Decision for South Derbyshire Coaches Ltd (PC1128921) and Michael James
Source: gov.uk (2025-06-30)

Written decision of the Traffic Commissioner for the North West of England for South Derbyshire Coaches Ltd and transport manager Michael James

IN THE NORTH WEST TRAFFIC AREA

PUBLIC INQUIRY HELD IN GOLBORNE ON 18 JUNE 2025

SOUTH DERBYSHIRE COACHES LTD PC2030765

&

MR MICHAEL JAMES Transport Manager

WRITTEN DECISION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER

DECISION:

Under provision of Section 17(2)(b) of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 (“the Act”), Operator’s licence PC1128921, held in the name South Derbyshire Coaches Ltd, is suspended for a period of 21 days with effect from 23:45 on 17 July 2025.

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, South Derbyshire Coaches Ltd (“South Derbyshire”), appeared before me at Public Inquiry on Wednesday 18 June 2025 and was in attendance through sole Director Mrs. Julie Rymer. 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 at 6-weekly intervals. The licence was first granted on 23 June 2020, is authorised for five vehicles, and currently has two active bus registrations.

Background

This Operator was the subject of an unannounced DVSA maintenance investigation visit on 09 January 2025 which concluded with an unsatisfactory report. Of twelve areas examined, two were scored as “Report to OTC”, five were deemed to be “Unsatisfactory”, and one was marked as “Mostly Satisfactory”. Only four areas from the twelve were considered to be satisfactory.

A number of areas of concern related to road safety critical areas such as inspection facilities, maintenance, driver defect reporting, and wheel & tyre management. Other elements indicate a lack of training, and absence of effective management and obvious problems being ignored by the Transport Manager. The Operator failed to provide a written response to the DVSA to the findings of the audit, despite a reminder to do so. This office was concerned therefore with that failure to engage and had no assurances as to how the issues raised were to be resolved.

It is noted, further, that the concerns identified within the DVSA report appear to be realised at the test centre where the Operator has an initial fail rate at annual test of 52.94% (against a national average of 13.34%) and a final fail rate of 47.06% (against a national average of 9.05%).

There is also a concern that, since December 2020 there have been four compulsory strike-off actions discontinued. This office therefore seeks assurances that the requirement to be of appropriate financial standing remains satisfied.

The issues and concerns set out above raised a further concern that the nominated Transport Manager may no longer be of the necessary good repute, and/or may be unable to ensure continuous and effective management of transport operations as required by law.

The Transport Manager, 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:

a) PD1063541 – North Warwickshire Travel Ltd

b) PD1055648 – Acorn Coach & Bus Limited

c) PD0001553 – Vals Coach & Bus Ltd

d) PD1091047 – Tamworth Coach & Bus Ltd

e) 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.

Consequently, this office is concerned that the licence holder is failing to comply with the undertakings and conditions of the licence, and may no longer meet the mandatory and continuous requirements to be of good repute, appropriate financial standing and have a transport manager who meets the requirements set out in law.

Public Inquiry

Letters calling the Operator, 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.

It should be noted at this juncture that this Public Inquiry was listed for 2pm on 18 June 2025. At 10am on that same date Mr. James attended a separate Public Inquiry, in respect of licence PC1128921 held in the name De-Luxe Coach Services Ltd. Mr. James attended that Inquiry in his capacities as both Director and transport manager. Records show that South Derbyshire shared a common operating centre with De-Luxe.

It was confirmed that Mrs. Rymer and Mr. James were a couple and were living together. This created a natural link between both entities, but I was told that this business was very much Mrs. Rymer’s. This was confirmed by the fact this business was established before the relationship with Mr. James commenced.

The majority of oral evidence at the Inquiry was provided by Mrs. Rymer. Mrs. Rymer did not seek to challenge the primary findings of the DVSA and I found her to be an honest and credible witness.

Summary of Evidence

Undertakings & Conditions

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

• a DVSA maintenance investigation visit report;

• 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 photographic evidence of a vehicle with a VOR notice, a ‘lifting operations and lifting equipment regulations’ (LOLER) certification for maintenance lead, Mr. Callum Rymer, and CPC certificates for Transport Manager Mr. James. The difficulty with this evidence was that the VOR notice was a notice for De-Luxe Coaches not South Derbyshire, and it transpired that Mr. Callum Rymer was employed by De-Luxe Coaches, not South Derbyshire.

