Decision for All Wright Removals Ltd (OH2078492)
Source: gov.uk (2025-06-27)

Written decision of the Traffic Commissioner for the West of England for All Wright Removals Ltd

WESTERN TRAFFIC AREA

ALL WRIGHT REMOVALS LTD OH2078492

AT A PUBLIC INQUIRY IN BRISTOL 27 MAY 2025

DECISION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER

DECISION

The Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1985

Upon failures to establish professional competence and good repute, pursuant to Section 13A, the application is refused.

BACKGROUND

This is an application for a standard international goods vehicle operator’s licence for four vehicles for a removals company in Taunton. The applicant directors are Leah Wright and Lewis Wright and the business was incorporated in September 2024. The proposed transport manager is Peter Wright who is also listed as a shareholder with significant control. It appears that Peter Wright compiled the licence application in November 2024 and submitted it on 20 January 2025. He held the only user account until 8 May 2025.

Peter Wright was sole director of The Wright Removal Company (SW) Limited when it entered insolvency in December 2022. The only creditors on the statement of affairs were the Crown (that includes a bounce-back loan shown as owed to HSBC but that has a Crown guarantee) and Mr Wright. That is an unusual position. The liquidation was declared on the application.

I was concerned that the lack of any trade creditors listed for the old company. This suggested that trade creditors may have been preferred over the Crown debts. Concerned at the apparent unfair competition and lack of good repute, I proposed to refuse the application. The applicant requested a public inquiry.

THE PUBLIC INQUIRY

Peter Wright, Leah Wright and Lewis Wright attended for the applicant unrepresented.

Proceedings were recorded and a transcript can be made available on request. I record here only that which is relevant to my decision.

The evidence of Peter Wright

Peter Wright told me that he had taken legal advice and been told that the case was straightforward and legal representation was unnecessary. I explained that, on application, the onus on demonstrating that the mandatory requirements were met lay with the applicant.

The Wright Removal Company SW Limited was a household removals company. It was well respected in the industry and worked for a lot of larger companies. The business had been running fine. He was approached by a company called Fox Moving & Storage via a Mark Chudleigh. Fox had previously bought Mr Chudleigh’s business. Paul Fox was, at the time, president of the British Association of Removers. Mark Chudleigh was due to be the next president. Fox was building a new site in Wellington. They asked to buy his business and for him and the employees of Wright Removals to move across to work for Fox. It all seemed to make sense and to be a good offer. He decided to move across to Fox. Fox purchased the assets and goodwill and the accountants advised him to liquidate what was left. Fox had not been interested in taking on the company’s debts.

I noted that Mr Wright did not owe the old company any money at liquidation but a second director did. Mr Wright told me Neil Chapman owed £13,000. The liquidators tried to get hold of him but came to the conclusion that it would cost more to collect than it was worth. It had not been the case that Mr Wright had not wanted to repay the Crown debt but it had been his accountant’s advice.

The HMRC debt was some PAYE that was due, corporation tax and some VAT. The funds weren’t in the business to pay them. The money from Fox went into the business account and those funds went to deal with whatever could have been dealt with. There were no individuals owed money.

I asked Mr Wright why he wasn’t named as a director on the applicant company. He told me that he would be in time. That would be changed shortly, and he would be a director along with his son and daughter. The business was working using vans and turning away bigger jobs.

Mr Wright hadn’t paid himself for a long period of time while still running the business. He started working for Fox in November 2022 and had not taken a wage from May to November as he had wanted to pay off what was outstanding. That was supported by the bank statements from the period.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Positive findings

The proposed compliance systems for the business appear to be appropriate.

There is no reason to question the technical competence of Peter Wright as transport manager and I believe he was open and truthful in the inquiry. I not the refresher training undertaken.

The mandatory requirements of financial standing and stable establishment are satisfied.

The money paid by Fox for the business assets stayed within that business and was available for the liquidation.

Peter Wright did not draw a salary for the six months leading up to the asset sale. The Statement of Affairs shows that he was owed £6,851 by the business.

