Decision for De-Luxe Coach Services Ltd (PC1128921) and Michael James
Source: gov.uk (2025-06-30)

Written decision of the Traffic Commissioner for the North West of England for De-Luxe Coach Services Ltd and transport manager Michael James

IN THE NORTH WEST TRAFFIC AREA

DE-LUXE COACH SERVICES LTD PC1128921

&

MR MICHAEL JAMES Transport Manager

WRITTEN DECISION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER

PUBLIC INQUIRY HELD IN GOLBORNE ON 18 JUNE 2025

DECISION:

Under provision of Section 17(1)(a), 17(1)(b), and 17(2)(a) of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 (“the Act”), Operator’s licence PC1128921, held in the name De-Luxe Coach Services Ltd, is revoked with effect from 23:45 on 17 July 2025.

Under provision of Section 28(1) of the Transport Act 1985, De-Luxe Coach Services Ltd, and Director Mr Michael James, are each disqualified from holding or obtaining an Operator’s licence for a period of seven years.

I make a finding that Mr Michael James has lost his good repute as transport manager. Mr James is disqualified from acting in the capacity of transport manager for any road transport undertaking for a period of seven years under provision of Schedule 3 (7B)(1) & (2), of the Act.

This Operator, De-Luxe Coach Services Ltd (“De-Luxe”), appeared before me at Public Inquiry on Wednesday 18 June 2025 and was in attendance through Directors Mr. Andrew James and Mr. Michael James. The Operator was represented by Mrs. Beverley Bell of Beverley Bell Consulting Ltd. Mr. Michael James was also called to attend in his capacity as Transport Manager.

The Operator has a single operating centre, recorded as Woodside Farm, Woodyard Lane, Foston, Derby, DE65 5PY. Preventative Maintenance Inspections are said to be carried out in-house and by Truck & Bus Repairs Ltd, Nottingham at 6-weekly intervals.

Background

This Standard National licence was granted on 22 May 2014 and is authorised for twelve vehicles. The licence is subject to a number of specific undertakings and conditions which include, but are not limited to, the following:-

a) All vehicles will undergo a roller brake test as part of every PMI. The results will be recorded, and the records will be kept for at least 15 months;

b) All vehicles will undergo a pre-MOT inspection. Records of pre-MOT inspections will be kept for 15 months and provided to the Office of the Traffic Commissioner on request;

c) Mr. Andrew James is to remain as a statutory Director of the company exercising management oversight including its financial affairs;

d) All drivers used by the Operator to drive its vehicles are, and shall be, employed by the Operator and not self-employed;

e) The Operator shall not register any local services;

f) The Operator will arrange an independent audit to be carried out by a DVSA-authorised audit provider, the RHA, Logistics UK, or other suitable independent body, by no later than 31 March 2025.

On 15 December 2024 vehicle 222LYR, used by the company, was the subject of a DVSA technical roadside inspection at which two immediate prohibitions plus a single delayed prohibition were issued.

The DVSA conducted a follow-up maintenance investigation which resulted in an unsatisfactory report marked “Report to the Office of the Traffic Commissioner (OTC)”. That report identified a number of concerns and highlighted that conditions and undertakings on the licence have not been complied with. Of thirteen areas assessed only four were considered to be “Satisfactory”. Four areas were marked as “Unsatisfactory” with two obtaining the worst mark, “Report to OTC”.

As above, one of the undertakings agreed by this Operator was for an independent audit report to be completed by 31 March 2025. Such audits are separate to the DVSA investigation report. Two audits were provided, one focusing on drivers’ hours requirements, and the other focusing on maintenance. As with the DVSA report, these audits identified a wide range of concerning features.

Additionally, I was concerned that, at annual test, the Operator was reported as having an initial fail rate of 29.41% (against a national average of 10.40%), and a final fail rate of 17.65% (against a national average of 7.03%). It’s mechanical prohibition rate at roadside encounter is given as 42.86% (national average 17.63%) and its offence prohibition rate is 25.00% (national average 2.04%).

