12 occasions in excess of 4.5hrs without a required break (1 May to 31 October 2023). There was inconsistent recording of rest breaks and no evidence of a disciplinary system. His statement of 9 June 2025 confirms him as the “main driver”, although the operator engages a number of “casual drivers to cover additional work where necessary”. Working Time compliance was found to be inadequate. The operator referred to the Director as the only regular driver with an agency driver employed for busy periods.

The operator’s response also suggested that the Preventative Maintenance Inspection pro-forma had been updated, and the maintenance provider (Commercial Care Services Ltd) spoken to. It was suggested that Commercial Care use its own inspection form, without a declaration. I had to explain to Mr Dhillon why that was not acceptable. Reference was made to the instruction of AS Miles consultants and advice to obtain the RHA proforma. At the subsequent hearing before the Upper Tribunal, reference was made to a different proposition: The Road Transport Consultancy Ltd. It was suggested that roller brake testing would be carried out every other inspection. In that context, I found the attempt in Mr Dhillon’s statement to suggest that this might be a recent requirement by referring to the latest iteration to the Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness, to border on the disingenuous. As his statement admits, it was only carried out at every other inspection and on one occasion more than 14 days prior to the inspection. Emission testing was carried out annually and wheel nut indicators were now in use. Drivers had been given induction training on safe loading (but see the Prohibition below). Claims were also made that improvements had been made to the driver defect reporting system (see below). It was suggested that tachograph cards were downloaded fortnightly, but that did not explain the issues below. Infringements were attributed to parking issues. The Working Time Directive was still to be amended manually in future.

The matters recorded in the Desk Based Assessment in February 2024, speak for themselves. I also noted the content of the report dated 26 June 2023, that assessment report, dated 25 March 2024, the further assessment of April 2024 and Mr. Forshaw’s report of 12 June 2024 which refers to the inspection of DX64 BDO on 15 April 2024 when two tyres were at the legal limit but apparently allowed to continue in operation until 30 May 2024 when both front tyres were found to be below the legal limit. At no point was a driver defect report completed. Mr Dhillon had suggested to the Upper Tribunal that the vehicle had been parked up for 10-15 days and was only used on one day. In addition, that the tyres were fine on the outside but worn on the inside. DH10 NOW (previously SN16 NXF) was subject to only decelerometer brake testing on 5 March and 30 May 2024 but no temperature checks were recorded. Mr Forshaw noted the driver detectable defect recorded at inspection on 16 April 2023. LJ67 HGP was only subjected to decelerometer testing on 21 March, 1 May and 10 June 2024, with no temperature readings. Again, it was noted that driver detectable defects were left to inspection, including tyres and warning lamps. He also noted a lack of recording of wheel nuts and retorques. The intermittent ABS lamp could have suggested something more serious and, whilst the cause might have been explicable, it required investigation.

The operator’s response of 11 June 2024 referring to the management of missing mileage was difficult to follow. The tachograph analysis reports showed limited infringements from November 2023 to February 2024. This covered the period where the operator told the Upper Tribunal that it was not operating. In fact, Mr Dhillon committed one infringement in January 2024 of driving for 4 hours 32 minutes without a break. There were then five infringements in March 2024, two in April 2024 and one in May 2024, all committed by Driver Harpreet Singh Brar. I was told that he was mainly employed by Hansons/Aggregate Industries, and that he had only worked 10 days. That must be a total of 10 days attracting 8 infringements. I was told that he might drive during cancelled shifts, normally for no more 4 to 5 hours. I was eventually provided with some infringement reports. Mr Dhillon initially mistook that request for driver defect reports. From the bundle and statement, I had understood that the operator was annotating reports so as to identify where another driver was operating the vehicle. I saw infringement reports for Driver Harpreet Singh Brar covering periods in March to May 2024 suggesting work period of 6 hours and up to 8 hours and 26 minutes with no break. The reports were at least signed. Mr. Dhillon was taking his breaks in the wrong order. He had claimed this was due to congestion, but I could see no relevance. What was of greater concern was his admission in evidence that he thought pulling his card would be recorded as a break. When I asked him whether he had received any additional driver training he referred to training on 16 January 2023. It is a matter of record that the Upper Tribunal was provided with a driver certificate recording attendance at a seven-hour course on 16 January 2023. A certificate of attendance at a transport manager refresher event with the same training provider, MDR, on 16 and 17 January 2023 was lodged later. The Upper Tribunal described this as curious. In any event, the training was not sufficient to prevent the identified deficiencies.

