Decision for Transglobal Solutions Ltd (OF2038634)
Source: gov.uk (2025-05-09)

Written decision of the Deputy Traffic Commissioner in the East of England for Transglobal Solutions Ltd

EAST OF ENGLAND TRAFFIC AREA

DECISION OF THE DEPUTY TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER

PUBLIC INQUIRY HELD IN CAMBRIDGE ON 29 APRIL 2025

OPERATOR: TRANSGLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD LICENCE OF2038634

Decisions

The standard international goods vehicle operator’s licence OF2038634 held by Transglobal Solutions Ltd is revoked with immediate effect pursuant to Section 26(1)(c)(iii), (ca), (e), (f) and (h) and Section 27(1)(a) and (b) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (“the 1995 Act”).

Transglobal Solutions Ltd and director Maricel Taranu are disqualified from holding or obtaining any type of operator’s licence in any traffic area and (in Mr Taranu’s case) from being the director of any company holding or obtaining such a licence, pursuant to Section 28(1), (4) and (5) of the 1995 Act. The disqualification is indefinite.

Maricel Taranu has lost his good repute as a transport manager, pursuant to Schedule 3 paragraph 1 of the 1995 Act. Under paragraph 16(2) of that Schedule he is disqualified with immediate effect from acting as a transport manager on any operator’s licence. The disqualification is indefinite.

Background

Transglobal Solutions Ltd holds a standard international goods vehicle operator’s licence (OF2038634) for four vehicles and five trailers. Four vehicles are currently specified on the licence, which was granted in December 2020. The sole director of the company is Maricel Taranu, who is also the nominated transport manager on the licence.

DVSA investigation

In May 2024 one of the operator’s vehicles GF14 YYT was stopped at the roadside by DVSA. The DVSA traffic examiner found that the vehicle’s tachograph unit had not been downloaded for 155 days, well outside the 90 day maximum legal deadline. He also discovered that the vehicle had been driven without a tachograph card for 580km during the 11 day period 3-14 May 2024.

DVSA’s attempts to contact the operator in August and September 2024 to look at tachograph records in more detail proved fruitless. Emails were not responded to and phone calls went to voicemail. Eventually, in October 2024, somebody describing themselves as the “company secretary” (although Companies House records do not show a Secretary for this company) responded, stating that the director and transport manager Maricel Taranu was in Romania for medical treatment and that the vehicles were currently parked up. By November 2024 Mr Taranu appeared to have returned to the UK: in a phone call with DVSA he agreed to send DVSA the company’s drivers’ hours and maintenance records and to meet DVSA examiners on 12 December 2024. In the event he did not send any records and cancelled the 12 December meeting, pleading a medical appointment.

Meanwhile, ANPR checks carried out by DVSA showed that vehicles specified on the licence were operating throughout October, November and December 2024 even though they were not taxed. One of the vehicles in use had no MOT.

On 14 December 2024 the operator’s vehicle MV65 UEA was stopped at the roadside by DVSA. It was given an S-marked prohibition (denoting a significant failure in the maintenance system) for four loose wheel nuts (out of 10 on the wheel), an inoperative indicator, a seriously under-inflated tyre and a tyre which had completely disintegrated. The driver was issued with a £100 fixed penalty. The vehicle was also untaxed.

In February 2025 DVSA visited the operator’s premise in an attempt to carry out a maintenance investigation. The operator failed to attend. DVSA found that:

• the operator was renting space for only one vehicle from the operating centre owner, although four vehicles were specified on the licence;

• the address of the maintenance provider listed on the licence, JJM Automotive, was a private house, with no maintenance facilities;

• the operator had a prohibition rate of 46%, compared with the national average of 23%;

• the operator’s MOT failure rate was 36%, compared with the national average of 12%;

• the operator had failed to attend the arranged meetings and had not presented any maintenance records. The company’s secretary stated that Mr Taranu was now in Romania until the end of March 2025 and that vehicles had stopped operating on 17 January 2025;

• ANPR data showed this last statement to be untrue: vehicles continued to operate after 17 January 2025: indeed, a trailer pulled by one of the operator’s vehicles was given an immediate prohibition on 31 January 2025 for a wrong colour lamp.

Public inquiry

In the light of the DVSA reports both the company and transport manager were called to a public inquiry. Call-up letters were sent on 24 March 2025, citing Section 26(1)(b), (c)(iii), (ca), (e), (f) and (h), Section 27(1)(a) and (b) and Section 28 of the 1995 Act. In the course of preparations for the inquiry, it was discovered that a Romanian police website recorded that there was a warrant for Maricel Taranu’s arrest in order that he serve a three year prison sentence there for offences of drink driving and driving without a licence.

