Decision for John Northover Ltd (OH2079556)
Source: gov.uk (2025-05-09)

Written decision of the Traffic Commissioner for the West of England for John Northover Ltd

WESTERN TRAFFIC AREA

JOHN NORTHOVER LTD OH2079556

AT A PUBLIC INQUIRY IN BRISTOL 23 APRIL 2025

DECISION

Section 13B, fitness, fails to be satisfied. The application is refused.

BACKGROUND

This is an application for a restricted goods vehicle operator’s licence seeking authority to operate six vehicles from an operating centre at Bastion Five, Airport Service Road, Portsmouth, PO3 5PJ. The sole director is Claire Waterfield. Ms Waterfield has no previous licence history.

Internet searches brought up apparent links to Hughes Waste - https://hugheswaste.co.uk/ whose website referred at the time to “© John Northover Ltd. T/A Hughes Waste” and provides the contact address of Ackworth Road, Portsmouth PO3 5NS. Hughes Waste Ltd

Ms Waterfield was asked whether there were any links between John Northover Ltd and Hughes Waste Ltd, and asked about her experience operating heavy goods vehicles. The response was curious: “I can confirm that as far as I am aware there is no connection between John Northover Ltd and Hughes Waste Ltd” (emphasis added). Ms Waterfield went on to tell me that she had experience “of running light vans”. I decided to determine the application at public inquiry.

THE PUBLIC INQUIRY

No-one has attended for the applicant. My office wrote to Ms Waterfield on 3 March 2025 to tell her that the application had been called to public inquiry. She accessed the licence record on 6 March so will almost certainly have seen that letter. She has not accessed that record since. The call-up letter was sent via email and recorded delivery, which was signed for by a neighbour on Friday 21 March. There is no record of the email bouncing back so I find it more likely than not that it was received. Case Center shows that the link to the bundle was sent on 19 March but the case has not been accessed. I find it more likely than not that the call-up and link to the bundle have been received. Nothing has been heard from the applicant since. I proceed to make a decision.

In making my decision, I have added to the public inquiry bundle the history of Hughes Waste Ltd from Companies House. Whilst this should have been included in the bundle originally, it is publicly available and a copy would have been provided to the applicant had they attended. The potential link to Hughes Waste Ltd was clearly set out in the call-up and the applicant could easily have made the same search of the Companies House record. I am satisfied that referring to that history imports no unfairness.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The website of Hughes Waste did refer at the time of the application to John Northover Ltd. The applicant’s explanation was indefinite: “as far as I am aware”. Ms Waterfield is the sole director and I would have expected more certainty if she is the controlling mind.

This application bears a mobile phone number in the contact details of xx-xxxx-xxxx. The contact details on the licensing system for the licence OH1138176 held by Hughes Waste Ltd has a contact phone number of xx-xxxx-xxxx. That same number also appears in a 2018 article in Demolition News as being the contact details for John Hughes of Hughes Waste.

Hughes Waste Ltd was the subject of a winding-up order in the Courts on 22 January 2025. The petition was brought by HM Revenue and Customs.

I find that it is far more likely than not that this application is intended to be a front for the continued operations of John Hughes of Hughes Waste Ltd. The use of the mobile phone number of John Hughes as the contact on the application, supported by the business context and the original reference on the Hughes Waste website means that I am certain of that.

In Aspey Trucks Ltd 2010 – 49, the Upper Tribunal comments on the difference between finding a loss of repute in an existing haulier and whether or not a new applicant to the industry met the standard to be of good repute:

The same principle clearly applies to fitness in relation to an application for a restricted licence. The lack of honesty in this application means that the applicant is unfit to be the holder of a restricted goods vehicle operator’s licence.

DECISION

Section 13B, fitness, fails to be satisfied. The application is refused.

Kevin Rooney

Traffic Commissioner

23 April 2025