Decision for Ashwood Travel Ltd (PF2033190)
Source: gov.uk (2025-12-04)

Written confirmation of the written decision of the Traffic Commissioner for the East of England for Ashwood Travel Ltd and former transport manager Darren Murphy

IN THE EASTERN TRAFFIC AREA

ASHWOOD TRAVEL LIMITED – PF2033190

AND DARREN THOMAS MURPHY – FORMER TRANSPORT MANAGER

CONFIRMATION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER’S DECISION

Decision

The operator’s licence was curtailed by 3 vehicles for a period of two weeks commencing 23:45 on 18 December 2025, during which period vehicles KT10 AWT, AT60 AWT or AT61 AWT or any alternative with those discs cannot be used. The operator has 14 days to identify the unique disc reference number.

The former transport manager is disqualified from relying on his Certificate of Professional Competence unless and until he can satisfy a Traffic Commissioner that he is capable of exercising those duties.

Background

Ashwood Travel Ltd holds a Standard International Public Service Vehicle Operator’s Licence authorising 16 vehicles. The Director is Mrs Sara Baker. The current Transport Manager is Fasal Raja, who was appointed from 16 January 2025 and is also named on PF2059116, held by All-Ways Travel Ltd. Darren Murphy acted in that capacity between 27 May 2022 and 24 October 2024. His name was removed from the list of Directors on 12 June 2025.

There is one Operating Centres at Unit 3, Binders Industrial Estate, Cryers Hill Road, Cryers Hill HP15 6LJ. Preventative Maintenance Inspections are said to be carried out in-house by a Michael Pankhurst, at 6-weekly intervals.

The operator’s licence is subject to restrictions in relation to the operation of small vehicles.

The licence is subject to specific undertakings: to undertake a random audit of at least three drivers per week to ensure the drivers are undertaking their walk round checks correctly, with findings to be recorded and made available; and to employ Mr Doug Grant for 1 to 2 days per week to monitor the systems he has put in place; the operator having commissioned a maintenance audit by 31 August 2018.

A preliminary hearing was held on 11 March 2025. The presiding Commissioner directed that the case be called to Public Inquiry due to “the plethora of issues and the instability in the relationship between directors I consider I have no option but to call a Public Inquiry in this case. I also call former TM Mr Murphy to consider his repute as a Transport Manager.”

Hearing

The Public Inquiry was originally listed for 5 November 2025 but was adjourned at the request of Mr Muphy to allow him to enjoy a pre-booked holiday. It was relisted for today, 18 November 2025, in Tribunal Room 1 of the Office of the Traffic Commissioner in Cambridge. The operator was present in the form of Mrs Sara Baker, Director, accompanied by Mr Raja, Transport Manager, and represented by Mark Davies, Counsel of 6 Pump Court Chambers. Mr Murphy also attended but was unrepresented.

Issues

The public inquiry was called, as above, and on notice that I was considering grounds to intervene in respect of this licence and specifically by reference to the following sections of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981:
- 17(3)(aa) – undertakings (laws on driving, drivers’ hours and tachographs, vehicles are kept in a fit and serviceable condition, effective driver defect reporting, records).
- 17(3)(b) – condition to notify changes on the ability to hold the licence including professional competence.
- 17(3)(c) – Prohibitions.
- 17(3)(e) – whether material change:
- 17(1)(a) – good repute, financial standing and professionally competence.
- section 28 Transport Act - disqualification
Mr Murphy was called separately to consider whether he discharged the requirements of Schedule 3 and if not, whether I should make a finding against his repute under section 17(1)(b), preventing him from relying on his Certificate of Professional Competence.

The operator was directed to lodge evidence in support including financial, maintenance and other compliance documentation. Compliance documentation was to be submitted to DVSA by no later than 15 October 2025 with finance and any representations to be sent to my office by 22 October 2025. The Deputy Traffic Commissioner presiding at the Preliminary Hearing noted that the financial evidence was incomplete but suggested that financial standing might be met.

