Decision for S Bray Transport Ltd (OC2015311)
Source: gov.uk (2025-06-03)

Written decision of the Traffic Commissioner for the North West of England for  S Bray Transport Ltd and transport manager Glen Paley

IN THE NORTH WEST TRAFFIC AREA

S BRAY TRANSPORT LTD – OC2015311 & Transport Manager Mr. GLEN PALEY

WRITTEN DECISION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER

PUBLIC INQUIRY HELD IN GOLBORNE ON 27 May 2025

DECISION:

The Operator licence is revoked with immediate effect under provision of Section 26 & Section 27 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (“The Act”)

The licence-holder, S Bray Transport Ltd, and its sole Director Mr. Stephen Bray, are disqualified under Section 28, from holding or obtaining an Operator’s licence for a period of twelve months.

Mr. Glen Paley has lost his good repute as Transport Manager and, under provision of Paragraph 16(2) of Schedule 3 of the Act, is disqualified from acting as Transport Manager for a period of twelve months, and I direct that he is required to re-sit and pass the Transport Manager CPC qualification as a means of rehabilitation.

‘S Bray Transport Ltd’ (“SBTL”) holds a Standard National goods vehicle operator’s licence authorising one vehicle. The sole Director is Mr. Stephen Bray.

The Operator’s licence record lists a single operating centre, recorded as C25 Preston, PR2 5NN. Preventative Maintenance Inspections are said to be carried out by S A Halden and D B Auto Assist Ltd at 6-weekly intervals.

Until 24 April 2025 the only listed transport manager was Mr. Glen Paley. On that date Mr. Paley was removed at his request. This office wrote to Mr. Paley to confirm the removal request was fulfilled, but that the scheduled Public Inquiry was “not being vacated and will continue to be listed alongside the public inquiry for S Bray Transport Limited. As such, you are still required to attend and, if you do not, the Traffic Commissioner will continue to make a decision which may affect your ability to work as a transport manager anywhere within the jurisdiction”.

Background

SBTL had its licence granted on 25 September 2018, authorising the use of one vehicle, and no trailers. At that time Mr. Paley was the nominated Transport Manager on this licence, committing 8 hours per week to his duties (2 hours on a Wednesday and 6 hours on a Saturday). Mr. Paley gave his “other work” as being a driver for 45 hours per week in the UK for a business with an address given as Haslingden, BB4 5HL.

Mr. Paley recently applied to be a transport manager on application OB2077708, in the name JKS Skip Hire Ltd and he gave his other employment as being a full time driver, for a business with an address in Co. Antrim, BT39 9RQ. This states Mr. Paley is a full-time driver, committing 40 hours over five days per week from Monday to Friday.

Due to the conflict between this proposal and the arrangement with SBTL, this office wrote to SBTL, and Mr. Paley, on 21 and 28 February 2025, requesting a contract of services between the two parties. No contract was received. There is a note on the online operator’s licence record that Mr. Bray confirmed by telephone, on 28 February 2025, that the contract was verbal. Mr. Bray was informed by staff here that I would require a formal written contract by 03 March 2025.

Again, no contract was forthcoming. Both the Operator and Transport Manager were subsequently put on notice that the Public Inquiry would give consideration as to whether there is a genuine link between them, or whether Mr. Paley was a transport manager ‘in name only’. Consideration was also to be given as to the professional competence of the licence-holder, whether there has been a failure to notify the change in respect of professional competence, and whether there has been a failure to ensure effective and continuous management of transport operations. The Inquiry would also consider whether the Operator and Transport Manager continued to be of good repute and whether disqualification needed to be considered.

On account of the matters listed above, the calling-in letter also raised concern that the company may not be of the appropriate financial standing to hold an Operator’s licence.

Pre-Hearing

Calling in letters were issued to both the Operator and the Transport Manager on 31 March 2025. Both set out case management directions including (for the Operator) to provide a copy of the contract with the transport manager and evidence of payments for the service, maintenance records, drivers’ hours records, evidence of financial standing and (for the Transport Manager) a contract and evidence of payment for transport manager services, maintenance records and evidence of systems for the management of drivers’ hours and tachograph records.

On 24 April 2025 an undated and handwritten letter was received from Mr. Paley asking to have his name removed from the Operator’s licence. Mr. Paley was notified that this action was completed and was reminded – as set out above – that he was still required to attend the Public Inquiry.

On 25 April 2025 a letter proposing to revoke the operator’s licence was sent to SBTL due to loss of the sole Transport Manager. On 27 April, a single email was received from Mr. Bray containing only four maintenance inspection sheets. No further records were provided.

On 26 April 2025 the Operator submitted an application to surrender the licence. On 15 May this office responded to advise that I had considered the application, but concluded that “As regulatory action has commenced I refuse the request to surrender – the operator is welcome to raise this with me at the public inquiry”.