Negative findings

A conscious and careful decision was made to sell the assets of The Wright Removal Company (SW) Limited to a larger rival leaving a number of creditors with no hope of being paid.

Peter Wright was a director of The Wright Removal Company (SW) Limited and both Lewis and Leah Wright were employed there and on the payroll.

Efforts were made by the director of The Wright Removal Company (SW) Limited, Peter Wright, to generate cashflow to pay trade creditors only. Trade creditors were preferred to the Crown debt. That is clear from the fact that no trade creditors at all appear on the statement of affairs. It would appear that the business traded through 2022 whilst insolvent in that it had debts due to HMRC which it could not afford to pay.

HMRC was owed, as a secondary preferential creditor, £34,511 on entry to liquidation. It received a dividend of 58.2 pence in the pound leaving a shortfall of £14,426. In addition, HMRC was owed £38,438 in unpaid corporation tax and there was an outstanding Crown-backed Bounce Back Loan of £36,000 leaving the taxpayer £88,864 the poorer.

The application was made by Peter Wright. Mr Wright is a shareholder. He was the only person to give evidence at the inquiry, although Leah Wright appears to have put together the pre-hearing evidence. I find that Mr Wright is a de facto director. Peter Wright failed to declare the financial insecurity of The Wright Removal Company (SW) Limited when he was aware that financial standing was no longer met.

DETERMINATION

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:

“In a case such as this, the Deputy Traffic Commissioner was not looking at putting someone out of business. Rather, he was deciding whether or not to give his official seal of approval to a person seeking to join an industry where those licensed to operate on a Standard National or Standard International basis must, by virtue of S.13(3), prove upon entry to it that they are of good repute. In this respect, Traffic Commissioners are the gatekeepers to the industry - and the public, other operators, and customers and competitors alike, all expect that those permitted to join the industry will not blemish or undermine its good name, or abuse the privileges that it bestows. What does “Repute” mean if it does not refer to the reasonable opinions of other properly interested right-thinking people, be they members of the public or law-abiding participants in the industry?”

Peter Wright failed to notify of the obvious lack of financial standing of The Wright Removal Company (SW) Limited. In T/2008/41 Brian Hill Waste Management Ltd, the Transport Tribunal found that directors are likely to be on notice of the failure to meet the mandatory requirement of financial standing before insolvency practitioners are engaged. That failure to notify goes to the heart of the trust that must exist between operators and their regulator.

In T/2011/86 Boomer t/as Carousel, the Tribunal said: “in particular the use of phoenix companies (ie putting a company in to liquidation for the purpose of abandoning the debts and then setting up again in another business entity with the same underlying business and personnel involved but without the previous liabilities) was absolute anathema to Traffic Commissioners who were obviously unwilling to trust an operator who behaved in this way to comply with the obligations of an operator’s licence”. It went on “The Traffic Commissioner’s trust in operators’ ethical business practices was essential to effective and compliant regulation”.

These comments are as equally relevant to the good repute of a transport manager as they are to that of an operator. In choosing to ensure that trade creditors were paid and that the Crown debt was not, in choosing to sell the assets without the liabilities and in choosing to liquidate The Wright Removal Company (SW) Limited to avoid its Crown liabilities, Peter Wright has showed that he is willing to be party to unethical business practices. It is little mitigation that he may have acted on the advice of accountants. He failed to notify the adverse financial position of that company as he was required to do. I find that Peter Wright has failed to establish his good repute as a transport manager. Section 13A, professional competence, fails to be satisfied.

Peter Wright is clearly a strong controlling mind within the applicant business. His children played little if any part. The applicant company is a separate legal entity but it comprises of its Board and shareholders and it is appropriate here to pierce the corporate veil. The applicant has failed to establish its good repute and Section 13A again fails to be satisfied.

Upon a failure to establish professional competence and good repute, the application is refused.

Kevin Rooney

Traffic Commissioner

20 June 2025