Decision for Roger Little (North West) Limited (OC2076035) and North West Drain Services Ltd (OC1141973)
Source: gov.uk (2025-07-01)

Written decision of the Traffic Commissioner for the North West of England for Roger Little (North West) Limited and North West Drain Services Ltd

IN THE NORTH WEST TRAFFIC AREA

PUBLIC INQUIRY HELD IN GOLBORNE ON 23 JANUARY 2025

ROGER LITTLE (NORTH WEST) LIMITED – OC2076035

conjoined with

NORTH WEST DRAIN SERVICES LTD – OC1141973

WRITTEN DECISION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER

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

DECISION:

Roger Little (North West) Limited

Pursuant to an adverse finding under Section 26(1)(h) of the 1995 this licence is revoked with effect from 23:45 Wednesday 19 March 2025.

North West Drain Services Ltd

Pursuant to an adverse finding under Section 26(1)(h) of the 1995 Act this licence is suspended, with immediate effect, for so long as it remains a Restricted licence.

Roger Little (North West) Limited (“Roger Little”) holds a Restricted Goods Vehicle Operator’s Licence authorising 3 vehicles. The Directors are Mrs Suzanne Savage and Miss Claire Young. The licence was granted as recently as 04 October 2024.

North West Drain Services Ltd (“NWDS”) holds a Restricted Goods Vehicle Operator’s Licence authorising 2 vehicles. The sole Director is Mr Jonathan Makin. The licence was granted on 19 January 2016.

Background

Roger Little was incorporated on 28 June 2007. Prior to that, the business was operated under a similarly named, but separate and different legal entity, called “Roger Little Ltd”. That company was dissolved on 24 March 2015, with the associated operator’s licence expiring much later in 2021.

A new application was made by the new entity in 2024 and, having noted that there was a period of previous operations under an incorrect licence, I granted that new application with a warning and undertakings.

I did so following a request for confirmation as to how transport requirements had met since the incorrect licence lapsed in October 2021. Roger Little advised that “Any large jobs or the requirement to move waste is dealt with by our subcontractor, North West Drains currently”. This was supported by an email from Mr Makin, Director for NWDS who advised “This email is just to confirm we have been carrying out tanker works on behalf of yourselves since late 2021, our waste transfer number is CBDU115333, our operators number is OC1141973”.

Whilst this supported the application for Roger Little, indicating no transport operations during the period with no operator’s licence in place, it proved problematic for NWDS as, being the holder of a Restricted licence, it is not authorised to carry goods for hire & reward.

Following grant of the licence for Roger Little, attention turned to NWDS and their possible carriage of goods for hire and reward using a Restricted licence. When challenged about this position NWDS responded to advise, in contrast to the previous statement, that any work which resulted in carriage of waste on behalf of Roger Little was undertaken in vehicles, hired from NWDS, but used under the Roger Little operator’s licence. This of course raises concerns as (a) it contradicts the initial evidence provided and (b) Roger Little did not have an operator’s licence to rely upon after October 2021.

In light of the above I had two primary concerns which resulted in the conjoined Public Inquiry being called:

a. In respect of Roger Little I was concerned that since the licence was issued there had been a material change in the circumstances of the licence-holder that were relevant to the issue of the licence, namely that the licence holder no longer satisfied the requirement to be ‘not unfit’ to hold an operator’s licence due to the alleged unlawful transport operations, and possible false information provided in support of the application; and

b. In respect of NWDS I was concerned that since the licence was issued there had been a material change in the circumstances of the licence-holder that were relevant to the issue of the licence, namely that the licence holder no longer satisfies the requirement to be ‘not unfit’ to hold an operator’s licence due to alleged unlawful carriage of goods for hire & reward using a restricted licence and, possible false information provided in response to the inquiries of this office.

Public Inquiry

The Public Inquiry took place on Thursday, 23 January 2025, at the Golborne Hearing Centre. In advance I issued case management directions for the provision of materials to be assessed in respect of each case. These directions were complied with, and I am grateful for both parties for doing so in good time and for supporting those with written submissions and statements.

Roger Little was present by its two Directors; Suzanne Savage and Claire Young, and they were represented by Jared Dunbar of Dyne Solicitors.

NWDS was present by its sole Director Jonathan Makin and represented by Scott Bell of JMW Solicitors. They were further supported by Grahame Robinson, of Robinson’s Transport Consultants Ltd.

Issues

At the commencement of the Public Inquiry I highlighted what I perceived to be a concern in respect of the records provided. Each party has been asked to provide evidence of work carried out by NWDS on behalf of Roger Little. Whilst there may be commonality across the records received, I was mindful that they were provided to me and the other party did not have sight.