No further information was received from either Mr. Bray or Mr. Paley in advance of the Public Inquiry.

Public Inquiry

The Public Inquiry took place on Tuesday 27 May 2025 at the Golborne Hearing Centre. The Operator was in attendance by its sole Director Mr. Stephen Bray. Mr. Paley, Transport Manager, did not attend. My office has received no communication explaining his absence or seeking an adjournment. I firstly considered whether the Hearing should proceed. I took account of the guidance issued by the Senior Traffic Commissioner at paragraph 27 of Statutory Document 9, which states:-

The Traffic Commissioner is entitled to expect that the party called to a hearing will submit any application for an adjournment.

I concluded that good service of the calling-in letters had been provided, and the Operator had attended. It was therefore in the best interests to proceed and make good use of the Hearing Room and resources allocated for the Inquiry. I was also mindful that my Public Inquiry Room is scheduled for Hearings until late July, therefore any adjournment would not be brief.

On consideration of the above, I proceeded with the Hearing.

Issues

The issues set out within the call-up letter for the licence holding company are:

a. Failure to comply with the case management directions;

b. Genuine link between the Operator and the previous Transport Manager;

c. Professional Competence;

d. Lack of financial standing;

e. Good repute of the operator.

The issues set out within the call-up letter for the Transport Manager are:

e. Whether there was a genuine link between the operator and Mr. Paley;

f. TM Good Repute.

Summary of Evidence

Failure to Comply with Case Management Directions

Mr. Bray confirmed that he had, in advance of the Hearing, provided a set of four preventative maintenance inspection sheets. When I asked why no further information was provided he explained that, as he was the only driver, he kept a diary of defects and repaired those himself. No such diary was produced in evidence. In addition, Mr. Bray advised that as he was the only driver there were no instances of “missing mileage” – apart from instances of the mechanic taking the vehicle for inspection. Aside from this being a contradiction, there were no records to evidence that missing mileage or driver infringements were being monitored. Mr. Bray accepted this although he did show me his phone to evidence that original DDD files from his driver card had been sent to the Hearing Centre. Whilst those records do not appear in my evidence bundle (and would be unable to be included as they are raw data files) Mr. Bray accepted that he failed to provide missing mileage or driver infringement reports, which are reports I could have received and reviewed.

A review of the scant material that was provided, being the four inspection sheets, indicated an error in the odometer readings (been identified by the Operator or Transport Manager), an absence of brake testing, and no sign of review or sign-off by the Operator or Transport Manager.

Mr. Bray confirmed that his knowledge of brake testing requirements was out of date – he relied on his Transport Manager or maintenance provider to keep him updated. I was disappointed to then find that the Mr. Bray’s incorrect assertion that brakes had to be tested just four times per year was also not being complied with. His most recent brake test was in August 2024, with the vehicle being removed from the road in April 2025 with no further assessment of this safety critical feature.

I explained to Mr. Bray that his failure to provide evidence may lead me to conclude that there have been breaches of undertakings of the licence to keep records for 15 months, to record defects promptly and in writing, and to have adequate systems to ensure vehicles are kept fit and serviceable. Mr. Bray confirmed to me that he understood and accepted those findings as fact.

Genuine Link (Operator)

Mr. Bray advised me that, in 2018, Mr. Paley and he knew each other from similar employment backgrounds, and Mr. Paley agreed to be act as Transport Manager for his business. Mr. Paley worked out of Heysham and called into the office on a Friday night or Saturday to pick up records. Mr. Bray emailed other records to Mr. Paley for storage and review.

Mr. Bray advised that there was no contract, it was a verbal agreement for which Mr. Paley was paid £30 per week. Whilst I was initially advised that confirmation of those payments had been sent to my office, Mr. Bray subsequently failed to locate such emails in his sent items despite being given time at the Public Inquiry to do so. He did not further seek to provide me with separate evidence of bank transfers which, I was told, was the chosen method of payment.

This arrangement, I was advised, continued until March 2025. At this stage, I was informed, Mr. Bray decided to surrender the licence due to Mr. Paley stepping down as transport manager.

Professional Competence

Mr. Bray accepts that he is currently without a transport manager and that he has no intention of seeking a new one. He confirmed he would not be requesting a Period of Grace and accepted that he failed to notify my office of the change to professional competence.

Financial Standing

Mr. Bray confirmed in evidence that there had been a change to financial standing which he had not yet made me aware of. He told me at the Public Inquiry that the company was being placed into administration as personal circumstances had made it impossible to continue. He accepted that he had failed to provide evidence of finances, and that he would not be requesting a Period of Grace.