Determination

Representatives of the Driver and Vehicles Standards Agency arranged by prior appointment to visit the operator on 30 September 2024 by prior appointment to undertake a compliance visit. It was then discovered that Mr Murphy was not available, so the Examiners did not proceed with the visit. I heard in evidence that this did not amount to a lack of cooperation, although the result was effectively the same.

The other Director informed DVSA that the operator was engaged in delivering commercial school services. I was informed that the operator’s website described the following:
- 4 services to Beaconsfield High School.
- 2 services to Chesham Grammar School.
- 3 services to Dr Challoner’s Grammar School.
- 3 or 4 services to Royal Grammar School.
- 2 services to Misbourne School.
DVSA sent correspondence addressed to Mr Murphy by email on 30 October 2024 and by recorded delivery on 31 October 2024. The letter was signed for by ‘Jake’. No response was received from Mr Murphy.

The operator had been alerted to the requirements of the Public Service Vehicles (Open Data)(England) Regulations 2020 by letter from the Office of the Traffic Commissioner dated 19 June 2024. An email response from Mr Murphy of the same date suggested that there had been an error, describing the service to Misbourne School and private and not open to the public (page 167). He was advised by email, dated 24 June 2025 that closed school services are not automatically exempt from the open data requirements. He was invited to supply further information. By return, he confirmed that this was not a local authority contract, which had been taken up as the previous provider ceased trading. The email suggested that usage and cost to the operator might exempt it from complying with the law. There was a suggestion of attempting to negotiate or even threaten my office. Mr Murphy was promptly advised on the need to comply (page 169) but there was no response. A chaser was sent on 3 September 2024, and a final reminder dated 23 October 2024.

It was then established that Mr Murphy had departed, and notice was sent under cover dated 25 October 2024. Correspondence dated 12 December 2024 suggested that Mr Murphy would resume his role in April 2025, but there has been no application. A short period of grace was allowed. A Gary Dickson was initially proposed as a temporary Transport Manager, but that nomination was later withdrawn, and Mr Raja was appointed from 16 January 2025.

I referred to the Note of the Preliminary Hearing on 11 March 2025, prepared by Deputy Traffic Commissioner, Laua Thomas. At that time both Mrs Baker and Mr Murphy were still listed as Directors. Thet attended together with Mr Raja and a consultant, Beata Jasinska. She referred to a legal dispute between the Directors. She recorded evidence from Mr Murphy who suggested that an agreement between the Directors that had been breached. He referred to the challenge of personal medical issues and admitted that he is not exercising his duties as a Director at that time. He said he intended to resign. Correspondence from Mrs Baker referred to tensions in their business relationship and to a monetary dispute.

Deputy Traffic Commissioner Miss Thomas expressed concern that Mr Murphy was unaware of the high infringement rate of drivers. He stated that he concentrated on areas of human resource, finance, IT and procurement. She was left with the impression that he was not meeting the responsibilities as Transport Manager. He apparently told her that he had no experience in the coach industry prior to the loss of his father. He left the day-to-day operations to Mrs Baker.

Mr Murphy suggested that he would not seek to rely on his Certificate of Professional Competence and invited Miss Thomas to find against his repute. However, she noted that he was suffering from ill-health at the time of the visit on 30 September 2024. The Directors disagreed about receipt of further correspondence from DVSA. Mrs Baker confirmed it was received and forwarded to Mr Murphy. Mr Murphy was unclear about whether he received an email from DVSA on 30 October 2024 but on checking his emails, he confirmed it had been received and forwarded. Miss Thomas concluded that the dispute between the Director had led to a lack of cooperation and undermined the governance of this operation.

