Decision for Swanage and Dorset Scaffolding and Roofing Ltd OH2045198
Source: gov.uk (2025-03-04)

Written decision of the Traffic Commissioner for the West of England for Swanage and Dorset Scaffolding and Roofing Ltd

WESTERN TRAFFIC AREA

SWANAGE AND DORSET SCAFFOLDING AND ROOFING LTD OH2045198

AT A PUBLIC INQUIRY IN BRISTOL

11 FEBRUARY 2025

DECISION

The Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (as amended) (“the Act”)

Pursuant to adverse findings under Sections 26(1)(ca) fixed penalties, 26(1)(c)(iii), prohibitions, 26(1)(f), that vehicles would be kept fit and serviceable, and 26(1)(h), in that the operator is unfit to be the holder of a goods vehicle operator’s licence, the licence is revoked.

To allow for an orderly winding down, revocation will take effect from 23:59 hours, 28 March 2025.

Swanage and Dorset Scaffolding and Roofing Ltd, Trevor James Burt and Deborah Jane Brown are each disqualified from applying for or holding a goods vehicle operator’s licence in any traffic area from 29 March 2025 until 28 March 2026.

BACKGROUND

Swanage and Dorset Scaffolding and Roofing Ltd (“SDSR”) is the holder of a restricted goods vehicle operator’s licence authorised for three vehicles from an operating centre in Wimborne, Dorset. The directors are Deborah Jane Brown and Trevor James Burt. The current licence was granted in December 2021. The company previously held restricted licence OH1115615. That licence was surrendered by the operator in January 2017 following a call to public inquiry on regulatory grounds.

DVSA Traffic Examiner Allen Cox carried out an investigation starting on 26 February 2024. The outcome was a referral to my office. The Examiner found some compliance systems in place but they were poorly managed, if at all. Driving licences were checked only on start of employment, drivers were given no training, forward planning seemed to have ceased on departure of a previous transport consultant.

DVSA Vehicle Examiner Michael Lailey attended on the same day. He found a number of anomalies. Deborah Brown is director of Deborah Scaffolding Ltd. That company was the registered keeper of YD65AON, an 18-tonne Iveco, without having held an operator’s licence. That vehicle was then specified on the SDSR licence at grant. Not all safety inspection reports could be provided at either first or second visit. FJ60DVA, another 18-tonne Iveco, was in use with expired tax and a Ford Transit, OH02RSE was in use with an expired MOT. HY12VXM, a 7.5-tonne DAF, was stopped on 4 December 2021 with its MOT having expired at the end of October that year. The operator had four vehicles in possession and available to the business. MX67AEK, a Peugeot van, was recorded as SORN on 9 February 2024 with ANPR showing it on the road twenty-six times until it was taxed again on 1 June.

VE Lailey had concerns with the maintenance provider, could find no evidence of any tyre management in place and found a driver’s seatbelt to be clipped together suggesting it was not being used. Three immediate prohibitions had been issued for load security. Two extra passenger seats had been fitted by the operator and did not have seatbelts. Records showed that the operator was registered keeper of HY12VXM from 11 June 2019 to 6 September 2022. For much of that period, the operator did not have an operator’s licence but MOT records showed the vehicle in use.

Due to the wider-ranging issues, I decided to call the operator to public inquiry.

THE PUBLIC INQUIRY

Director Trevor Burt and non-statutory transport manager Stuart Jeans attended for the operator represented by Philip Brown, solicitor. Allen Cox and Michael Lailey attended for DVSA. Proceedings were recorded and I record here only that which is necessary to support my findings.

Maintenance records had been provided to Mr Lailey in advance and a further report provided.

I asked why the operator had not complied with the direction to send tachograph data to Mr Cox by the deadline leaving him only two working days to conduct an analysis. No clear reason was forthcoming. Mr Jeans told me that he had sent it immediately he was aware it was needed but the emails went to Debbie.

The evidence of Vehicle Examiner Michael Lailey

Mr Lailey told me that the Agency’s attention had been drawn to the company following a road traffic collision where one of their vehicles had run into the back of a car. Mr Lailey had conducted an inspection and found no relevant defects but did find the load to be insecure.

I asked about vehicle OH02RSE which the operator had said was not used in connection with the business. Mr Lailey told me that it was registered to the limited company and was on the forward planner. In relation to the seatbelts being clipped together, there was evidence of it having caused wear to the seat squab consistent with it routinely not having been worn by the driver. In response to Mr Brown, Mr Lailey confirmed that he had not himself seen a driver driving whilst not using a seatbelt.