Both the DVSA report and the independent audit highlighted concerns with the Transport Manager, concluding that Mr. Michael James demonstrates only partial control in that role. Mr. James has a long, negative, history within the licensing regime which includes links with a number of businesses who have had Operator licences revoked. These are:

• PD1063541 – North Warwickshire Travel Ltd;

• PD1055648 – Acorn Coach & Bus Limited;

• PD0001553 – Vals Coach & Bus Ltd;

• PD1091047 – Tamworth Coach & Bus Ltd;

• PD1057700 – Heartlands Travel Limited.

In total, Mr. Michael James has been a Director of five companies who have had Operator licences revoked, and he had previously been disqualified for 36 months, in March 2018, from holding or obtaining an Operator’s licence.

As a transport manager he has lost his good repute twice (December 2013 and December 2017) and has previously been subject to an order disqualifying him from being a transport manager for a period of three years.

Public Inquiry

Letters calling the company, and Transport Manager Mr. James, to Public Inquiry were issued on 07 May 2025. The call-up letter set case management directions that the Operator was to provide the DVSA with records for further assessment ahead of the Inquiry. I am grateful to the Operator for providing these, and to the DVSA officials for completing a further assessment.

The letter also set out the issues for consideration at Public Inquiry. In summary these were that undertakings and conditions had not been complied with, and that the Operator may no longer meet the statutory requirements to be: (i) of appropriate financial standing, (ii) of the necessary good repute or (iii) have the required professional competence on account of any potential adverse findings against Transport Manager Mr. James.

The letter calling the Transport Manager to the Inquiry set out similar issues, and confirmed that I would have consideration to whether he remained of the necessary good repute and whether he was able to continuously and effectively manage the company’s transport services.

In each case, the calling-in letter also confirmed that I would have regard to an order of disqualification if I considered that to be necessary.

The majority of oral evidence on the day was provided by Mr. Michael James. Mr. Andrew James provided little detail but did aim to assist where he felt he could.

Mr. Michael James did not seek to challenge the primary findings of the DVSA, but it was clear there were some elements he was frustrated with. Overall, however, I found him to be credible and I appreciated his candour.

Summary of Evidence

Undertakings & Conditions

The Hearing bundle included a range of papers for my consideration. Those were:

• a DVSA maintenance investigation visit report;

• two independent audits procured by the Operator to comply with its agreed undertaking;

• a five year MOT report;

• a five year report on roadside encounters; and

• a DVSA report for Public Inquiry assessing recent records provided by the Operator

In addition, the Operator provided its own record of MOT presentations & results, a small number of signed driver declarations on defect reporting from October 2024, evidence of the PAYE status of drivers, and TM CPC refresher training.

A wide range of issues were set out within the DVSA report:

• Inspection records were not correctly completed;

• Brake testing was not completed – despite the specific undertaking on this matter;

• Inspection intervals were not managed, resulting in 33% of inspections happening outside the specified schedule;

• Driver defect reporting was ineffective, with driver detectable defects regularly appearing in maintenance inspection reports;

• There was a significant absence of maintenance records;

• Maintenance facilities were inadequate – with no cover available;

• Annual test records indicated poor management and maintenance standards;

• There was an ineffective system for wheel security

The independent audits provided at the expense of the Operator repeated many of the issues with maintenance. In addition, it found an absence of ongoing driver training, as well as limited reporting and analysis in respect of drivers’ hours. Vehicle unit and driver card records had not been downloaded on time.

To the credit of both Directors, whilst some detail was challenged, the findings were accepted. Both acknowledged that they had largely failed in their duties. Mr. Andrew James confessed to me that since taking a new job some twelve months ago he had been absent from his duties for De-Luxe. It was acknowledged that this represented a failure to comply with the undertaking that he was to “remain as a statutory director of the company exercising management oversight including its financial affairs” (emphasis is my own). This is best illustrated in the fact that the company accounts are currently overdue.

Mr. Michael James failed to impress on some aspects of his management, particularly when I was advised that upon finding that a torque wrench was faulty, the Operator continued to use it. Mr. James sought to tell me that he felt using a faulty wrench was better than using no wrench, failing to grasp the point that each would illustrate an unacceptable tolerance for risk to road safety. He also admitted to taking a relaxed approach to management of driving and maintenance personnel.

