Decision for Paul Ralph Davey t/a PRD COMMERCIALS (OC2047841)
Source: gov.uk (2025-08-14)

Written decision of the Traffic Commissioner for the North West of England for Paul Ralph Davey t/a PRD COMMERCIALS and as transport manager

IN THE NORTH WEST TRAFFIC AREA

PAUL RALPH DAVEY t/a PRD COMMERCIALS – OC2047841

&

Transport Manager Mr. PAUL RALPH DAVEY

PUBLIC INQUIRY HELD IN GOLBORNE ON 10 July 2025

WRITTEN DECISION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER

DECISION:

The operator licence is revoked with immediate effect under provision of Section 26 & Section 27 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (“The Act”)

The licence-holder, Mr. Paul Ralph Davey is disqualified under Section 28, from holding or obtaining an operator’s licence for an indefinite period of time.

Mr. Paul Ralph Davey has lost his good repute as transport manager and, under provision of Paragraph 16(2) of schedule 3 of the Act, is disqualified from acting as transport manager for an indefinite period of time, and I direct that he is required to re-sit and pass the Transport Manager CPC qualification as a means of rehabilitation.

Mr. Paul Ralph Davey held his Standard National goods vehicle operator’s licence, authorising five vehicles and five trailers, since 27 September 2021. Until 07 June 2025, Mr. Davey was also the transport manager.

The operator’s licence record lists a single operating centre, given as Unit 10/11 Bailey Drive, Killamarsh, Sheffield, S21 2JF. Preventative Maintenance Inspections are recorded to be carried out internally, at 6-weekly intervals.

Background

This operator came to the attention of the DVSA following an encounter in November 2024 at which vehicle FL17TDO was issued with an S-Marked immediate prohibition. The prohibition indicated a failure in maintenance systems which resulted in a vehicle being put to use in an unroadworthy condition. It is noted that the issues were driver detectable and should have been picked up during an effective pre-use inspection. In addition, the defects relating to wear were considered to be long-standing, suggesting an issue with the scheduled maintenance inspections.

A subsequent DVSA Maintenance Investigation concluded that only four of thirteen areas assessed were considered “Satisfactory”. Two areas were marked as “Report to OTC”, with a further six marked as “Unsatisfactory”. Overall, this report indicated a failure to comply with the conditions of the licence (a change to maintenance arrangements not notified to the Office of the Traffic Commissioner), and a failure to comply with a range of licence undertakings.

Those issues, coupled with the DVSA’s assessment that the transport manager has ineffective control, raised concern that Mr. Davey, in his position of transport manager, may be unable to ensure effective and continuous management of transport services as required by law and may no longer satisfy the requirements to be of the necessary good repute.

The failings set out also raised concern that the licence holder may no longer satisfy the continuous and mandatory requirements to be of good repute, professionally competent, and/or be of the appropriate financial standing.

Pre-Hearing

Calling in letters were issued to both the operator and the transport manager on 22 May 2025. Both letters set out case management directions to be followed in advance of the hearing including the instruction to provide financial evidence and maintenance records along with any further evidence to be considered at the inquiry. Those case management directions were not complied with.

On 07 June 2025 my office received an email from Mr. Davey stating

“Due to recent events, I have decided to surrender my O Licence number OC2047841. I have done this on the Vehicle operator Licensing website and it states Surrender under consideration. I have also resigned as Transport Manager”.

As Mr. Davey rightly identified, when an operator seeks to terminate their licence, it submits a request to surrender the licence. This is submitted for consideration by my office. That this is under consideration, and not yet accepted, is noted by Mr. Davey within his communication.

On 01 July 2025 my office wrote to Mr. Davey confirming that the public inquiry would proceed. He was reminded that it was within his interest to attend the public inquiry and provide the evidence requested within the 22 May 2025 letters as soon as possible. Royal Mail tracking records confirm that this 01 July letter was delivered and signed for on 02 July 2025.

No further information was received in advance of the inquiry.