The operator indicated that infringements would be taken to the driver to sign. I saw limited examples, but compare the evidence given to me with what was suggested to the Upper Tribunal. In fact, Mr Dhillon has experienced long running issues with Tachomaster and was unable to make manual entries until he received training from Mr Roper of the Road Transport Consultancy (RTC), only last week. There appeared to be explanations for the identified period of missing mileage but, as with working time, it was not well managed. In evidence he claimed that there were no infringements but corrected that to two instances when his driver card had expired. When pushed he claimed that it was lost. It is a matter of public record that drivers must tell DVLA immediately (and within 7 days) if a card is lost and can only drive for 15 days.

The Upper Tribunal warned the operator and Director that this hearing would re-examine the question of whether to intervene and specifically highlighted the shortcomings in regulatory compliance between June 2018 and June 2024. The failures to notify material changes did not appear to be at issue. The need for improvement was clearly set out in its own audit report, carried out on 11 April 2024, which starts: “The operator’s compliance performance is severely lacking, with multiple critical deficiencies observed across many audit areas. The operator’s current processes and procedures are almost non-existent and pose significant risks to safety and regulatory compliance. Their disregard for fundamental regulatory requirements not only jeopardises their own operations but also undermines public trust in the transport industry as a whole. Urgent intervention and remediation efforts are imperative to address these systemic deficiencies and prevent further regulatory violations and potential enforcement actions. Failure to take decisive action may result in severe consequences, including suspension or revocation of their operator licence.”

That also identified “major priorities” for changing compliance including the need to update the Operating Centre and maintenance contractor (as per application OF2067675), to bring the preventative maintenance inspections into regulatory compliance. That was inevitably delayed by the appeal to the Upper Tribunal, but I was entitled to expect improvements.

I referred to the update report prepared by Vehicle Examiner, Steven Whawell. He reported that up to date Preventative Maintenance Inspection pro-forma have been adopted but not all inspection records show brake temperature readings when relying on decelorometer checks, despite the Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness. Inspection records do now include tyre pressure readings but do not record tyre date codes or age. The Examiner specifically referred to the inspection of LJ67 HGP on 2 April 2025 where the fitter failed to record the odometer reading, tyre pressures, brake temperature readings or to attach the decelorometer printout. It attracted advisory notices at annual test on 17 April 2024 for items including brake performance and components. The print-out provided for DX64 BDO attached to the record for 5 February 2025, was undated. It failed its annual test on 5 June 2024 for exhaust emissions. As The Examiner records, the operator had made previous promises to DVSA that emission testing would be carried out every 3 months, but there was no record of this in the documentation. There is nothing to suggest that the operator had identified that SN16 NXF was wrongly recorded as SN16 NFZ on 17 March 2025. The Examiner also noted an invoice for new brake pads date 24 March 2025 but the roller brake printout, dated 29 April 2025 suggests that these were fitted on 28 April 2025. The vehicle apparently covered some 4200 km from 26 to 29 April 2025, without explanation. Mr Whawell was concerned by the legibility of records although most inspection dates correlated with those on the planner. No Vehicle Off Road record was produced. SN16 NXF was not specified but covered 2173 km between 5 February and 2 May 2025. In evidence I was told that the cherished plate allocated to that vehicle had presented issues at annual test. The operator therefore decided to re-register the vehicle but then failed to notify the traffic commissioner until the record was updated in the lasty two weeks, despite the V5 being changed in November 2024. The brake print out for that vehicle was carried out on 16 February 2025, almost 3 weeks prior to the inspection on 5 February 2025. It required 3 presentations for annual test on 19 December 2024, repeatedly failing for brake performance.