It is noted that the Operator was unable to provide any tangible evidence of improvement as at the date of the Public Inquiry. The DVSA supplementary assessment for Public Inquiry criticised the disorganised nature of combining electronic and handwritten records. It identified that that there was still an absence of brake performance assessment figures, and of six inspections only two had evidence of a brake test. There was a continued absence of driver defect reports and poor retorque records. Of worry was that the Operator continued to use its own facilities despite these being highlighted as unsatisfactory by the DVSA some four months prior. I was informed that some inspections had, however, moved to the external provider.

Transport Manager

Mr. Michael James readily accepted that he had failed in his Transport Manager responsibilities. His passion for buses led to a focus on that as a hobby, alongside a focus on the buying and selling of buses. I was told that his personality is such that he struggles to delegate. This resulted in him taking on too much responsibility and failing to focus on the important issues. Additionally, rather than putting too much pressure on staff he allowed them to ‘get on with things’. This, he accepts, is contrary to the important function of a Transport Manager.

In recognition of this I was advised that Mr. James was prepared to resign his position as Transport Manager. His daughter, with no specific passion for buses, but a keenness in the business side of operations, was preparing to take her CPC examination in July. I was offered undertakings to support an application for a Period of Grace, in the event that Mr. James lost his good repute and was prevented from continuing as Transport Manager, and more long term undertakings to assist with his daughter’s induction into the transport manager role.

Finances

[REDACTED]

Findings

Undertakings and Conditions

I am satisfied that a range of the undertakings on the Operator’s licence have not been complied with and that there has been a failure on the part of the Operator, and its Transport Manager, to make proper arrangements so that:

• the rules on driver’s hours and tachographs are observed and proper records kept;

• vehicles, including hired vehicles, are kept in a fit and serviceable condition;

• drivers report promptly any defects that could prevent the safe operation of vehicles, and that any defects are promptly recorded in writing; and

• records are kept (for 15 months) of all safety inspections, routine maintenance and repairs to vehicles and made available on request.

I also note that the Operator had received prohibitions and failed to comply with the condition of the licence to have vehicles maintained in line with the specified six-weekly inspection schedule.

Of deep concern is the fact that this Operator had agreed a number of specific undertakings and conditions – notably (i) that all vehicles would undergo a roller brake test as part of every PMI and (ii) that Mr. Andrew James would exercise management oversight. Whilst I note the submission that brake testing was affected by a move of operating centre this is a weak argument considering that move completed in late 2024. Today I see little to no evidence of a brake testing policy in place.

Transport Manager

I am satisfied that Mr. Michael James has failed in his lawful duty to ensure effective and continuous management of the Operator’s transport service. The failures are wide ranging and whilst I recognise that he has obtained certificates showing continuous professional development they actually give me some cause for concern. To be so absent of one’s duties, despite recent training, leaves me questioning how could Mr. James actually be rehabilitated?

It cannot be ignored that Mr. James has previously lost his good repute as Transport Manager on two previous separate occasions. I ask whether he has failed to learn any lessons from those experiences. Is Mr. James presenting himself to me as a person who simply can’t manage transport operations, or one who won’t manage transport operations? I conclude it is both. There is little evidence of effort being applied and even less of it being successful.

Accordingly, I find that Mr. Michael James has lost his good repute as Transport Manager. This case has identified a wide range of failures. Against Mr. James’ background the only conclusion I feel I can come to is that I cannot trust him. Being open and candid in the Public Inquiry room cannot, I find, counterbalance the range and history of operational failures that I have been presented with.

Finances

[REDACTED]

Decision

I make the following adverse findings under Section 17(3) of the Act:

• Section 17(3)(a) - Operator made a statement of fact which was false or expectation has not been fulfilled namely that maintenance inspections would be completed at six-weekly intervals;

• Section 17(3)(aa) – An undertaking has not been fulfilled namely the Condition to have roller brake test as part of every PMI;

• Section 17(3)(aa) – The Operator has failed to ensure appropriate systems to ensure that vehicles, including hired vehicles, are kept in a fit and serviceable condition;

• Section 17(3)(aa) – The Operator has failed to ensure appropriate systems to ensure that drivers report promptly any defects that could prevent the safe operation of vehicles, and that any defects are promptly recorded in writing;