To ensure fairness, I set out that I would continue with the Inquiry, but I would not conclude the Hearing on 23 January. Instead, I would issue case management directions and adjourn to allow consideration of that evidence and facilitate the provision of any further written representations, including comments on disposal.

Following the adjournment each party provided a response with final submissions and invited me to conclude proceedings without the need to reconvene.

The issues for consideration, which I set out at the commencement of the Hearing, were, in respect to Roger Little:

c. whether Roger Little had been carrying out unlawful operations using vehicles leased from NWDS;

d. would a Restricted licence be suitable for the type of operations being undertaken by Roger Little; and

e. the apparent provision of false statements in support of the application and continued unlawful operations since 2021.

In relation to NWDS the issues were set out as being:

• whether NWDS has been lending operator’s discs to Roger Little / whether vehicles are being leased to Roger Little;

• whether NWDS had made a false statement to the Traffic Commissioner; and

• the suitability of the licence type held as it appeared the operator may be undertaking ‘for hire & reward’ work under a Restricted licence?

Summary Of Evidence

(a) Has Roger Little used vehicles leased from NWDS?

In evidence (both written submissions and verbal evidence provided on the day) NWDS confirmed that it owned the vehicles, maintained the vehicles, and employed the drivers used for the carriage of waste on behalf of Roger Little. It was submitted that, in a legal sense, the user of the vehicle would be identified as being NWDS. The volume of those operations is a point considered further below – but the evidence was that Roger Little was not considered to be carrying goods for those movements.

(b) Is Roger Little’s Restricted licence suitable for the type of operations?

As to whether a Restricted licence was suitable or not for the work that was undertaken, it was put to me that Roger Little did not use vehicles for carriage of goods for hire and reward and therefore there was currently no need for a standard licence. That said, to avoid any future concerns, the operator had identified a suitable Transport Manager and was prepared to upgrade the licence from Restricted to Standard, subject to the outcome of the Inquiry.

I therefore make no adverse findings in relation to the issues at (a) and (b).

(c) False statements in support of the application by Roger Little.

The starting point is that Roger Little confirmed in evidence that it had been undertaking transport activities, that were in-scope of operator licensing, both before and after the expiration of the “old” licence held in the incorrect entity. This information had not previously been before me when considering the application.

I was aware of the fact that Roger Little had used the “old” licence for a period of time but had found that such use ended with the expiration of that licence. The operator had responded to inquiries stating:

“we have been operating since 2007 under what we believe to be the existing license, as the company has not changed nor the work we have or are doing, however what was not apparent is since the change in company name from Roger Little to Roger Little NW, we believe the license would remain valid; this is an oversight which we were unaware of and can only apologise for” (sic).

The suggestion that this was a mere name change is wholly incorrect. An operator can be taken to be familiar with the statutory regime (see T/2012/30 MGM Haulage & Recycling Ltd [2012 UKUT 346 (AAC)]) and can be taken to be aware of, and understand, the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s statutory guidance (Number 5) on legal entities. I note the particular relevance of paragraph 30, that the ‘real’ legal names must be used and, of course, this is clearly displayed on the licence. This was, however, a failing I was willing to accept, and I granted the licence application in the terms I did on that basis.

Before the application was granted I was satisfied that unlawful operations had ceased since the “incorrect” licence expired in 2021. A request for clarification as to how transport operations had been met since 2021 was issued on 28 August 2024, and the response had included the following statements:

“We will be using goods vehicles, (tankers), to get to sites to carry out unblocks and the cleaning of drains and tanks, (subcontracting any large waste removal as required as we don’t have the relevant large capacity vehicles that hold large amounts of contaminated waste). See statement below on history.”

“Any large jobs or the requirement to move waste is dealt with by our sub-contractor, North West Drains currently.”

“We do not carry any goods, (waste), for payment ourselves. If any goods, (waste) require removal we will continue to use a sub-contract; North West Drains LTD who will then invoice us appropriately.”

“We have been sub-contracting our tanker work to North West Drains LTD; please see the attached evidence of this. We have now decided to bring this portion of the work back in house for cost effectiveness. NW Drains will still dispose of our waste as we don’t have the appropriate vehicles to do so.”

I have highlighted what I consider to be key elements and was told in evidence that these statements were provided by the company’s drainage manager, [redacted].

Further clarification was requested and, this time, the response was provided by Director Claire Young:

“Since 2021 we have been utilising contractors to undertake the work for us due to staffing and resource related issues”.