In relation to the additional seats, the vehicle had a sleeper cab and the bunk had been removed and replaced with two sideways facing seats. No seatbelt was fitted when the vehicle was encountered.

The evidence of Traffic Examiner Allen Cox

Mr Cox provided his update from the records he had been sent. The operator was clearly using a transport consultant. Driving licences were now being checked and the operator was providing some training. He was concerned that the infringement reports were either undated or all dated 25 January. There was no explanation for the missing mileage.

The evidence of Trevor Burt

Mr Burt told me that, following surrender of the licence in 2017, he had used Transit vans. He had bought HY12VXM to sell scaffolding. He could not remember using it prior to getting his operator’s licence. It wasn’t driven as part of the business. It was now sold. He didn’t do computers or paperwork so employed people to do that. He had previously had a transport consultant, Hazel, doing the paperwork but she left and it went downhill. In relation to the insecure load, it had been a driver who no longer worked for them. Mr Burt had been present and it was a single board in the back.

A consultant Roger Stevenson downloaded the vehicles fortnightly. They had two lorry drivers. Revocation would finish them. It was impossible to do scaffolding with a Transit. Suspension of the licence would finish them. They used three vehicles daily. He would accept a condition to appoint a transport manager. An operator licence training course was booked for 18 February.

I noted that the s-marked prohibition and associated fixed penalty notice seemed harsh if the vehicle was carrying just a single board – the description provided by Mr Burt. Mr Lailey offered to provide a photograph so I paused the hearing for that to be done.

The photograph provided showed the rear of a 3.5 tonne pick-up with about fifty short poles, approximately a dozen longer poles, a range of boards of various lengths, a loose ratchet strap, a broom and a shovel. There was no load securing at all. Mr Burt accepted that he had mis-described it and apologised. I explained to Mr Burt that I was now on notice that he did not tell the truth. Mr Burt told me that he did not lie on purpose. He confirmed he had been present at the encounter.

Mr Burt told me that, when he surrendered the licence in 2017 he had not really worked for maybe a year; he couldn’t remember exactly when. I asked about HY12VXM. He did not recall when he bought it back. He did not remember buying it back at all.

I asked about YD65AON which had been registered to Deborah Scaffolding. Deborah Scaffolding had never traded. He did not know how that had happened and it should have been in the name of SDRS. He would have acquired the vehicle when he got the operator’s licence but wouldn’t have used any HGV until he got the licence.

I referred to FJ60DVA driven untaxed. That was caused by a failed direct debit payment. He genuinely thought HY12VXM was MOT’d when it was bought. Mr Burt couldn’t remember when that was. He accepted that the business had four vehicles in possession but four weren’t used at once. OH02RSE was a Transit panel van that his wife (the other director) used to take the dogs for a walk and to do the shopping. It was not used in connection with the business. All his vehicles were on the forward planner now.

Stuart Jeans had been in the business since May taking over from Hazel who left February time. Mr Burt had no idea why a seatbelt had been clipped together. He checked every morning that the drivers were wearing their seatbelts. In relation to the additional seats, he had been told by Nicklens that they could be fitted. He had asked DVSA when they were in the yard – Mr Lailey reminded Mr Burt that he had said they should be removed until the company had received proper advice on fitting them. I asked whether they had been removed now? No. I asked whether he had taken any further advice? No. He would do that now. I asked about seatbelts, where they were fitted and how the structure had been strengthened. That had been left to Nicklens. I asked whether Mr Burt knew the load that a seatbelt mounting needed to be able to retain? No.

In relation to the load security matter, Mr Burt accepted that the driver had not received any training. It was his fault and he “took it on the chin”. I returned to HY12VXM and noted that the company had become the registered keeper on 11 June 2019 and the operator’s licence was granted in December 2021. Mr Burt told me that the vehicle had been in the yard and used only twice. I pointed out that the MOT history showed that the vehicle had covered 27,000 kms. Mr Burt told me that it must have gone out more but mainly, most of the time, it was in the yard. Mr Burt confirmed that he was not using it for scaffolding in that time.

I referred to the allegation that vehicle FJ60DVA had covered 55kms on 6 August 2023 when not specified. The explanation from Mr Burt had been that it was with the maintainer. The maintainer had said that 6 August 2023 was a Sunday and they didn’t open Sundays. Mr Burt had no further explanation.