Good repute (Operator)

In evidence I found Mr. Bray to be open and honest, but I find that this was only the case at the Public Inquiry. The same could not be said for his approach ahead of the Hearing. He had failed to comply with the case management directions of the Operator’s licence, had failed to inform my office of material changes in the circumstances of the licence holder. Furthermore, some of his evidence was inconsistent. He told me, for example, that he decided to surrender the licence when Mr. Paley resigned, but later made me aware that, in fact, the business was being placed into administration for financial reasons.

Genuine Link (Transport Manager)

Mr. Paley failed to provide me any evidence as to the terms of engagement with this Operator. I have no evidence of a contract and no evidence of payments to him for his services. The value I am told was being paid, £30 per week, for a commitment of 8 hours as per the TM application form, is evidence that I must have regard to.

Good Repute (Transport Manager)

Mr. Paley failed to attend this Public Inquiry and failed to comply with the case management directions. I have received no evidence that he was active in any way with the management of the Operator’s transport service, let alone to a standard which might be considered as “effective and continuous” as required in law. The failure of the transport manager in this regard has unquestionably contributed to the Operator falling short in terms of compliance.

Findings

Having listened to the evidence from Mr. Bray I conclude that this is an operation which was designed to allow a single driver to benefit from being a licence holder, with minimum attempt to comply with the licensing requirements. This has resulted in a laissez-faire approach to compliance. Undertakings have not been complied with, material changes have not been notified, and a transport manager was engaged, I conclude, in name only. More recently, material changes have resulted in a failure to satisfy the mandatory and continuous statutory requirements of financial standing and professional competence.

Genuine Link (Operator and Transport Manager)

Section 14A(2)(c) of the 1995 Act sets out that a transport manager must be “an individual the traffic commissioner is satisfied has a genuine link to the operator”. This is further clarified by the Senior Traffic Commissioner at paragraph 6 of Statutory Document 3

“The statutory definition of “transport manager” in section 58, by reference to section 13A(5), means ‘an individual employed by an undertaking or, if that undertaking is an individual, that person or, where provided for, another individual designated by that undertaking by means of a contract, who effectively and continuously manages the transport activities of that undertaking’. Paragraph 14A of Schedule 3 refers to that person having a genuine link to the undertaking, such as being an employee, director, owner or shareholder or administering it.”

I find that there is no genuine link. Mr. Paley is not subject to a contract, and I have no evidence of effective and continuous management of transport operations. On the contrary, the evidence before me illustrates an absence of any such management. Further, the agreement to pay £30 per week for the eight hours, set out in the Transport Manager application form, is such that I find there was never any intention to have Mr. Paley fully and adequately act as a Transport Manager. I conclude that Mr. Paley was only ever a transport manager in name. A means of allowing the licence holder to access the benefits of an Operator’s licence without the financial obligations that go with it.

Professional Competence

As at the day of the Public Inquiry there is no approved transport manager, no intention of engaging one, and no request for a Period of Grace. The only natural conclusion is that the requirement to be professionally competent is no longer satisfied.

Financial Standing

Again, as at the day of the Public Inquiry there is no financial evidence in support of the licence-holder. Further, Mr. Bray has advised me that the licence holding entity is being placed into administration, and he confirmed that he would not be seeking a Period of Grace. I therefore find that the requirement to have the appropriate financial standing is no longer satisfied.

Good Repute (Operator)

Whilst I give Mr. Bray credit for attending this Public Inquiry, I do find that this was a late effort to try and minimise the impact of regulatory action. I find, however, that much of the damage had already been done. The licence-holder failed to comply with the majority of the case management directions and gave conflicting evidence about what materials he presented ahead of the Public Inquiry and in regard to his reasons for closing the business / surrendering the licence.

In addition, I find that the Operator had come to an arrangement with a transport manager for convenience with no evidence of any formal working relationship. The Operator’s standards for compliance are woefully below the requirements for a licence holder and Mr. Bray’s knowledge was questionable.

Good Repute (Transport Manager)

I find that Mr. Paley has come to an arrangement with Mr. Bray for the Operator’s convenience. I find no evidence of any formal working relationship and conclude that Mr. Paley has allowed his name to be used to support and legitimise an application. The receipt of £30 per week gives me no confidence of any attempt, throughout the lifetime of the licence, to fulfil the requirement to manage effectively and continuously the operator’s transport service.