Miss Thomas also usefully included her observations in respect of the maintenance documentation which had been provided prior to the hearing. She described this as “puzzling”, as the Director (Mrs Baker) was frequently signing the vehicles off as roadworthy. The records were incomplete and often missing signatures. The maintenance records indicated that the majority, but not all performance tests involved a roller brake test. However, there were imbalances recorded. The Deputy Traffic Commissioner was told that there had been issue with the brake test machine and that it was being replaced on 28 March 2025. Her analysis of the Preventative Maintenance Inspection records and driver defect reports demonstrated that very few defects were found on either, which she remarked was unusual. As she suspected, defects were being rectified by the in-house fitter and not recorded. She saw evidence of one gate check being carried out by the newly appointed Transport Manager.

In respect of driver management, she noted the overall infringement rate is showing as 6.25% but within this there were some extremely concerning rates for individual drivers of up to 42.86%. Infringement reports were being signed off by Mrs Baker and Mr Raja. Follow up action was often identified, but she was not provided with evidence confirming whether this took place.

The operator was running services which were required to be registered with me. They were also required to provide information to Bus Open Data. The Deputy Traffic Commissioner hearing the case in March identified concerns with the ability to manage this operation and its stability, issues with maintenance and drivers’ hours and an apparent lack of involvement by the Transport Manager. She requested that DVSA provide a report on its performance as a bus operator (through the BOAM process). However, as the operator was not at that stage registered under the BODS scheme, it decided to complete a Traffic Examiner assessment.

As a result, the DVSA visit on 19 May 2025 generated a TEVR, which was apparently marked “mostly satisfactory”. However, the Traffic Examiner identified multiple (460) incidents of missing mileage including 27 events lasting over 30 minutes. The assessment of infringement reports, driver and vehicle data suggested that missing mileage/driving without a card was not being addressed. The Operator provided a response that drivers had either lost cards, forgot cards or systems malfunctioned. The operator was said to have retrained drivers on 17 February 2025 to ensure they only drive when their card is in use. This proved necessary because of the dysfunctional management which both Directors had permitted from the outset. The operator also found its Tru Tac analysis system had a fault which has now been fixed. That existed from at least 1 January to 1 May 2025. The Examiner suggested the operator had made “significant efforts to become compliant” since the previous assessment in September 2024.

I was directed to Mrs Baker’s attendance on a one-day operator licence awareness training course in passenger transport operations on 19 February 2025 and to the encounter history showing 2 roadworthiness encounters resulting in 1 delayed prohibition and 1 mechanical prohibition, with 6 traffic encounters but no prohibitions. Mrs Baker had told the Deputy Traffic Commissioner that she found the OLAT course extremely useful. Mr Raja has undertaken a 2-day CPC Refresher.

By email of 18 July 2025 (page 206) Mr Raja sought to update on his view of the current situation. He referred to his goal has been of bringing the business back into full compliance and rebuilding confidence in operations following a difficult period. He told me that he had focused on improving several key areas, including driver training, communication, compliance checks, vehicle maintenance, and standards. He suggested that these areas had not been properly managed leading many drivers to wrongly believe that they were following correct practices. Refresher training was delivered on 17 February 2025 on legal responsibilities and safe working procedures.

He suggested that the previous Transport Manager, Mr Murphy, had little contact with drivers and had not carried out the role, so that there was no proper oversight or control. Mr Raja indicated that changing the culture had not been easy. Some drivers struggled to adjust and that he had to make some difficult decisions. Two drivers were dismissed after multiple infringements, and they expressed an unwillingness to change. The operator had introduced new policies including regular tachograph analysis, scheduled maintenance checks, and clear standards for driver behaviour. Digital systems are used to monitor working hours and vehicle safety. He referred to the findings of Examiners Jassal and Foster as indicating the progress made. The operator would hold quarterly driver briefings and work closely with the DVSA and local authorities to ensure that standards are met. The operator was said to be working through the route registration process with the local authority. Proformas had been issued for 13 services, and routes 623 and 624 were already in operation. All services were to be tracked to meet BODS requirements.