Public Inquiry

The public inquiry took place on Thursday 10 July 2025 at the Golborne Hearing Centre. Mr. Davey failed to attend in his capacity as either licence holder or transport manager. My office has received no communication explaining his absence or seeking an adjournment. I firstly considered whether the hearing should proceed. I took account of the guidance issued by the Senior Traffic Commissioner at paragraph 27 of Statutory Document 9, which states

The Traffic Commissioner is entitled to expect that the party called to a hearing will submit any application for an adjournment.

I concluded that good service of the calling in letters had been provided, as had the notification of my intention to proceed with the inquiry. I also gave consideration to the request to surrender the licence and, on consideration of the guidance from the Senior Traffic Commissioner within Statutory Document 10, I refuse the request as the operator had been put on notice that I was considering regulatory action against him. I am not bound to accept the surrender in such circumstances and it should not be taken as granted that I would do so. There are serious matters to consider and if I accepted the surrender then Mr. Davey may be free to reapply for a licence, or be appointed as a transport manager, despite any possible public interest for such to be avoided. It was therefore in the best interests to proceed and make good use of the hearing room and resources allocated for the inquiry. I was also mindful that my public inquiry room is scheduled for hearings until late September 2025, therefore any adjournment would not be brief.

On consideration of the above, I proceeded with the hearing.

Issues

The issues set out within the call up letter for the licence holding company are:

S-Marked prohibition obtained on 12 November 2024

An unsatisfactory Maintenance Investigation Visit Report (MIVR)

Failure to comply with the general undertakings and conditions of the licence

Lack of financial standing evidence

Good repute of the operator

The issues set out within the call up letter for the transport manager are:

Whether the transport manager was capable of ensuring continuous and effective management of transport services

Whether the transport manager was of the required good repute

Summary of Evidence

S-Marked Prohibition

On 12 November 2024 vehicle FL17TDO, in use by the operator, was encountered on the public highway in an unroadworthy condition. Two immediate prohibitions were issued along with two delayed prohibitions. It was considered that the defects were such that the driver should have been aware of them, and that the defects should have been detected at the first use walk round check and the operator informed. The ‘S-Marking’ was applied, confirming a failure in the operator’s systems for ensuring vehicles are maintained in a fit and serviceable condition at all times.

A DVSA Safety Inspection Period Calculator and Analysis Tool (SIPCAT) report was completed to assess the maintenance of vehicle FL17TDO and this identified that 0% (zero percent) of inspections between 11 November 2023 and 29 March 2025 were fully compliant with the Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness.

Unsatisfactory MIVR

A Vehicle Examiner from the DVSA visited the operator premises on 03 March 2025 to carry out a maintenance investigation, assessing the systems and procedures employed by the licence holder. As stated above, thirteen areas were assessed, with only four considered “Satisfactory”. Seven areas were scored as “Unsatisfactory” or “Advise”, with two areas receiving the worst scoring available; “Report to OTC”.

The investigation found the following

The operator uses a dated safety inspection and maintenance record form

Brake test records are incomplete, and fail to identify the type of brake test or whether the vehicle was tested laden or unladen;

Ineffective systems for recording vehicles off-road and managing vehicle recalls.

The system for driver defect reporting was ineffective, with records not kept for 15 months as required

The operator no longer uses the maintenance provider notified to the traffic commissioner and had failed to notify this change within the 28 days required. The operator was instead inspecting his own vehicles at his own operating centre with no suitable maintenance arrangements or facilities to do so.

The operator has no maintenance or monitoring systems in place to ensure correct operation of emissions control systems.

The operator has an ineffective system for wheel security, with improvements required in the tyre management arrangements.

There are no records for driver induction or training, with ineffective arrangements for load security.

Mr. Davey was unable to provide any evidence of continuous professional development undertaken since achieving his transport manager certificate of professional competence.

The transport manager demonstrated ineffective control.

The operator’s response to the DVSA audit only provided limited assurances and failed to address the wide range of issues identified.

The Examiner concluded that “unless more robust systems, auditing and supervision are put in place, it is likely that this situation may reoccur”.

Failure to comply with general undertakings and conditions

In addition the S-Marked Prohibition and the MIVR provided by DVSA, I also have regard to an encounter report showing that this operator has been encountered twice, resulting in a 50% mechanical prohibition rate (against a national average of 24.26%). I also have a reporting showing performance at annual test. Of six vehicles presented for test since 27 September 2021 all six have passed, with no PRS or fails recorded. Due to the severity of the negative encounter, the Operator Compliance Risk Score (OCRS) is marked Red/Red.