Whilst an acceptable format is in use and some defects are rectified, the Examiner also identified weaknesses in the driver defect reporting system with no corresponding driver report for defects recorded at inspection of DX64 BDO on 18 March 2025, SN16 NXF on 17 March 2025, LJ67 HGP on 6 January, 18 February, 2 April 2025. The driver defect report for that vehicle dated 14 January 2025 gives the same odometer reading as the inspection record dated 8 days later. Mr Dhillon stated that the vehicle was not used between those dates (his paragraph 34). His statement assured me that (paragraph 23) “a VOR system is in place and records all periods where a vehicle is off the road” but the VOR sheet he produced did not record these dates. The operator did not take the opportunity to use it for those dates. The driver report for 17 March 2025 suggests that no items were checked. The driver report for SN156 NXF dated 15 April 2025 suggests items are not relevant including coupling security, and a large number of items are not checked. As part of the previous investigation, the operator was advised to complete driver training on safe loading. LJ67 HGP was issued with an overweight prohibition on 21 August 2024, when all 3 axles were overloaded and a gross overload of 22.65%. LJ67 HGP was issued with a prohibition on 15 August 2024 for a registration mark obscured with red grease so that HGP letters could not be read. In evidence Mr Dhillon sought to downplay his failure as the driver on that occasion.

Mr Whawell attended and was tendered for cross-examination, but there was nothing put to him as his findings were not at issue. The Examiner identified a lack of auditing and attention to detail. He found inspection documents to be missing data and that tyre pressures are only recorded after adjustment. On the tyre log, he concluded that not all tyre changes had been recorded, with the example of DX64 BDOP where there was a job sheet dated 8 April 2025, but no equivalent entry. He suggested that the operator had failed to act on previous advice and pointed to the recent overloading. Yet again, the operator finds itself having to respond to the findings of the enforcement agency. It was only after receiving the prohibition that Mr Dhillon applied for a special authorisation to operate that single vehicle at an increased weight. I was provided with a special authorisation dated 30 August 2024, relating to LG67 HGP.

In evidence it emerged that the operator had left both authorised sites by August 2023. It had been given 28 days’ notice to quit the Slough site but chose to leave the site in Hayes, which is apparently an authorised testing facility. It has therefore been operating without authority from the proposed site in Iver since that date. I have real doubts as to whether Mr Dhillon appreciated the serious of these actions until they were put to him during the hearing. The Upper Tribunal decision notes that the issues were put to him previously.

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)(b) – conditions on licence to notify changes, in this case relating to maintenance standards and to meet the licence requirements including for an authorised Operating Centre, 26(1)(c)(iii) – Prohibition Notices, 26(1)(e) – statement to abide by conditions on the licence, 26(1)(f) – undertakings (vehicles to be kept fit and serviceable, effective driver defect reporting, complete maintenance records, drivers’ hours and tachographs, and that these breaches are continuing to a degree).

Despite having been reminded on numerous occasions, the operator then failed to produce original bank statements for me to consider on the date of the Public Inquiry. I was told that the operator had contacted Barclays Bank last week and was told that original statements would require 7 days’ notice. I was told that Mr Dhillon had visited the branch yesterday to be told that it would not verify printouts. I am not aware that this is now a bank policy, as it would suggest that it is no longer able to support Operators. That has not proved to be the case in my experience. The existing Operator Licences require: £3,100 plus £3,400 totalling £6,500 in the alternative, the new application requires £3,100 plus £3,400 totalling £6,500. It was thought that the originals might be available tomorrow or some other day. It is yet another example of the operator’s approach and failure to fully utilise the opportunities given to it. I was unclear why I would permit a further potential commercial advantage, and I refer to the previous position, above, which was not addressed before the Upper Tribunal. Accordingly, I recorded an adverse finding under section 26(1)(h) and remain to be satisfied as against section 13D.

The operator is engaged in the provision of concrete to domestic customers. Mr Dhillon in his statement accepted that he has a somewhat chequered history with operator licencing compliance. He nevertheless believed that he tried hard as both the Director and responsible person to develop the necessary compliance systems. I compare that with his later suggestion that paperwork had been left to his wife. He accepted that his systems for managing compliance have “not always being up to scratch”. He gave two reasons for this: in the early stages of being an operator, he found it difficult to access information and was unsure where to look, calling the fitness of this operator and its sole Director into question from the outset. He also suggested that he was overstretching himself by trying to manage all areas of the business as well as trying to ensure compliance. In his statement he fully accepted that he must have the knowledge and skills in order to meet the licence obligations. He referred to completing a transport manager refresher course on 16 and 17 January 2023, following the DVSA maintenance investigation in December 2022. He gained his qualification in 2018 and yet suggests that December 2022 was the first time he realised that some areas of compliance were “falling short”. The statement goes on to suggest that he had improved compliance after the maintenance investigation but admitted that he the allowed standards to slip in the five months to the second investigation.