It was put to me that this final statement could have been clearer by adding “also” utilising contractors and that, further, it wasn’t misleading as it doesn’t state it “only utilising contractors”. I am not swayed by this argument. The response from the Director was in addition to the previous statements which, in the round, are quite clear in advising that this operation did not carry goods / move waste since 2021.

In addition, and of importance, I note the written statement from the Directors, provided in evidence, which advises that they had started an “in-depth investigation” in respect of [redacted]. Evidence of this was produced by the company by way of a letter to him, dated 6 January 2025. In it the company refers to the issue as being “Gross Misconduct – Falsifying evidence produced to the Traffic Commissioner while applying for our Operator’s Licence, causing substantial effect on our operations and reputation.”

The operator claimed that provision of false evidence in support of the application was [redacted] failing and the disciplinary was evidence of this. I have also received, post Inquiry, a written statement from [redacted] to this effect. However, I was also advised that, upon the retirement of previous Director [redacted], his responsibilities which included management of the operator’s licence were distributed to various employees. The responsibilities relating to operator licensing were given to [redacted] with, notably, no relevant training. He was not, for example, asked to attend an OLAT course. [redacted] was given this responsibility by the Directors and was acting thereafter upon their general instructions.

(d) Lending of Operator’s discs by NWDS

The operator accepted at the Inquiry that the legal position is that the user of the vehicles remained NWDS. This is despite the initial view (operationally, rather than legally) that when they undertook a job for Roger Little responsibility transferred to Roger Little. The details of the job were arranged by Roger Little, drivers wore Roger Little branded clothing, and operatives took a reactive approach to the task at hand. I was advised that jobs were often considered to be an emergency by the client, and if that task required to removal of waste to a processing centre, that was undertaken under the instruction of the client or Roger Little. The instruction did not come directly from the management of NWDS.

It is now accepted that the vehicles remained in the hands of NWDS and that drivers are employed by NWDS, therefore vehicles were under the use, legally, of NWDS. I make no adverse findings in relation to this concern that there was some lending of operator’s disc, but it does reinforce the position that some carriage of goods under contract of Roger Little had taken place.

(e) Provision of a false statement to the Traffic Commissioner by NWDS

The concern in respect of alleged false statements emanates from the evidence provided in support of the application by Roger Little and subsequent communications with this office as our inquires continued.

On 03 September 2024, Director Jonathan Makin sent the following in an email to [redacted] in support of the application for Roger Little

“The email is just to confirm we have been carrying out tanker works on behalf of yourselves since later 2021, our waster transfer number is CBDU115333, our operator’s number is OC1141973.”

I note the provision of an operator’s number which would suggest Mr Makin is aware this related to the carriage of goods on a road, and the waste transfer number suggests he is aware this relates to the carriage of waste between a customer and a waste treatment centre. I am advised that NWDS holds an Upper Tier Waste Carriers Licence which is available for the holder to move waste produced by others. This suggests the operator is available to carry waste for hire and reward.

The September statement was then contradicted by an email dated 08 October 2024 where [redacted], on behalf of NWDS, advised this office:

“We confirm we do not carry waste at all between sites for hire or reward. Our vehicles are solely used for the carriage of built-on plan to and from sites, where the plant is operated on each site but no waste is take from sites.”

“To confirm, we do not and will not be using our vehicles registered under the Restricted licence for the carriage of waste for hire and reward.”

The emphasis added above is that of [redacted].

On 06 November a further response was received, this time from Director, Mr Makin. In this he further clarified:

“If there is any tipping or visits to waste transfer sites using our vehicle, these are done under Roger Littles licence and accounts whilst they are in control of our tanker. You relate to paper work which details taking waste to davyhulme for disposal, again yes this may be the case as our paperwork is in our vehicles and readily available and it may be that these were filled out in error whilst Roger Little had hired our Tanker. Any tipping carried out using our vehicle/plant whilst in Roger Littles possession within the hire period is done so by themselves without our instruction or input from North West Drain Services Ltd other than hire of vehicle/plant.”

On consideration of the evidence, these October & November statements are factually incorrect. The Hearing bundle provided in advance for NWDS has some 38 work tickets / waste transfer notes which provide evidence that NWDS (the transferee) was carrying goods from a customer address (transferor) to a waste processing site (The transfer). What I am required to consider is whether this is a false statement made for the purposes of deception – so that this operator can continue to avail of the cost benefits of having a Restricted licence rather than a Standard licence (such as the cost of a qualified Transport Manager) – or if this is a lack of knowledge of the requirements of operator licensing.

(f) Is NWDS’s restricted licence suitable for the type of operations?