Financial Standing

No evidence has been provided by the operator in support of financial standing.

Good Repute

No further evidence has been provided by the operator in relation to good repute. I note both an attempt to surrender the licence (potentially a positive acceptance that the operator is ill-equipped to hold an operator’s licence), and a failure to comply with the case management directions ahead of the inquiry. This is combined with the evidence already set out above.

Transport Manager

No further evidence has been provided by Mr. Davey relating to his role as transport manager. The evidence presented by the DVSA reflect on Mr. Davey’s responsibilities as both licence holder and transport manager. Of particular interest is the DVSA Examiner’s conclusions that (i) Mr. Davey was unable to provide any evidence of continuous professional development undertaken since achieving his transport manager certificate of professional competence; (ii) that he demonstrated ineffective control; and (iii) that “unless more robust systems, auditing and supervision are put in place, it is likely that this situation may reoccur”.

Findings

Prohibitions / MIVR / Undertakings and Conditions

In the absence of Mr. Davey I have regard to the best evidence available to me. The DVSA evidence is independent, relevant and has not been challenged by the operator.

In the absence of any challenge to the DVSA findings, or any evidence to the contrary, I find that the concerns raised by the DVSA are made out to the civil standard (i.e. that they are more likely than not a factual representation).

The report provides a concerning picture which, on account of the S-Marked prohibition, has generated at least one instance of a real threat to road safety. I am concerned about the Examiner’s concluding remark that “unless more robust systems, auditing and supervision are put in place, it is likely that this situation may reoccur”. I have no evidence before me of any additional robust systems, auditing or supervision which might allay those concerns.

The 100% score at annual test is a positive feature, and I have regard to it, but I note that vehicle FL17TDO passed its annual test in April 2022, April 2023 and April 2024, but obtained the S-Marked Prohibition in November 2024.The requirement is to have all vehicles meet that MOT standard every day they are on the road. The undertaking is to make proper arrangements so that Motor vehicles and trailers, including hired vehicles and trailers, are kept fit and serviceable. This is a continuous undertaking and the DVSA report & prohibition evidence that such arrangements are not effective and therefore not proper.

Mr. Davey has failed in his responsibilities as both operator and transport manager. The evidence is that he failed to put processes in place and failed to audit and supervise those processes to ensure they were effective.

Financial Standing

At the day of the public inquiry there is no financial evidence in support of the licence-holder. For Standard operator licences financial standing is a continuous and mandatory requirement. The failure to provide financial evidence as directed allows me to make adverse inferences as to the existence of suitable finance. I therefore find, to the civil standard, that the requirement to have the appropriate financial standing is no longer satisfied.

Good Repute

Whilst I give Mr. Davey credit for attempting to surrender the licence, finding that this is more likely than not an acceptance that he is not equipped to hold an operator’s licence, I balance this against his failure to attend this inquiry. Further, whilst I give him credit for maintaining a 100% pass rate at annual test, that fails to outweigh the wide range of negative features identified by the DVSA, and the concerning S-Marked prohibition which was obtained while a vehicle was in use on the public highway.

The combination of the failings, the failure to attend the inquiry and be held accountable, and the absence of any evidence of improvements are all such that I am no longer satisfied that Mr. Davey is a person that I can trust and I find good repute has been forfeited in both his capacity as licence holder and transport manager.

DECISION - OPERATOR

In conclusion I make adverse findings under the following legislation:

section 26(1)(b) - that there has been a failure to comply with the conditions of the licence, namely to notify this office of changes to maintenance arrangements within 28 days;

Section 26(1)(c) – that during the past five years there have been prohibitions of the driving of a vehicle of which the licence-holder was the owner when the prohibition was imposed;

Section 26(1)(f) – that there has been a failure to comply with the undertakings of the licence, namely that drivers would report any defects promptly and in writing

Section 26(1)(f) – that there has been a failure to comply with the undertakings of the licence, namely that maintenance records would be kept for 15 months.