On the evidence I heard, I am satisfied that it is more likely than not that basic compliance was not achieved and I point to the recent assessment carried out by Mr Whawell. Even the audit of September 2023 by AS Miles Consulting showed only limited improvement. I do accept that the advice given by the traffic examiner resulted in some improvement. His statement refers to a more comprehensive forward planning system. I compare that with the more recent findings of the Examiner. The reference to a “mostly satisfactory defect reporting system, PMI remedial work and brake tests, VOR system in place, satisfactory wheels and tyres system” is not reflected in the update assessment. Even Mr Dhillon had to accept that the results of the desk-based assessment in February 2024 showed that improvements were limited.

I found the suggestion, in effect blaming the individual assessments, unattractive. Rather than wake up to the need to review his ability to comply, the operator sought to address each adverse report in piecemeal fashion. By way of example, Mr Dhillon’s statement complained that the operator’s own audit by Total Compliance consultancy on 11 April 2024 did not reflect the “overall picture of compliance”; in effect suggesting that the operator licence requirements might be an aspiration rather than representing the basic standard.

Mr Dhillon admitted that his wife had completed all of the applications for operator licences. Reference was made previously to English as a second language and that communications from him, suggested that he might not be well equipped to represent himself. The attendance of a Punjabi interpreter was secured to assist Mr Dhillon. The Upper Tribunal recorded observations on appeal suggesting concerns at the level of understanding but then also referring to particular disadvantages. Mr Dhillon was able to engage with the DVSA inquiries and to obtain a Certificate of Professional Competence. The Upper Tribunal also noted an incident where Mr Dhillon corrected an interpreter. Nevertheless, his written statement for this hearing implied that language has proved a barrier to explaining the level of detail required, but that does not explain why time and again, different Examiners and different consultants have found this operator to be short of basic compliance. At this hearing he was fully represented and had the benefit of yet further time following the appeal. I was at pains to ensure that he had sufficient time to consult with his advocate and that he fully understood proceedings. Ms Iqbal was retained to explain my decision, which was therefore delivered on the day.

I, like the appellate Tribunal, struggled to detect a “profound improvement”. There may have been a change in the approach to maintenance and in the systems for walk round checks, but the operator has remained non-compliant, despite the notice and advice given by DVSA, and the opportunity to learn from the proceedings before the Deputy Traffic Commissioner and the Upper Tribunal. By example, I refer to the approach to brake testing. It was previously claimed that the quality of inspections had improved following the intervention in 2022 and May 2023. Mr. Forshaw’s original report alerted the operator. As the Upper Tribunal remarked: the safety concerns which arise from problems with brake testing are not removed if the operator ensures testing is carried out but it is done in a manner which does not meet the requirements. Additionally, the assertions made to the Upper Tribunal, for instance regarding satisfactory wheel retorquing and driver defect reporting have not proved to be correct, as identified by Mr Whawell. It took Miss Power to explain the driver defect system and to assure me that when driver defects could not be repaired, the vehicle is taken out of service. It was accepted that the operator had historically failed to record rectification completed by drivers, including Mr Dhillon. In evidence it was finally decided that the tyre tread policy was to be at 3 mm. He told me he was alive to the issue as a result of the previous hearing, contradicting paragraph 27 of his statement. I contrast that with the evidence above.