In submissions and evidence I am asked to consider that the vast majority of this operation’s business relates to inspection, clearing, jettying and repair of drains / drainage. Therefore, it was submitted, that transport operations are only ancillary to the operator’s business. Indeed, even on occasions whereby waste is removed it either becomes the property of the carrier and, regardless, remains ancillary to the primary service being paid for.

I am not swayed by the argument that waste becomes the property of the carrier. I find this claim to be contradicted by (i) the waste transfer notes; (ii) the statement that the waste is being taken for immediate disposal; (iii) that waste is disposed under the account of Roger Little; and, further, there is no evidence produced in support of the claim.

I have given consideration to the representation that carriage is ancillary to the overall business and whether, therefore, a Restricted licence is suitable. I am unaware of any caselaw on the subject and have not been directed to any. As agreed by the Upper Tribunal at Paragraph 19 of 2024/337 Morgan J Ltd I am required to act under the general guidance of the Senior Traffic Commissioner, and I note his guidance on the matter at paragraphs 54 & 54 of Statutory Document No 0:

“The starting point is to consider the need for a Standard licence. A Restricted licence is only appropriate for the carriage of the operator’s own goods and own their own account i.e. no more than ancillary to the overall activities of the undertaking. So, where an operator only carries goods that are, or become and then remain, the operator’s own property, a restricted licence is likely to be appropriate.”

In the case at hand, the goods do not become, then remain, the property of the carrier. I note the reference to “ancillary” however this is further clarified by the Senior Traffic Commissioner at paragraph 55.b

“If the types of operation alter between journeys, a Standard licence would be required.”

I am of the opinion that the “ancillary” argument has been progressed for convenience and after the event. I am not swayed to believe that the operator has made a conscious or deliberate proactive decision to rely on that provision. Regardless, it is my considered view that when an operator is asked to carry goods on behalf of someone else, and is being paid to do so, they are required to either (a) ensure that they are authorised to do so, by way of holding a standard licence, or (b) sub-contract that work to another entity that is so authorised.

I also give consideration to the wording of Section 3 of the 1995 Act which is quite clear (at Subsection 3) that a restricted licence allows for the carriage of goods on a road, “other than that of carrying goods for hire or reward”. The emphasis on this point should not be underestimated as Parliament has gone so far, as at Subsection 6, to set out that using a vehicle under a restricted licence for carrying goods for hire or reward might be guilty of an offence.

Findings – Roger Little (North West) Limited

Roger Little is not without its positive features. Both Directors were honest and credible witnesses, and each have now attended an OLAT course. I am further advised, post Inquiry, the business has ensured others in positions of responsibility have also attended the course.

The negative features are that I now find the operator has deliberately mislead me within my considerations of the application for an operator’s licence. The application was already flawed, as a licence was being used in contravention of the 1995 Act, being that it could not be transferred to the new company. I was, however, content to accept the explanations provided.

What has come to light since is new evidence which represents a material change to the circumstances of the licence holder at the point of grant. I was initially directed that since the incorrect licence expired this operator did not undertake any carriage of goods for which an operator’s licence is required. That was not true. I do not accept that [redacted] somehow carries entire blame. He was given responsibility to make the application and – I am advised – felt under pressure to obtain the licence. I am aware that the more serious the allegation, the more cogent the evidence is required to be. I have before me his written response which misled me. The misrepresentation is clearly accepted by the operator as per the disciplinary records. I am also conscious that [redacted] responses were followed up by a separate comment from a Director which continued to mislead.

The motive for doing so, of course, is the grant of the licence. The question I ask myself is whether I would have granted this licence had I known the full facts. I find there is a material difference between an operation that is using the wrong licence (but is operating within the licensing regime, and is paying for that licence), and a business that is operating outside the licensing regime beyond the vision of the regulatory body. I conclude on the basis of probability that I would likely not have granted the application with the warning and undertakings that I did. I have regard to the words of the Senior Traffic Commissioner at the statutory guidance on Good Repute and Fitness, paragraph 61

“Any attempt to deceive a traffic commissioner is serious conduct which cannot be condoned”

This is not the only issue. I am advised that the person that carried the knowledge and responsibility for an operator’s licence had retired. Those responsibilities transferred to [redacted], but knowledge did not. As at the commencement of the inquiry no formal training had been provided. This is against a backdrop of using a licence held by the wrong entity, then operating unlawfully without an operator’s licence and attempting to hide that.