The public inquiry was held in Cambridge on 29 April 2025. Nobody from the company attended. The company failed to submit any of the requested finance, maintenance and drivers’ hours records in advance. Attempts to contact the company in advance of the inquiry were unsuccessful. I therefore proceeded to make a determination based on the papers.

Findings

After considering the evidence, I make the following findings:

the company lacks stable and effective establishment in that it has not fulfilled the requirement that it have a place in the United Kingdom where it carries out effectively and continuously, with appropriate equipment and facilities, the administration of the company’s transport service (Section 27(1)(a) of the 1995 Act refers). It has proved impossible to be able to reliably contact the operator.

the company lacks the appropriate financial standing (Section 27(1)(a). No evidence of financial standing has been provided.

the company’s vehicles have been issued with four immediate and two delayed prohibitions out of 14 encounters. The S-marked prohibition for missing wheel nuts and a disintegrated tyre is amongst the most shocking that I have seen in my 13 years as a traffic commissioner and (since retirement) a deputy. The photograph attached to the end of this decision demonstrates this. The vehicle should never have been on the road: it constituted a serious danger to road safety.

the company has failed to fulfil its undertakings (Section 26(1)(f)) refers –

• to ensure the lawful driving and operation of vehicles. Vehicles are being driven without tax and MOT.

• to ensure that drivers report defects in writing. No driver defect reports were produced. It is evident that the driver of vehicle MV65 UEA on 14 December 2024 cannot possibly have conducted a walkround check of his vehicle.

• to keep vehicles fit and serviceable. There is a high prohibition rate and high MOT failure rate.

• to ensure that rules relating to drivers’ hours and tachographs are observed. The stop in May 2024 showed that no one was downloading the tachograph unit of that vehicle and that the vehicle was routinely driven without a driver tachograph card. The operator failed, despite repeated request from DVSA, to submit any tachograph records.

the company has failed to fulfil the promise, given on application, that its vehicles and trailers would be given safety inspections every six weeks (Section 26(1)(e) refers). No evidence of any maintenance has been provided. The stated maintenance provider lacks premises where maintenance can be carried out. The state of the tyre of MV65 UEA strongly suggests that regular safety inspections were not being carried out.

transport manager Maricel Taranu is not of good repute (Schedule 3 and Section 27(1)(b) of the 1995 Act refer). He has clearly failed to exercise the required continuous and effective management of the transport activities of the business. Indeed, he appears to be content to flout the law in that he is clearly operating vehicles without tax and MOT and which are evidently unroadworthy.

Balancing act

I weighed up the negative against the positive issues. On the negative side were the above findings. On the positive side was nothing.

Priority Freight and Bryan Haulage questions

I asked myself if I could trust this operator to be compliant in the future (the Priority Freight question). The answer is an emphatic no. This is one of the worst operators I have ever come across. Mr Taranu has refused to engage both with DVSA and the traffic commissioner. He has overseen illegal and dangerous operations in the UK and appears to be wanted by the Romanian authorities for serious motoring offences.

A negative answer to the Priority Freight question tends to suggest an affirmative answer to the Bryan Haulage question of whether the operator deserves to go out of business. Because of the serious issues set out above I conclude that it does.

Decisions

Operator licence

I have concluded that the operator lacks both stable and effective establishment and financial standing and that its transport manager lacks good repute. Revocation of the licence is therefore mandatory under Section 27(1)(a) and (b) of the 1995 Act. I am also revoking it under Section 26(1)(c)(iii), (ca), (e) and (f) of the 1995 Act. The revocation takes effect immediately: I cannot allow the company’s vehicles to operate and pose a danger to other road users for a moment longer.

If DVSA find that the company continues to operate heavy goods vehicles after today, those vehicles are liable to be impounded.

Disqualification – operator

For the reasons outlined above, and having performed the same balancing act, I conclude that both the company and director Maricel Taranu should be disqualified under Section 28 from holding or obtaining an operator’s licence in the future and (in Mr Taranu’s case) from being the director of any company holding or obtaining such a licence. In deciding upon the length of the disqualification, I have taken account of paragraph 108 of the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Guidance Document 10. This states that in severe cases where, for example, the operator deliberately puts life at risk and/or knowingly operates unsafe vehicles, indefinite disqualification may be merited. I consider that this is such a case. There should be no room in the industry for Mr Taranu, who has shown an utter indifference to the law and to road safety.

Disqualification – transport manager

Having removed his good repute, I must also disqualify Maricel Taranu from acting as transport manager on any operator’s licence (paragraph 16 of Schedule 3 refers). For the same reasons as apply to his disqualification as director, the disqualification period is indefinite.

Nicholas Denton

Deputy Traffic Commissioner

29 April 2025