I referred to Mr Jassal’s report of 31 October 2025, based on evidence submitted further to the directions above for driver licence checks carried out over the last six months, driver infringement reports for the last three months, Vehicle Unit download reports for the last six months, evidence of CPD of relevant managers/planners/supervisors. He saw evidence of Sara Baker attending OLAT on 19 February 2025, Sarah Butler attending training on Driver Hours and Tachographs on 23 July 2025, and Faizal Raja attending a CPC Refresher Training on 26 and 27 February 2025. The report also provided a long list of driver licence and other document checks dated April, August and October 2025, i.e. every 4 months, not the recommended 3. All licence checks were all completed using the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency website using a code provided by the driver. Driver Paul Lewis is to be subject to bi-monthly driver licence checks due to endorsements. Jack Randall’s licence was also endorsed, but he is no longer employed by the operator. Checks referred to Drivers: Muhammed Ahsan Zafar, Derek Keith Hancock, Gary Leslie Crawford, Harris William Clark, Kamran Raja, Martin Adrian Pearce , Maurice Gaynor, Neil Reynolds, Paul Alan Lewis, Rashid Mahmood, Sarah Louise Butler, Saranga Rajith Gamage, Steven Andrew Wright, Zahid Hussain, Zahoor Ahmed.

The Examiner referred to the Driver Infringement history, which was produced through Trutac for 14 July 2025 to 19 October 2025, the All Infringement summary from 13 July to 13 October 2025 which showed one overspeed by Driver Gamage Saranga Majith on 6 September 2025, Driver Infringement Summary from 13 July to 13 October 2025 showing the one infringement by Gamage Saranga Majith, Driver Infringement condensed document from 13 July to 13 October 2025 showing that one infringement. The scanned document recorded the discussion between the Transport Manger and the driver and is signed by both.

I was also referred to a Vehicle Unit download report with missing mileage tracker for 13 April 2025 to 13 October 2025. Analysis of the reports was said to show repeated driving without a card, which attributed to yard. However, the Examiner referred to multiple incidents when vehicles were allocated to named drivers where there was no evidence of an investigation or explanation, despite being between 57 km and 282 km in K10 AWT(Hussain Zahid), 27 km to 28 km in AT61 AWT (Hussain Zahid and Ahmad Zahoor), 6 km to 29 km in B11 AWT (Maurice Gaynor), and 17 km to 62 km in AT17 AWT (Randall Jack Martin).

It is always sad when Traffic Commissioners are presented with family disputes, but this is a business and one which is charged with the safety of young passengers. A higher degree of professionalism is required of operators who wish to remain in the industry. It may have been that they needed time to find their feet after the passing of their father, instead it deteriorated between 2022 and 2024. In evidence, Mrs Baker accepted that her email of 29 October 2024 complaining of the position left by Mr Murphy overstated the position. She had been involved with the business since 2008 and prior to incorporation. Their father passed in 2021, and Mr Murphy was appointed as a Directir in March 2022. He told me this was not his first involvement and that he had assisted in growing the business, largely through his IT skills. Mrs Baker’s role had grown through the years from administration to running the operations. I noted that it was Mrs Baker who was counter-signing the in-house inspections, not the named Transport Manager. In her own words, she dealt with the drivers on a day-to-day basis and yet she was content to allow the downloads to be left to Mr Murphy. It was her evidence that she did not have access to the Trutac records as they were on Mr Murphy’s laptop. That is a cloud-based system. Mr Murphy gave evidence that he had been advised by Mrs Baker and her partner that the Transport Manager role was not that involved. He described a situation where he would carry out his other work from this operator’s office, in a reactive approach to the Transport Manager role. Mrs Baker described a situation where his attendance decreased. It was clear that both were aware that he had a full-time job. Neither of them alerted me to the fact that he was not dedicating four hours per day on Mondays to Saturdays, as was promised in the application to add him and they were both content for Mrs Baker to carry some of the responsibilities. I refer to the basis upon which his appointment was permitted and explicit warning given at that time (below).