I referred to the Traffic Examiner’s report. Mr Burt told me that it had been fine whilst Hazel had been there but fell apart thereafter. I reminded Mr Burt that the Examiners had visited in February 2024, the same month Mr Burt had told me that Hazel had left. No further explanation was forthcoming.

I noted that Mr Brown had asked Mr Burt about the effects of some regulatory action but not disqualification. Mr Burt told me that would cause him to lose his livelihood.

The evidence of Stuart Jeans

Mr Jeans told me that he was a non-statutory transport manager for the company. He had been contacted last May by Roger Stevenson. He had undertaken a quick audit and found there was not an awful lot in place. It had been agreed that Mr Jeans would provide support on infringements and vehicle management. A vacancy had arisen for a driving role and he took that on as well. The drivers didn’t understand the rules. He managed them on a day-to-day basis. He was willing to attend further training. He was now working full-time; it had started a day a week.

Closing submissions

It was accepted that there were a lot of issues and it wasn’t a pretty picture. Mr Burt had started from behind and hadn’t treated the operator licensing system seriously. However, the adverse findings were down to inattention. Whilst the company had previously been called to an inquiry, this was still their first.

The operator was now committed to getting it right. I should allow the operator a chance to redeem itself and demonstrate that it could be compliant. One could rule out future use of vehicles that were not taxed nor MOT’d as Mr Jeans was now on his shoulder. There was work on driver defect reporting. I should step back from revocation, treat this as a first public inquiry, accept that the shortcomings were mainly a lack of detail in record-keeping. The unsafe loading had been rectified through training.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The operator’s vehicles have been inspected by DVSA on four occasions since the licence was granted. All four have resulted in prohibitions, three of those marked as identifying significant failings within compliance systems and related to a lack of load security. The driver of HY60KUN was issued a fixed penalty notice on 16 August 2023 for a missing seatbelt. That appears to relate to the sideways facing seats fitted by the operator. The matter was advised at MOT in March 2024 and the seats still fitted at the date of the inquiry, nearly a year later. Sections 26(1)(ca) fixed penalties, 26(1)(c)(iii), prohibitions and 26(1)(f), fit and serviceable are made out. Given the repeat nature of the load security matters and the persistence with the home-fitted seats, seemingly now also with home-fitted belts, I attach considerable weight. Workers deserve to be carried safely.

The operator clearly has an issue with keeping vehicles taxed. I find, such that I am certain, that FJ60DVA was in use between 1 January 2024 and 8 February 2024. MX67AEK, a van used by the business, was declared SORN on 9 February 2024 and used thereafter until retaxed on 1 June 2024. These offences are relevant to the operator’s fitness to hold a licence.

A Transit van OH02RSE, registered to the company and included on the wall-planner, was in use from 9 March 2024 to 8 May 2024 without a valid MOT. HY12VXM was in use on 4 December 2021 when its MOT expired at the end of October that year. These failings are relevant to fitness.

One of the more serious allegations is the apparent use of HY12VXM between 11 June 2019 when it was registered to SDSR and 1 December 2021 when the operator’s licence was granted. Mr Burt told me that it was used maybe twice but otherwise stayed in the yard. I gave him multiple opportunities to enlarge upon that. The problem with Mr Burt’s assertion is that the MOT history, helpfully provided by VE Lailey as part of the SIPCAT, shows an odometer reading on 5 June 2019 of 189,622 kms. On 14 October 2020, the reading is 206,061 kms. On 9 December 2021, it is 216,550 kms. The vehicle has covered 27,000 kms registered to this operator and without the benefit of an operator’s licence. I was given no reasonable explanation. The only plausible explanation is that SDSR used the vehicle unlawfully over the two-year period.

HY12VXM covered around 13,000 kms a year before the licence was in force. By way of comparison, the SIPCAT shows that HY60KUN covered 29,000 kms during the period 15 December 2022 and 20 December 2023. YD65AON covered 23,000 kms in that period. So, whilst HY12VXM may not have been in full-time use, it was achieving over half the annual mileage of the vehicles on the licence since grant. That is not occasional use nor movements in the yard. I find, on the balance of probabilities and by a very clear margin, that SDSR operated a heavy goods vehicle unlawfully for a two-year period prior to grant of this licence.

Having made that finding, it leads to a further finding that Mr Burt was not truthful with me at the inquiry on this point. Put plainly, he told a clear lie when he said that the vehicle was kept in the yard and used maybe twice. Operator licensing is based on trust and telling lies to the regulator at a public inquiry is likely to shatter that trust.

