Decision for CJD Ltd  (OF2044015)
Source: gov.uk (2025-09-25)

Written decision of the Deputy Traffic Commissioner in the East of England for CJD Ltd and Ramona-Loredana Grozav, transport manager

EAST OF ENGLAND TRAFFIC AREA

DECISION OF THE DEPUTY TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER

PUBLIC INQUIRY HELD IN CAMBRIDGE ON 11 SEPTEMBER 2025

OPERATOR: CJD LTD LICENCE OF2044015

Decisions

The standard international goods vehicle operator’s licence OF2044015 held by CJD Ltd is revoked with effect from 0001 hours on 1 October 2025 pursuant to Section 26(1)(a), (c)(iii), (f) and (h) and Section 27(1)(a) and (b) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (“the 1995 Act”).

Until 1 October 2025 the licence is curtailed from ten vehicles and ten trailers to eight vehicles (the number it is currently operating) and eight trailers.

CJD Ltd and director Liliana Calugar are disqualified from holding or obtaining any type of operator’s licence in any traffic area and (in Ms Calugar’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 for the period of 2 years, from 1 October 2025 to 1 October 2027.

Ramona-Loredana Grozav has lost her good repute as a transport manager, pursuant to Schedule 3 paragraph 1 of the 1995 Act. Under paragraph 16(2) of that Schedule she is disqualified with immediate effect and for an indefinite period of time from acting as a transport manager on any operator’s licence.

Background

CJD Ltd holds a standard international goods vehicle operator’s licence (OF2044015) for ten vehicles and ten trailers. The licence was granted in June 2021. The sole director of the company is Liliana Calugar. The nominated transport manager on the licence is Ramona-Loredana Grozav.

DVSA investigation

In March 2025 the traffic commissioner received a maintenance investigation report into CJD Ltd from DVSA. The report was marked “unsatisfactory”. Vehicle examiner Paul Dolby noted that:

half of the drivers were “self-employed” or “limited company” drivers. This was not normally a legitimate employment arrangement in the road haulage industry;

the company was not using its (then) authorised operating centre in Boston, Lincs;

maintenance records were unsatisfactory. Most reported minimal defects throughout the year, then multiple defects at the pre-MOT inspection. Brake tests did not appear to be carried out at many of the safety inspections;

one of the company’s vehicles, WK17 KVO, had been given an S-marked prohibition (denoting a significant failure in the maintenance system) on 8 August 2024 for a fractured brake disc. The vehicle had been given a safety inspection only two days previously: the inspection sheet had made no mention of any such defect;

the driver defect report book for WK17 KVO for July and August 2024 was missing: the operator said that the driver must have taken it. The driver defect reporting system was unsatisfactory, with a mixture of defect report books, the RHA digital app and WhatsApp being used. Use of WhatsApp made storage and retrieval of records difficult;

there was a high initial and final MOT failure rate of 24% (national average failure rates are 11% initial and 8% final) over 13 tests;

the maintenance provider’s facilities were outside and not under cover. They did not meet the standards set out in the Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness;

the transport manager appeared only partly aware of the operation;

it was concerning that a standard international licence holder with ten vehicles was failing to comply with basic requirements. The operator had used avoidance and delaying tactics in dealing with DVSA.

A report at the same time from DVSA traffic examiner Lesley Hunt stated that:

the company was operating from an unauthorised operating centre in Doncaster (in a traffic area other than the one in which it held its licence);

there were numerous drivers hours infringements for most of the drivers. There was no evidence that these infringements were reducing in number over time;

the legal deadlines for downloads of driver cards and vehicle units were frequently being missed;

the evidence suggested that no checks of driver infringements were being made.

Public inquiry

In the light of the DVSA reports both the company and transport manager were called to a public inquiry. Call-up letters and emails were sent on 16 July 2025.