Representations prepared by Mr Davies and dated 4 November 2025, suggested that the dispute between the directors had been resolved with the departure of Mr Murphy as a director and a person of significant control. I was assured that Mrs Baker will maintain sufficient oversight of the transport operation. It was further suggested that Mr Raja’s appointment had rectified the issues caused by Mr Murphy’s tenure as transport manager. Mr Davis referred to the Deputy Traffic Commissioner’s observations at the preliminary hearing. Mrs Baker had already undertaken an operator licence awareness course and Mr Roger had introduced a system for overseeing drivers and there was an update on 18 July 2025. This was supported by the traffic examiner visit report. It was also suggested that the issues identified with the supply of bus open data had been rectified. It was therefore suggested that the operator is capable of ensuring future compliance.

Dip sampling of the maintenance records revealed the following:

AT15 AWT
- 16 September 2025 – Preventative Maintenance Inspection with roller brake test: 74%, 59%, 41% but not fully signed off.
- 6 August 2025 – Preventative Maintenance Inspection with roller brake test: 78%, 55%, 43%. Front air bags perished.
- 25 June 2025 – Preventative Maintenance Inspection with roller brake test: 73%, 56%, 32%. Slight wear in trackrod.
- 12 May 2025 – Preventative Maintenance Inspection with roller brake test: 79%, 61%, 38%. Front anti-roll bar broken.
- 1 April 2025 – Preventative Maintenance Inspection with roller brake test: 84%, 65%, 42% and the brake imbalances were identified on the inspection form.
CC15 CRC
- 15 October 2025 – Preventative Maintenance Inspection with roller brake test: 71%, 26%, 51%. Index light inoperative.
- 2 September 2025 – Preventative Maintenance Inspection with roller brake test: 70%, 26%, 48%.
- 23 July 2025 – Preventative Maintenance Inspection with roller brake test: 56%, 34%, 34%.
- 11 June 2025 – Preventative Maintenance Inspection with roller brake test: 72%, 46%, 532%.
- 28 April 2025 – Preventative Maintenance Inspection with roller brake test: 73%, 27%, 50%. 24% imbalance noted.
This appeared to be consistent with the content of the Invergold audit report supplied by the operator. I found some of the recommendations difficult to weigh as it was not clear whether it was simply a missing paper policy of procedure or process, as opposed to struct operator licence requirements. I gave Mr Raja 14 days to write to me on behalf of the operator to confirm what is being actioned and the projected timescales.

Mr Jassal reported on the performance date provided. Punctuality percentages were only available from ABODS. This is a home to school service, with no electronic ticketing machine in use. He was referred to punctuality percentages for the school year to date:

September: 75.17% on time, 23.53% late, 1.3% early

October: 84.17% on time, 16.05% late, 2.47% early

November (1–10): 75.82% on time, 20.33% late, 3.86% early

An additional 10 minutes had been built into the schedule to allow for morning congestion in order to reach the schools on time. Vehicles were said to proceed directly from one drop-off point to the next and the afternoon service is dedicated solely to returning pupils to home. The operator is now able to access BODS so that timetable, basic fare and vehicle location data is available, but from the point of registration for routes 623/624 and from September when the other services were registered.

From the evidence summarised above, I was satisfied that I should record adverse findings under the following sections of the Act: 17(3)(aa) – undertakings (laws on driving, drivers’ hours and tachographs, vehicles are kept in a fit and serviceable condition, effective driver defect reporting, records), 17(3)(c) – Prohibitions, 17(3)(e) – whether material change in that the previous Transport Manager was not exercising effective and continuous management. These were based on the evidence of historic failings. As the evidence suggested, these had been remedied by the date of the Public Inquiry.

The operator cannot complain that it was not given sufficient opportunity to comply. Even from the date of Mr Murphy’s appointment, the letter from the Office of the Traffic Commissioner dated 22 May 2022 reminded him and the operator of the Transport Manager’s duties and directed him to the published guidance. That appointment was permitted, despite his other employment, based on the assistance he was to be provided by the Operations Director, Mrs Baker. Neither of them was entitled to come to the Public Inquiry and claim ignorance. The Office of the Traffic Commissioner took great pains to assist the operator.