A range of issues were identified during the DVSA visit:

a. Inspection records were not suitable and failed to comply with the DVSA’s Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness;

b. There was an ineffective forward planning system;

c. Driver defect reporting was ineffective with no rectification sheets available for South Derbyshire;

d. The given maintenance provider on the VOL record were outdated;

e. The maintenance facilities are considered unsuitable, as there is no cover;

f. There was a complete absence of brake testing;

g. Systems for wheel and tyre management were ineffective;

h. The use of cherished plates, and the movement of some VRMs between vehicles has caused difficulty in assessment of maintenance

I give credit to Mrs. Rymer for accepting and acknowledging the failings. It was explained to me that systems were manged across South Derbyshire and De-Luxe. As well as sharing the operating centre and Transport Manager, there was also a sharing of procedures and systems. The maintenance was not actually in-house, as the maintenance staff member was an employee of De-Luxe. There was no cross-company accounting or charging for his services, or for the use of any facilities – such as they are. Drivers were employed by De-Luxe and, as before, there was no cross-company accounting or charging.

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 identified further breaches of the given maintenance schedule, an absence of brake testing and issues with the forward planner. No evidence of driver defect reporting was provided.

I was advised that materials were available, but they had not all been provided to the DVSA and not provided to this Inquiry. I was given details of how driver defects are reported and noted as being rectified. I was told that maintenance and brake testing has now moved to an external third party.

I was offered a range of undertakings to provide me with assurance of future compliance. These included the engagement with an external transport consultant, a commitment to move all maintenance to an external provider, and the provision of regular independent audits into the Operator’s systems for compliance going forward

Transport Manager

Much of the evidence relating to Mr. James was repeated from the representations made earlier in the day at the separate Inquiry for De-Luxe. Mr . James accepted that he had failed in his responsibilities. Mrs. Rymer also accepted this and I heard evidence regarding how Mrs. Rymer and Mr James’ daughter, who was now working with Mrs. Rymer, were working well together.

I was told that Mr. James’ personality is such that he struggles to delegate. This resulted in him taking on too much responsibility. In recognition of this I was advised that he 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:

• 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 failed to comply with the condition of the licence to have vehicles maintained in line with the specified six-weekly inspection schedule.

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) – 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

Consideration of regulatory action under the provisions above is a discretionary matter and I am reminded by the appeal case of Thomas Muir (Haulage) Limited of the intended use of those discretionary powers:

“namely that it is intended to be used, so far as may be appropriate, to achieve the objectives of the system. The proper question is whether in that context the direction is appropriate in the public interest. The objectives of the system plainly include the operator’s adherence to the various requirements… it is plain that the protection of the public is a very important consideration.

On the other hand, it does not follow that a traffic commissioner is prevented from taking into account, where appropriate, some considerations of a disciplinary nature and doing so in particular for the purpose of deterring the operator or other persons from failing to carry out their responsibilities under the legislation. However, taking such considerations into account would not be for the purpose of punishment per se, but in order to assist in the achievement of the purpose of the legislation. This is in addition to the obvious consideration that a direction may be used to provide direct protection to the public against dangers arising from the failure to comply with the basis on which the licence was granted. Whether or not such disciplinary considerations come into play must depend upon the circumstances of the individual case.

…We disagree with the implication which they drew from the legislation that the licensing authority could not reach a proper determination without distinguishing between fault on the part of the driver and fault on the part of the operator. This appears to suggest that the operator is not responsible when the driver is at fault. It is important, in our view, to observe a clear distinction between questions of responsibility and questions of culpability.

In this case I make the distinction between the culpability of Transport Manager James, and the responsibility of Director Rymer. I have regard to the fact that this is the first regulatory Public Inquiry for South Derbyshire and Mrs Rymer. I expect that the process itself has been an educational one, as should have been the DVSA visit and report. Mrs. Rymer is clearly experienced with knowledge of the industry and I am satisfied that this business is her own.

A separate decision has been made, and will be publicly available, which revoked licence PC1128921 held by Mr. James (and his brother) in the name of De-Luxe Coach Services Ltd. That decision also disqualified Mr. James as a Transport Manager and has disqualified him from holding or obtaining an Operator’s licence. This is relevant to this case as it allows me to be satisfied that South Derbyshire can be removed from current and future influences of Mr. James.