Evidence was produced that Mr Dhillon engaged The Road Transport Consultancy Ltd based in Abingdon (nearly an hour away from the unauthorised site in Iver) and following the questions put by the Upper Tribunal. Invoices from September, November 2024, January, February and May 2025, give no indication of what work might be taken for £120 every two months (up by £30 in May). I was told that visits would last for up to 1.5 hours. I did see an email of 12 September 2024 in reference to the vehicle special order. According to Mr Dhillon’s statement, this involves regular review of compliance documents, with advice and guidance. In evidence he told me that Mr Roper might visit every 4-6 weeks. He had been advising for 6 months and apparently viewed the inspections, brake tests and driver infringements. He had provided training on making manual entries and tachographs only last week. It was suggested that he might have missed the absent declaration of roadworthiness. When I asked why the other shortcomings were not identified, Mr Dhillon was unable to provide a satisfactory answer. Mr Roper was not present to give evidence. At paragraph 20 onwards of his statement, Mr Dhillon refers to “minor inconsistencies such as decelorometer printouts not being dated” etc. Mr Dhillon refers to his awareness of the updated guidance in the Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness from 1 April 2025 but appeared totally confused when pressed on the regularity of brake testing. He vacillated around testing of the tipper at 3 times per year and thought the volumetric mixers might be the same. Whilst he showed some awareness of the required performance of a service brake, he appeared to be unaware of any guidance prior to April 2025. He openly admitted that the contractor failed to retest a vehicle even after an imbalance of 33% was recorded following new pads. He was unable to tell me whether there were any issues in brake testing connected to the vehicle special order.

Another suggested improvement did not stand up to scrutiny. It was suggested that tyre ages and codes were now being recorded. Documents were produced from the tyre contractor, but the codes were not consistent with those on the operator’s own log of 5 November 2024. Mr Dhillon’s evidence was that he had been told that they are difficult to find. In a telephone conversation his maintenance contractor apparently advised that no-one checks or records them. This is the same contractor which appears on the application, and it was suggested might meet section 13C(4). When asked why he had not changed contractor, Mr Dhillon thought he was already in a complicated situation, and he did not want to disrupt anything. That is a fair indication of the level of understanding demonstrated during the hearing.

I started with consideration of the question posed by the Upper Tribunal in 2009/225 Priority Freight Ltd, and applied in 2013/007 Redsky Wholesalers Ltd, namely: how likely is it that this operator will, in future, operate in compliance with the operator’s licensing regime? Miss Power suggested that she has faith in her client to achieve compliance. I do not share that assessment.

Mr Dhillon repeatedly looked to his wife. As he told me: “My wife does all the paperwork.” Whenever he was asked a difficult question during the hearing, he would turn to his wife to support an answer. When the scales fell from Mr Dhillon’s eyes and he realised the serious of the position, he sought to reassure me that he would take responsibility going forward. The problem is, as it was previously, the operator has had multiple occasions to show satisfactory levels of compliance. Whilst they have been incremental improvements, it has taken DVSA intervention and appearances at tribunal to achieve and even on the date of this Public Inquiry, the evidence shows that Mr Dhillon had still not achieved the basics of the Operator’s Licence. In my assessment, it is far from clear that he is capable of doing so. He has had opportunity after opportunity to the point where the weight which might be attached to any improvements is now outweighed by the failure to act promptly and proactively (without yet further intervention).

It was suggested in submissions that this is a markedly different operator to that seen in 2024. 14 months on there is still not basic compliance. The operator was unable to answer when that might be achieved. I was offered a compliance audit in 6 months to demonstrate that. I point to the long history of similar promises. The Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document no 1 on Repute & Fitness, at paragraph 62 refers to operators who deliberately deceive traffic commissioners and the Upper Tribunal. My findings clearly contradict some of the submissions made on appeal, but I do not find this operator to have set out to deliberately mislead. It is rather a case where Mr Dhillon has not been honest with himself as to his ability to manage a transport operation. That is why he found it so difficult to answer when I posed that question today. If, as has been claimed, he was aware of what he needed to do following previous interventions, why is the operator still not compliant today?

It was accepted that the inevitable findings in this case placed it in the SERIOUS to SEVERE bracket. In seeking to persuade me to follow a less serious intervention, I was pointed to the objectives of the jurisdiction. What can be more relevant that a repeated failure to meet the basic maintenance and brake testing standards. Other operators looking at this operator would be fully entitled to ask why has this operator been given repeated opportunities to comply? It decided to abandon its one remaining authorised Operating Centre. To quote the Upper Tribunal in 2013/082 Arnold Transport Ltd –The Tribunal has stated on many occasions that operator’s licensing is based on trust. Since it is impossible to police every operator and every vehicle at all times the Department in Northern Ireland, (and Traffic Commissioners in GB), must feel able to trust operators to comply with all relevant parts of the operator’s licensing regime. In addition, other operators must be able to trust their competitors to comply, otherwise they will no longer compete on a level playing field. In our view this reflects the general public interest in ensuring that Heavy Goods Vehicles are properly maintained and safely driven. Unfair competition is against the public interest because it encourages operators to cut corners in order to remain in business. Cutting corners all too easily leads to compromising safe operation.