Section 26(1)(f) – that there has been a failure to comply with the undertakings of the licence, namely that vehicles would be kept fit and serviceable

27(1)(a) - that the operator no longer satisfies the requirement to be of appropriate financial standing in accordance with paragraph 6A if Schedule 3

27(1)(a) - that the operator no longer satisfies the requirement to be of appropriate financial standing in accordance with paragraph 6A if Schedule 3

Section 27(1)(a) - that the operator no longer satisfies the requirement to be of good repute in accordance with paragraphs 1 to 5 of Schedule 3

Section 27(1)(a) - that the operator no longer meets professional competence requirements in line with Section 13A(3)(a)(i) o r13A(3)(b)

Section 27(1)(b) - TM no longer of good repute as required by paragraph 14A(1)(b) of Schedule 3 and in accordance with paragraphs 1 to 5 of Schedule 3

I am mindful of the helpful guidance provided in the Upper Tribunal decision of NT/2013/82 Arnold Transport which reminds us that actions speak louder than words.

The attitude of an operator when something goes wrong can be very instructive. Some recognise the problem at once and take immediate and effective steps to put matters right. Others only recognise the problem when it is set out in a call-up letter and begin to put matters right in the period before the Public Inquiry takes place. A third group leave it even later and come to the Public Inquiry with promises of action in the future. A fourth group bury their heads in the sand and wait to be told what to do during the Public Inquiry.

This is an operator who failed to recognise the problem and has failed to put matters right. Arguably, Mr. Davey represents a fifth group, those who run away from their responsibility altogether.

Whilst consideration of regulatory action under Section 26 is discretionary, the adverse findings under Section 27 are such that I am obliged to revoke the licence unless such a direction would be disproportionate in the circumstances. I note that the operator has been put on notice, has sought to surrender the licence (which I have refused), and has failed to attend this public inquiry and has, therefore, not provided any mitigation which might lead me to conclude that revocation is not a proportionate outcome.

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 negative. The evidence before me in respect of this licence – particularly the failure to comply with case management directions, failure to attend the inquiry, failure to ensure undertakings are complied with, and the failure to notify this office of material changes as per the conditions of the licence – leads me to conclude that this is not an operator that I can trust.

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 positive. This is case with a range of negative features and adverse findings as set out above. The only positive I can identify is the annual test result and perhaps the late realisation that termination of the licence is appropriate.

In conclusion I give a direction under the aforementioned provisions of Sections 26 & 27 that this licence be revoked. In this case I consider immediate revocation is justified and proportionate, but am mindful that this operator will not yet be aware of the revocation order, and may have vehicles in use. I therefore allow a short period of time for transport operations to be brought to an orderly close, and direct that the revocation is to take effect from 23:45 on 17 July 2025.

Having revoked the licence and found that Mr. Davey has lost his good repute I consider whether disqualification is appropriate. In respect of an operator or director the issue of disqualification is a discretionary matter. I am conscious of the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s guidance at paragraph 65 of Statutory Document 10 that such a direction is a potentially significant infringement of rights and should not be routinely ordered. I must, however, balance this against the range of failings identified in this case which resulted in an S-Marked prohibition at the roadside. Of particular concern is Mr. Davey’s failure to attend the hearing and be held to account.

In order to ensure that any future application involving Mr. Davey is suitably considered by a Traffic Commissioner I apply an indefinite period of disqualification. For the avoidance of doubt, unlike a disqualification for three or five years, this indefinite period leaves it open to Mr. Davey to apply sooner, but he will be required to satisfy a Traffic Commissioner that his disqualification can be lifted.

DECISION – TRANSPORT MANAGER

Having formed the conclusion that Mr. Davey is no longer of good repute as transport manager I am required, under Paragraph 16(2) of Schedule 3 of the Act, to order that he be disqualified from acting as a transport manager. As Mr. Davey failed to attend the public inquiry it is difficult for me to make an assessment as to the appropriate period of disqualification. I therefore find that an indefinite period is proportionate as this allows Mr. Davey to apply to have the order lifted. Any such application, in line with Paragraph 17(1A), cannot be considered before the end of the period of one year beginning on the day on which this order is made, and only if Mr. Davey has retaken and passed the written Transport Manager CPC examination.

David Mullan

Traffic Commissioner for the North West of England

10 July 2025