The inquiry was held in Cambridge on 11 September 2025, cojoined with an inquiry into CJ Dea Ltd, a company controlled by Ms Calugar’s husband, Sebastian Calugar. Present were the director of CJD Ltd Liliana Calugar, the director of CJ Dea Ltd Sebastian Calugar and transport consultant Jerry Mantelvanos. The transport manager Ramona-Loredana Grozav failed to attend. The company was represented by Nathan Rasiah, Counsel.

Despite the case management instructions, CJD Ltd had failed to provide any maintenance or drivers’ hours records to the vehicle and traffic examiners in advance of the inquiry (or indeed at the inquiry). The company also failed to provide evidence of financial standing 14 days prior to the inquiry, as requested, although evidence was brought to the inquiry itself.

Evidence of Liliana Calugar

Giving evidence, Ms Calugar made the following points:

she accepted that she had not read the call-up letter, having left this to her husband Sebastian Calugar (the director of CJ Dea Ltd) and his transport adviser;

she accepted that CJD Ltd had operated from the unauthorised operating centre in Doncaster between 13 February and 23 May 2025 (when an application for a new operating centre in Brentwood had been granted);

the transport manager Ramona-Loredana Grozav had ceased to act as such in February 2025. The company had not paid the transport manager since this date. Ms Calugar had been looking for a new transport manager since that time and believed that the company had applied to nominate a Mr Singh. A search of the VOL system found that, although a certificate of professional competence in that name had been uploaded, no application to nominate him had yet been made. Ms Calugar said that her husband Sebastian Calugar, who was the transport manager on the licence held by CJ Dea Ltd, had assisted during Ms Grozav’s absence.

roller brake tests had been missed because the maintenance provider had been “busy”.

asked if she had investigated the maintenance provider’s apparent failure to identify a cracked brake disc at the safety inspection two days prior to the S-marked prohibition, Ms Calugar said that she had had a verbal discussion. This had not been documented.

six drivers continued to be remunerated on a “self-employed” or “limited company” basis.

Concluding submissions

For the company, Mr Rasiah said that this had been a wake-up call. Following the DVSA reports it had engaged a transport consultant and work had been done on drawing up new policies. This work was not yet complete. He urged me to allow the licence to survive, with whatever undertakings I considered necessary. Ms Calugar now understood the requirements of an operator’s licence a little more.

Findings

After considering the evidence, I make the following findings:

the company lacks professional competence and has lacked it since the nominated transport manager Ramona-Loredana Grozav left in February 2025, more than six months ago. At no time has the company requested a period of grace in which to operate without a transport manager. It is inconceivable, against the background of the unsatisfactory DVSA reports, that a period of grace would in any case have been granted.

the company’s vehicles have been issued with three prohibitions – one of them S-marked – from nine encounters (Section 26(1)(c )(iii) of the 1995 Act refers). The S-marked prohibition for the cracked brake disc, issued only two days after the vehicle had been in for a safety inspection, shows that the maintenance provider was inadequate.

the company has operated from an unauthorised operating centre in a different traffic area where it had no licence at all to operate (Section 26(1)(a) and (h) refers).

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

to keep vehicles fit and serviceable. As well as the prohibitions referred to above, there is a high MOT failure rate and a lack of brake testing;

to ensure that drivers report defects in writing. It is evident from the DVSA reports that drivers were failing to identify obvious defects such as tyres with very low tread. The system itself, with three methods of reporting and inadequate records, was dysfunctional;

to ensure that rules relating to drivers’ hours and tachographs are observed. The DVSA report showed that drivers are committing infringements with no comment from the operator, which in any case failed on numerous occasions to download driver cards and vehicle units within the legal deadlines.

the company has made extensive use of “self-employed” or “limited company” drivers. The use of such drivers, when their status is properly that of employee, is prejudicial to fair competition. The payment of national insurance contributions in respect of such drivers, and the requirement to offer, enrol them in and contribute to pensions schemes and to pay holiday entitlement has been avoided by the company. It is also much more difficult to exercise disciplinary authority over drivers who are not employees (see the Upper Tribunal’s decision T/2019/54 Bridgestep Ltd Tom Bridge).