Accordingly, I find that the good repute of the licence holding entity, South Derbyshire Coach Services Ltd, and its sole Director Mrs. Julie Rymer, are not lost, but are severely tarnished.

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 “serious”. There have been persistent failures with an inadequate response.

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 positive. I have been provided with a range of undertakings, and the decision to find that Mr. James has lost his good repute, allows me to have greater confidence in Mrs. Rymer starting afresh.

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 negative. I am prepared to allow an opportunity, supported with a new Transport Manager and the undertakings provided for his licence to continue.

I do however reiterate the line from Thomas Muir that the use of discretionary powers are appropriate in the public interest and important to the achievement of the objectives of the system

In find that a suspension in line with Statutory Document 10 is appropriate in this case. This Operator, and Mrs. Rymer, needs an opportunity to step back and review the issues identified and put in place a significant number of systems and improvements. This, in my view, needs to be done without the distraction of attempting to run any vehicles whilst an important period of reflection and practical improvement takes place. I also consider that a 21-day suspension, which falls right in the middle of the 14 to 28 day range suggested in Stat. Doc 10 for a case in the serious category, is proportionate. I hope, also, that it serves to impress upon Mrs. Rymer the importance of compliance with all conditions and undertakings in the.

I therefore make a direction that this licence be suspended from 23:45 on 18 July 2025, until 23:45 08 August 2025. This timeframe is established to ensure minimal disruption to school services, and for alternative arrangements to be made for registered services, both of which are reliant upon this Operator.

Disqualification

I consider that Mr. Michael James has disregarded his duties as Transport Manager on this occasion. His loss of good repute at this date 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 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 re-established as a Transport Manager in the future.

Period of Grace

As Mr. James has been disqualified the Operator no longer meets the requirement to be professionally competent. A pre-emptive request was made for a Period of Grace at the Public Inquiry. I was given assurances, through an offered undertaking, of a short term solution utilising the services of a transport consultant to assist and advise Mrs. Rymer, with a long term solution to appoint an alternative transport manager, preferably Miss Sarah James who was working at the business and will be sitting her CPC on 17 July 2025.

I therefore approve a Period of Grace, expiring 20 September 2025. This allows three months for the lack of professional competence to be remedied. The Operator is reminded that the onus lies with them to ensure the requirement is complied with, or an extension is granted, before the expiration. Failure to do so may result in the licence being revoked without further notice or reminder.

Undertakings

The decisions contained above are made in consideration of the following undertakings which are offered, and accepted:-

• The Operator will provide original or copies (verified by the issuing bank or building society) of financial evidence in the name of South Derbyshire Coaches Ltd covering the periods September, October and November 2025 to the Office of the Traffic Commissioner at xxx@xxx.xx by no later than 17 December 2025. This must show that the Operator has continued to meet the required level of available finance throughout the period by reference to an average balance, dependant on the rates applicable at that time. Rates to be found in the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document No. 2 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/traffic-commissioners-finance-march-2019. Where originals are not available each statement must be stamped and authenticated by the bank/building society;

• The Operator undertakes to identify an independent body to carry out an audit of transport safety and compliance systems during December 2025

A copy of the report together with the Operator’s detailed proposals for implementing the report’s recommendations is to be submitted to Office of the Traffic Commissioner at xxx@xxx.xx by 21 January 2026. The audit will assess the systems for complying with maintenance and/or drivers hours requirements, and the effectiveness with which those systems are implemented. The audit should cover at least the applicable elements detailed in the guidance on Operator Compliance Audits available at: www.gov.uk/government/publications/operator-compliance-audits

• The Traffic Commissioner reserves the right to require a further audit in June 2026, and will make a further decision on receipt of the December 2025 audit.

• By 20 September, Mrs. Julie Rymer will attend a three-day Practical Operator Licensing Awareness Training Course run by an approved body or training organisation. Proof of attendance must be submitted to the Traffic Commissioner at xxx@xxx.xx within seven days of completing the course;

• An external maintenance provided will be used for all preventative maintenance inspections and pre-MOT inspections;

• All vehicles [and trailers] will undergo a roller brake test as part of every PMI. At least every alternate test will be undertaken laden. The results will be recorded and the records will be kept for at least 15 months;

• All drivers used by the Operator to drive its vehicles are, and shall be, employed by the Operator and not self-employed.

Addendum – this decision should be read in conjunction with the decision in PC1128921 De-Luxe Coach Services. 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