Mr Burt told me very clearly that the load-security prohibition and fixed penalty notice issued to BJ66AFN on 5 September 2024 was for a single loose board. Why he did that with the DVSA Examiner present is beyond me. The Examiner produced a photograph showing large amounts of small scaffolding components, boards, poles and other tools loose in the back of a drop-side pickup. That was another clear lie. Ill-judged or ill-thought-through as it might have been, it was a lie designed to mislead me.

These were not the first lies. Mr Burt told Mr Lailey that FJ60DVA was at the maintenance providers when 55kms was recorded on the tachograph on 6 August 2023. That day was a Sunday and the maintainer was shut making Mr Burt’s statement more likely than not, a lie. When asked in interview under caution about the use of HY12VXM prior to the licence being granted, Mr Burt said he couldn’t remember what the vehicle had been doing. That must surely be a lie given that the vehicle was in steady use for two years.

The operator accepts that it was in possession of and the business had access to four vehicles for a period during 2023.

Turning to the more general compliance concerns, I find that all the shortcomings identified by both Examiners in their reports are made out and I adopt them as my own. I do not accept the assertion that matters had only recently gone awry following the departure of the previous transport consultant, Hazel. The Examiners visited on 26 February 2024 and it was Mr Burt’s evidence that Hazel left in February 2024. The shortcomings identified were clearly of long-standing.

There are positives. Vehicles were being inspected regularly and were subject to a roller brake test each time. Whilst there is no obvious pattern, many brake tests were conducted laden. To find positives on the Traffic Examiner side it is necessary to look to the latest update where driving licences are now being checked and there is some infringement reporting, albeit the evidence is that drivers began signing for infringements only a couple of weeks before the inquiry. Mr Jeans appears to have made improvements on Traffic systems.

The recent picture is not so positive with respect to maintenance. YD65AON had the engine management warning lamp illuminated at each of the recent inspections. It would seem that rectification comprised simply resetting the lamp as it recurs persistently. Mr Lailey confirmed that defect would incur a delayed prohibition at the roadside. The same vehicle had low recorded park-brake effort from the front axle on four occasions until it finally failed on the fifth occasion. Maintenance remains a long way short of acceptable as does driver defect reporting with several driver-detectable defects found during safety inspections.

I conduct a balancing exercise as I am required to do. The operator operated for two years before this licence was granted. The director lied to me on two separate occasions and he lied also to the DVSA Vehicle Examiner. More vehicles than authorised were available to the business and parked in the operating centre. Vehicles have been used without tax and without MOT. Load security has been a persistent problem. The operator ignored advice from DVSA with respect to additional seats fitted to the bunk space with no thought given to the load-bearing ability of the structure to which it is now claimed that seatbelts have been fitted. Even now, vehicles are routinely used with prohibitable emissions defects. Against that, the positives, even with the promises to engage a qualified, non-statutory, transport manager, can achieve very little. I find that the operator is unfit to be the holder of a goods vehicle operator’s licence and Section 26(1)(h) is made out.

This is not an operator I can trust to be compliant in the future. The failings are so serious, dangerous, widespread and long-standing that this is a business that requires being brought to an end for the benefit and safety of others, and for fair competition.

Disqualification is not automatic but nor does it require any additional feature. The breadth of failings over a number of years, going back to illegal operation in 2019, along with persistent lying and refusal to act on the advice of a DVSA Examiner cause me to find that this operator needs a period of reflection away from the industry. I adopt the lowest level in the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s guidance and treat this as the operator’s first public inquiry.

Whilst I heard only from Trevor Burt, all directors are liable for compliance with the regulatory regime and I cannot, and do not, distinguish between them.

DECISIONS

Pursuant to adverse findings under Sections 26(1)(ca) fixed penalties, 26(1)(c)(iii), prohibitions, 26(1)(f), that vehicles would be kept fit and serviceable, and 26(1)(h), in that the operator is unfit to be the holder of a goods vehicle operator’s licence, the licence is revoked.

To allow for an orderly winding down, revocation will take effect from 23:59 hours, 28 March 2025.

Swanage and Dorset Scaffolding and Roofing Ltd, Trevor James Burt and Deborah Jane Brown are each disqualified from applying for or holding a goods vehicle operator’s licence in any traffic area from 29 March 2025 until 28 March 2026.

Kevin Rooney

Traffic Commissioner

17 February 2025