former transport manager Ramona-Loredana Grozav is not of good repute (Schedule 3 and Section 27(1)(b) of the 1995 Act refer). She was clearly failing to exercise the required continuous and effective management of the transport activities of the business even before she departed in February 2025. She failed to notify her departure to the traffic commissioner’s office, despite having signed the TM1 application form specifically confirming that she would do so. The result of this negligence was to enable the company to continue to operate (in a highly non-compliant manner) for more than six months with the outward appearance but not the reality of professional competence.

the operator CJD Ltd and its director Liliana Calugar are not of good repute (Section 27(1)(a) of the 1995 Act refers). The operator has failed to fulfil multiple undertakings that it gave when applying for the licence. It has cut corners on maintenance (employing an obviously inadequate maintenance provider, failing to carry out meaningful brake tests); it has failed to ensure the observance of drivers’ hours rules; it has used drivers over whom it has little control. It has knowingly operated without a transport manager for more than six months. The company appears not to have taken the public inquiry very seriously: Ms Calugar failed to read the call-up letter and associated papers and she failed to send in the requested maintenance and drivers’ hours records in advance of the inquiry (or even at the inquiry). Good repute cannot be retained in these circumstances;

Balancing act

I weighed up the negative against the positive issues. On the negative side were the above findings. On the more positive side were the operator’s engagement of a transport consultant (although this does not yet seem to have given rise to any discernible improvement) and willingness to be audited.

Conclusion

On balance, I conclude that the negative factors heavily outweigh the positives. In any case, the company is without professional competence and has lacked it for more than six months. It also lacks the required good repute. Revocation of the licence is therefore mandatory under Section 27(1)(a) of the 1995 Act.

Priority Freight and Bryan Haulage questions

For the sake of completeness I asked myself if I could trust this operator to be compliant in the future (the Priority Freight question). The answer was an emphatic no. Ms Calugar did not at all convince me that she has the necessary knowledge, drive and determination to run a compliant operation. She relied heavily on her husband for answers at the public inquiry and she entirely failed to engage with the documentary requirements of the inquiry, failing to produce any records.

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 nature of the shortcomings found by DVSA, and the lack of an adequate response, I conclude that it does.

Decisions

Operator licence

I have concluded that the operator lacks professional competence and good repute. I am therefore revoking the licence under Section 27(1)(a) of the 1995 Act. I am also revoking it under Section 26(1)(a), (c)(iii), (f) and (h) of the 1995 Act. Owing to my lack of trust in the operator’s ability to run a compliant operation and to the continued lack of a transport manager, I am allowing a shortened 14 day period for the revocation to take effect. In the meantime I am curtailing the licence to its current operational level of eight vehicles with immediate effect. The revocation takes effect at 0001 hours on 1 October 2025.

Disqualification – operator

For the reasons outlined above, and having performed the same balancing act, I conclude that both the company and director Liliana Calugar should be disqualified under Section 28 of the 1995 Act from holding or obtaining an operator’s licence in the future and (in Ms Calugar’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, for a first inquiry, a disqualification period of between one and three years could be the starting point. Such has been the level of non-compliance and basic incompetence that a disqualification period at the lower end of this scale is not appropriate. On balance, I conclude that a disqualification period of two years, at the mid-point of the scale for a first public inquiry, strikes the right balance. CJD Ltd and Liliana Calugar are disqualified for two years from 1 October 2025 until 1 October 2027.

Disqualification – transport manager

Having removed her good repute, I must also disqualify Ramona-Loredana Grozav from acting as transport manager on any operator’s licence (paragraph 16 of Schedule 3 refers). She failed to attend the public inquiry so missed the opportunity of putting forward arguments as to why her good repute should be retained. Because of her failure to engage with the authorities I am disqualifying her for an indefinite period of time. If in the future she wishes to argue for the time-limiting of her disqualification, she may request a hearing before a traffic commissioner. But I would not expect her to serve fewer than three years disqualification.

Nicholas Denton

Deputy Traffic Commissioner

16 September 2025