I therefore make adverse findings under S.26(1)(h) in that there has been a material change in the circumstances of the licence-holder that were relevant to the issue of the licence, namely that the licence holder no longer satisfies the requirement to be ‘not unfit’ to hold an operator’s licence due to the giving of false evidence for the purposes of obtaining an operator’s licence having come to light, and the absence of appropriate awareness for effective management of an operator’s licence.

Whilst I note the positive features of this case, including the proposal that the business would obtain the future support of a transport manager, I consider that any decision short of revocation would be perverse. I am mindful that revocation is a discretionary matter under this provision, but I conclude that it would not be in the interest of the regulated regime for licence holders or applicants to believe that an application which purposefully misled a Traffic Commissioner could be allowed to remain.

Any alternative decision would give the wrong message to the wider industry. The importance of this is set out in the decision of 2006/277 Michael James Fenlon t/a County Skips, where the Upper Tribunal commented:

“It has been said on many occasions that trust is one of the foundation stones of operator licensing. Traffic Commissioners must be able to trust operators to comply with all the relevant laws, rules and regulations because it would be a physical and financial impossibility to police every aspect of the licensing system all day and every day. In addition, operators must be able to trust other operators to observe the relevant laws, rules and regulations. If trust between operators breaks down and some operators believe that others are obtaining an unfair commercial advantage by ignoring laws, rules or regulations then standards will inevitably slip and the public will suffer.”

I do, however, draw back from disqualification. I give credit to the operator for being open to the Inquiry about the continued use of in-scope vehicles and I note the positive steps taken. That said, I remain concerned about the lack of knowledge which was inherent across the business before this Public Inquiry process commenced. Whilst each application is considered on its own merits, I would strongly advise that any future application be supported by a CPC qualified Transport Manager.

I direct that the licence be revoked in 28 days to allow transport operations to be brought to an orderly closure, or for an alternative application to be submitted.

Findings – North West Drainage Services Limited

As before, this operator is not without its positive features. The licence has been in place since January 2016 and has no adverse history. The Director has attended an OLAT course (disappointingly only as a result of this Inquiry), and Mr Robinson provided a satisfactory audit which, alongside the clear history, satisfies me that there is no inherent danger to road safety. Mr Makin gave an honest account of himself and appears to have very much learned from this process.

However, on consideration of Section 3 of the 1995 Act, alongside the statutory guidance of the Senior Traffic Commissioner, I conclude that this operator has been carrying goods for hire and reward under a Restricted licence. I note the frequency of these tasks as being extremely low, noting the sheer volume of invoices provided in respect of work undertaken for Roger Little and the volume of those with a work sheet or waste transfer document which is evidence of hire and reward operations.

Whilst I also conclude that there has been a false statement given to this office, I note that this is part of a much wider failing in respect of knowledge of the licensing regime. I find that it is more probable than not that this operator appears to have genuinely not understood the legalities around the “use” of a vehicle, and the types of operations allowed by the licence types. This is unsurprising considering the failure to proactively seek out training. I note the submissions made on behalf of the operator about the complexities of the exemptions, but I am not wholly swayed by this argument as the operation has avoided learning and development since the licence was granted (right up until this Public Inquiry was directed). This gives me real cause for concern.

Overall the knowledge displayed by this operator is below the standards required. I make an adverse finding under S.26(1)(h) in that there has been a material change in any of the circumstances of the licence holder that were relevant to the issue of the licence, namely that the licence holder no longer satisfies the requirement to be ‘not unfit’ to hold an operator’s licence due to the unlawful carriage of goods for hire & reward, incorrect information provided to the Traffic Commissioner, and lack of understanding that vehicles used under subcontracts continue to be under their control.

In addition, in preparation for this Inquiry I noted that Hayley Louise Makin resigned as a Director for NWDS on Companies House on 01 November 2024, but VOL wasn’t updated until 30 December 2024. I was advised that this oversight was also identified by the operator in preparation for the Inquiry and corrected, but I record this as a failure to comply with the conditions of the licence to notify this office of changes to Directors within 28 days. In the totality of matters, however, this is an issue which carries very little weight.

In this instance I hold back from revocation as I believe the provision of incorrect information was due to lack of knowledge and understanding. I do not consider it to be deliberate and I identify no motive or substantial gain. That said, I do consider that the lack of knowledge in this instance is a concern and would not have been uncovered but for this Inquiry. I note that the operator has made an application to upgrade the licence from Restricted to Standard and has supported this with a Transport Manager application.

In light of the failings, and the remedy in place, I direct that the licence is suspended until such time as the licence is upgraded and a CPC qualified Transport Manager is both designated by the operator and approved for appointment by this office.

David Mullan

Traffic Commissioner for the North West of England

18 February 2025