Operator Licensing is not intended as a voyage of discovery, where so long as an operator is on an upward trajectory, they should be allowed to continue in business. An Operator’s Licence represents the basic requirements which ensure fairness to other equivalent operators and protection of other road users. Those requirements are known at the outset and accepted, so as to obtain a licence. Where there are issues, operators are expected to act quickly. Returning to Arnold Transport: It is important that operators understand that if their actions cast doubt on whether they can be trusted to comply with the regulatory regime they are likely to be called to a Public Inquiry at which their fitness to hold an operator’s licence will be called into question…. The attitude of an operator when something goes wrong can be very instructive. Some recognise the problem at once and take immediate and effective steps to put matters right. 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. A third group leave it even later and come to the Public Inquiry with promises of action in the future. A fourth group bury their heads in the sand and wait to be told what to do during the Public Inquiry. It will be for the Head of the TRU to assess the position on the facts of each individual case. 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.

The operative word here, is “effective”. When someone takes on responsibilities as a Director with an operator’s licence, the onus is on them to ensure that they have the requisite knowledge, not to just wait to be told. There can be no excuse for a Director who has gained a Certificate of Professional Competence. I do not find Mr Dhillon fit and the operator must be removed from the business, accordingly it has lost its fitness. On hearing submissions, I determined that the licence be revoked from 23:45 on 1 July 2025 to allow for a safe run down and for the vehicles to be secured.

In reaching my decision, I was told that 100% of the business revenue is generated through the use of authorised vehicles. It was suggested that any reduction in the authority would result in significant impact to the business, despite the repeated incidents where Mr Dhillon claimed that his vehicles were not operating. It was further suggested that any suspension would inevitably lead to closure. The nature of the business requires volumetric mixers to deliver the product, which could only be sub-contracted to competitors. The operator suggested that revocation and refusal would result in the end of the business. It was accepted that I could not possibly be satisfied as to section 13C(4). I was referred to an unsigned letter from a Satnam Accountants Ltd dated 6 June 2025 referring to a turnover generated by operation of the vehicles. It referred to financial commitments including loans, finance, overdrafts and credit cards. Mr Dhillon and his wife were said to be fully dependent on this business, but the information was provided “without any acceptance by this form or the writer of any responsibility/liability whatsoever due to the above statement.” No evidence in support was supplied.

I was referred to the statutory objectives of the jurisdiction to which I returned in considering the necessity of disqualification. Based on the findings made above, it would be impossible to conceive of the operator or its director re-entering the transport business. It is necessary to fix a period for reflection and detailed consideration of the shortcomings outlined above and which the operator has failed to overcome, despite repeated opportunity. The appropriateness of deterrent action is now long- established and the Upper Tribunal decision in 2022/1227 Lineage UK Transport Ltd summarises the relevant case law. I am also mindful of the useful starting points advocated by the Senior Traffic Commissioner in his Statutory Document No. 10. Having established that a period of disqualification is proportionate to the failings recorded and necessary for those purposes, the positive elements are reflected in my decision to adopt the starting point of a first regulatory Public Inquiry and to disqualify the operator and its Director from holding or involvement in the management of an operator’s licence for a period of 12 months, pursuant to section 28 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995.

For the sake of completeness and based on those same findings, the applicant failed to satisfy me against the following statutory criteria: 13B – fitness to meet the licence requirements: 13C(2) – satisfactory arrangements for complying with drivers’ hours requirements, 13C(3) – satisfactory arrangements to ensure vehicles are not overloaded and in particular 13C(4) – satisfactory arrangements and facilities for maintaining vehicles in a fit and serviceable condition. The application was refused on all grounds.

R Turfitt

Traffic Commissioner

10 June 2025