DECISION - OPERATOR

In conclusion I make adverse findings under:-

• Section 26(1)(b) - that there has been a failure to comply with the conditions of the licence, namely to notify this office of events which affect financial standing;

• Section 26(1)(b) - that there has been a failure to comply with the conditions of the licence, namely to notify this office of events which affect professional competence;

• Section 26(1)(e) – that the licence-holder made, for the purposes of the application for the licence, a statement of expectation that has not been fulfilled, namely that Mr. Glen Paley would undertake the responsibilities of a transport manager;

• Section 26(1)(f) – that there has been a failure to comply with the Undertakings of the licence, namely that the rules on drivers’ hours and tachographs would be observed;

• Section 26(1)(f) – that there has been a failure to comply with the Undertakings of the licence, namely that drivers would report any defects promptly and in writing;

• Section 26(1)(f) – that there has been a failure to comply with the Undertakings of the licence, namely that maintenance records would be kept for 15 months;

• Section 26(1)(f) – that there has been a failure to comply with the undertakings of the licence, namely that vehicles would be kept fit and serviceable;

• Section 26(1)(h) – that since the licence was issued there has been a material change in any of the circumstances of the licence-holder that were relevant to the issue or variation of the licence;

• Section 27(1)(a) - that the Operator no longer satisfies the requirement to be of appropriate financial standing in accordance with paragraph 6A if Schedule 3;

• Section 27(1)(a) - that the Operator no longer meets professional competence requirements in line with Section 13A(3)(a)(i) o r13A(3)(b)

I am mindful of the helpful guidance provided in the Upper Tribunal decision of NT/2013/82 Arnold Transport which reminds us that actions speak louder than words:-

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.

This is an Operator who failed to recognise the problem and failed to put matters right.

The adverse findings under Section 27 are such that I am obliged to revoke the licence unless such a direction would be disproportionate in the circumstances. I note that the Operator has been put on notice, has agreed with my concerns, has declined to request a Period of Grace, and has not provided any mitigation which might lead me to conclude that revocation is not a proportionate outcome.

I consider the question posed by the Upper Tribunal in 2009/225 Priority Freight namely: how likely is it that this operator will, in future, operate in compliance with the operator’s licensing regime? I answer in the negative. The evidence before me in respect of this licence – particularly the failure to comply with case management directions, failure to ensure undertakings and conditions are complied with, and the failure to notify this office of material changes – leads me to conclude that this is not an Operator that I can trust.

I go on to consider the question posed by the Upper Tribunal in 2002/217 Bryan Haulage namely, “is the conduct such that the operator ought to be put out of business?” I answer this in the positive. This is case with a range of negative features and adverse findings as set out above. The only positive I can identify is the attendance of the Director to give his account, and I do give him credit for doing so.

In conclusion I give a direction under the aforementioned provisions of Sections 26 & 27 that this licence be revoked. I consider immediate revocation is justified and proportionate as the Operator has told me his vehicle has been SORN’d - although this is not yet reflected on the DVLA vehicle information website.

Having revoked the licence and found that Mr. Bray has lost his good repute I consider whether disqualification is appropriate. In respect of an Operator or Director the issue of disqualification is a discretionary matter. I am conscious of the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s guidance at paragraph 65 of Statutory Document 10 that such a direction is a potentially significant infringement of rights and should not be routinely ordered. I must, however, balance this against the multitude of failings identified in this case. The Operator has wilfully allowed a transport manager to be established in name only – paying what is best described as a nominal fee. I have found this is done to ‘tick a box’ on application in order to operate thereafter under the radar of the Traffic Commissioner. The consequence of that has been the absence of basic systems for complying with the regulatory requirements. This risks road safety and undermines fair competition.

I therefore consider a period of disqualification is appropriate. I give credit to Mr. Bray only for attending the Public Inquiry and for the fact that this was his first Public Inquiry. I therefore set the disqualification at a lower end of the threshold and disqualify the licence holder, and Mr. Bray as its sole Director, from holding or obtaining an Operator’s licence for a period of twelve months. The disqualification will expire at 23:45 on 27 May 2026.

DECISION – TRANSPORT MANAGER

Mr. Paley failed to comply with the case management directions ahead of the Public Inquiry and accepted a nominal fee for £30 per week to legitimise this Operator licence. There is no contract of employment and no evidence of effective and continuous management of transport operations. Having found that there was never any intention to have Mr. Paley fully and adequately act as a Transport Manager, and he allowed his name to be used for convenience, I believe any finding short of loss of good repute would be perverse in all the circumstances.

I therefore make adverse findings under:-

Section 27(1)(b) – the Transport Manager is no longer of good repute as required by paragraph 14A(1)(b) of Schedule 3 and in accordance with paragraphs 1 to 5 of Schedule 3

Having formed the conclusion that Mr. Paley is no longer of good repute I am required, under Paragraph 16(2) of Schedule 3 of the Act, to order that he be disqualified from acting as a Transport Manager. As Mr. Paley failed to attend the Public Inquiry it is difficult for me to make an assessment as to the appropriate period of disqualification. I therefore find that an indefinite period is proportionate as this allows Mr. Paley to apply to have the order lifted. Any such application, in line with Paragraph 17(1A), cannot be considered before the end of the period of one year beginning on the day on which this order is made, and only if Mr. Paley has retaken and passed the written Transport Manager CPC examination.

David Mullan

Traffic Commissioner for the North West of England

27 May 2025