• Section 17(3)(aa) – The Operator has failed to ensure appropriate systems to ensure that records are kept (for 15 months) of all safety inspections, routine maintenance and repairs to vehicles and made available on request;

• Section 17(3)(c) - That a prohibition has been imposed with respect to a vehicle owned or operated by the holder of the licence

Mr. Andrew James gave a commitment to this office that he would be an active Director. He has failed to comply with that promise and failed to notify this office of any change. Mr. Michael James has continued with his historical approach to transport operations. He has been a Director of some five businesses which have had operator licences revoked. He has himself been subject of a previous disqualification. His management of this licence is such that I find he has failed to learn from any of those experiences. Collectively the two Directors, as controlling minds of the business, have failed to ensure compliance with the undertakings and conditions of the licence.

Accordingly, I find that the good repute of the licence holding entity, De-Luxe Coach Services Ltd, is lost. Additionally, the good repute of Mr. Michael James is lost both as Director and as Transport Manager. Mr. Andrew James has not yet forfeited his good repute, but it is marked as tarnished. I make a distinction between the two Directors as Mr. Andrew James is not active in the running of the business or the transport operations. He should, however, expect that any future application in which he is involved will come under the scrutiny of a Traffic Commissioner.

Under provision of Section 17(1)(a) I find that the Operator is no longer of good repute, and no longer professionally competent.

On review of the guidance provided by the Senior Traffic Commissioner on starting points for regulatory action, as set out at Annex 4 of Statutory Document 10, I place this case within the category of “severe”. There are clear and deliberate acts which compromise road safety.

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 Operator, its Directors, and – in particular – Mr. Michael James’ history, leads me to conclude that this is not an Operator who can so comply.

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. The negative features of this case are well laid out above and I have little or no positive features against which to balance other than give credit for the fact that the Directors and Transport Manager attended and accepted their failings. Any changes made thus far fall into the category of “too little too late”. This is an Operator which I find has buried its head in the sand until the Public Inquiry.

I therefore make a direction that this licence be revoked with effect from 23:45 on 18 July 2025. This timeframe is established to allow transport operations be brought to an orderly closure and ensure minimal disruption to school services which are reliant upon it.

Disqualification

This is a serious case showing persistent Operator licence failures with inadequate response. Having revoked the licence and found that the good repute of Mr. Michael James is lost, 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 and the history of Mr. Michael James.

With regard to Director Michael James, I find there has been a continued disregard to the undertakings and conditions of the licence. The declarations on application have been signed by him, as both Director and Transport Manager, with no appreciation of the important commitment being made by signing each document. I have found this was, in his eyes, a mere tick box exercise. 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.

Due to Mr. James’ persistent disregard for compliance across a large number of years I consider a lengthy suspension at the higher end of the scale as being justified and proportionate. Accordingly, I disqualify Mr. Michael James from obtaining or holding an Operator’s licence for a period of seven years.

With regard to the licence holding entity – De-Luxe Coach Services Ltd – I note that there are two Directors. Only one has lost his good repute. It is clear however that Mr. Andrew James has limited involvement and has little desire or capacity to continue as a passenger transport Operator. He has been absent from his responsibilities for twelve months and the business has been under the control of Mr. Michael James. Accordingly I make little distinction between the failings of Director Michael James and De-Luxe Coach Services Ltd and I disqualify the company for the same period of seven years.

Additionally, I consider that Mr. Michael James has disregarded his duties as Transport Manager on this occasion. His loss of good repute at this time represents a third such occasion and he has already been subject to a previous three-year disqualification order. I find it is therefore justified and proportionate to again set a disqualification period at the higher end of the scale. Accordingly I disqualify him from acting in the capacity of Transport Manager for a period of seven years.

On account of the period of time disqualified, I set a rehabilitation measure that Mr. James is to re-sit and pass the TM CPC qualification should he wish to be reestablished as a Transport Manager in the future.

Addendum – this decision should be read in conjunction with the decision in PC2030765, South Derbyshire Coaches ltd. The two cases are linked by common features including a shared transport manager. As both cases were reserved for a written decision some of my findings are shared across each case. Whilst findings are separate, they read as duplications for ease of drafting

David Mullan

Traffic Commissioner for the North West of England

20 June 2025