It is a matter of judicial knowledge that the Office of the Traffic Commissioner distributed alerts to operators about BODS on 24 February 2021, 18, 31 May, 10, 14, 17 June 2022, and more recently on 28 March and again on 7 October 2025. Mr Murphy told me that he assumed his father’s processes were correct. Even after his departure, Mrs Baker continued in that vein in her email of 17 February 2025. There was no basis to claim confusion. Further correspondence from my office dated 31 May 2025 yet further expanded the deadline to 20 June 2025. Finally, on 2 June 2025, Mr Raja notified the Office of the Traffic Commissioner that the operator had initiated the process of registering all the school routes and that two were already registered. He confirmed that the operator had sought assistance from the DfT helpdesk. However, the Regulations came into effect from 31 December 2020. The Department for Transport also issued guidance, which is updated but does not have a statutory basis. Simply put, operators of registered local bus services in England (outside London) are to be required to make details of their services available as open data, as required by the Bus Services Act 2017. That data includes timetables, fares, vehicle location (real time) and historic punctuality performance, with stage implementation but all of that data has been required from 7 January 2023.

I observed that Directors have a legal duty to act in good faith, exercise independent judgment and act with skill, care and diligence. There is also a duty to avoid conflicts. The statutory responsibilities pursuant to section 172 Companies Act 2006 are summarised as follows:
- duty to act within the powers conferred by the company’s constitution (i.e. its Memorandum and Articles of Association).
- duty to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members (i.e. its shareholders).
- duty to exercise independent judgement.
- duty to exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence.
- duty to avoid conflicts of interest.
- duty not to accept benefits from third parties.
- duty to disclose any interest in a proposed transaction or arrangement with the company; and
- duty to ensure the future activities of the company are carried out lawfully.
As the Upper Tribunal explained in in 2013/082 Arnold Transport Ltd, Director fitness is an essential element in determining the repute of a company. It is unsurprising That Miss Thomas identified the need for this Public Inquiry.

Instead, I was presented with the unedifying spectacle of two people who were Directors engaged in a form of ‘he said – she said’. The relationship had clearly broken down since the passing of their father to the point that a formal settlement agreement was required. That is a matter for the individuals concerned. What they should have understood was that it did not remove them from the obligation to notify me of changes in the business relationship and specifically that Mr Murphy was not meeting the Transport Manager duties of which they had been advised on acceptance of his nomination. There was an obvious breach of section 17(3)(b), being the condition to notify changes on the ability to hold the licence including professional competence. I concluded that Mr Murphy had failed to exercise effective and continuous management. He accepted this was the case and that he had demonstrated a disregard for the published guidance and for the duties to which he had signed up to. I therefore reached an adverse decision under section 17(1)(b) and that he should be disqualified from relying on his Certificate of Professional Competence unless and until he can satisfy a Traffic Commissioner that he is capable of exercising those duties. He might start with the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document No. 3 on Transport Managers.

I then considered the appropriate approach to an operator which was largely compliant buy the date of the Public Inquiry. I balanced the fact that this was the first Public Inquiry and the many positive gains described by Mr Jassal and following the appointment of Mr Raja against the repeated breach of conditions which, in effect, misled me to a point where the trust I had in this operator was seriously undermined. Repute is severely tarnished by these circumstances. I therefore determined that deterrent action was required to send a message to this operator and others who might be tempted to view the Transport Manager role and the need for basic governance processes as mere window dressing. There will be a material impact in this case. The operator’s licence was curtailed by 3 vehicles for a period of two weeks commencing 23:45 on 18 December 2025, during which period vehicles KT10 AWT, AT60 AWT or AT61 AWT or any alternative with those discs cannot be used. The operator has 14 days to identify the unique disc reference number.

R Turfitt

Traffic Commissioner

18 November 2025