Decision for Butler Brothers Ltd (PB0002119) and transport manager James Thomas Butler
Source: gov.uk (2025-11-25)

Written decision of the Deputy Traffic Commissioner in the North East of England Traffic Area for Butler Brothers Ltd, transport manager James Thomas Butler and drivers James Thomas Butler, John Arthur Daffin, Richard Graham Davies, Nicholas Michael Lee, Paul Morley.

NORTH EAST TRAFFIC AREA

BUTLER BROTHERS LTD

JAMES THOMAS BUTLER - TRANSPORT MANAGER

JAMES THOMAS BUTLET - DRIVER

JOHN ARTHUR DAFFIN - DRIVER

RICHARD GRAHAM DAVIES - DRIVER

NICHOLAS MICHAEL LEE - DRIVER

PAUL MORLEY - DRIVER

BEFORE: MR M HINCHLIFFE

SITTING AT LEEDS ON 28 OCTOBER 2025

DECISIONS

The standard international PSV operator’s licence held by Butler Brothers Ltd will be suspended in its entirety for four weeks from (and including) Saturday 6th December 2025 until (and including) Friday 2nd January 2026. This means that, although the operator’s licence remains in force, no vehicles at all may used under the licence during the full period of its suspension.

The standard international PSV operator’s licence held by Butler Brothers Ltd will be suspended in its entirety for four weeks from (and including) Saturday 6th December 2025 until (and including) Friday 2nd January 2026. This means that, although the operator’s licence remains in force, no vehicles at all may used under the licence during the full period of its suspension.

The repute of James Thomas Butler as transport manager is lost and Mr Butler is disqualified from serving as transport manager for any operator for 12 months. I allow a three-month period of grace for the nomination and appointment of an acceptable, qualified and professionally competent transport manager.

Drivers John Arthur Daffin and Richard Graham Davies will have their vocational PSV (and any Goods Vehicle) driving entitlements suspended for three weeks from (and including) Saturday 13th December 2025 until (and including) Friday 2nd January 2026.

Drivers James Thomas Butler, Nicholas Michael Lee and Paul Morley will have their vocational PSV (and any Goods Vehicle) driving entitlements suspended for five weeks from (and including) Saturday 29th November 2025 until (and including) Friday 2nd January 2026.

The application by Butler Brothers Ltd for an increase in authorisation is granted in part. I grant an increase to 14 vehicles with effect from Saturday 3rd January 2026.

REASONS

Butler Brothers Ltd holds a standard international PSV operator’s licence authorising 10 vehicles, with 10 discs in possession. James Thomas Butler is sole director and transport manager, and he also drives for the company. The operator and Mr Butler as transport manager have been called up to public inquiry as a result of a DVSA investigation into the unlawful obtaining of driver CPC cards in or around September 2024, and the subsequent keeping and using of such cards thereafter - until DVSA action intervened and put a stop to it.

Mr Butler and four other drivers employed by the operator have also been called to a conjoined drivers hearing for the same reasons.

The operator has applied to increase authorisation from 10 vehicles to 15 vehicles, and that application is also before me.

By law, most vocational drivers must do 35 hours of periodic training every five years in order to retain their Certificate of Professional Competence (CPC) to drive a bus, coach or lorry of a designated size or weight. Drivers can be fined up to £1,000 for driving professionally without a CPC. The nature of the training required depends upon whether the driver wishes to drive nationally or internationally but, whether a national or international CPC is sought, 35 hours training must be completed every five years and before the driver’s five-year deadline. The next deadline will be set five years after the date when a driver finishes their training. Any CPC accredited training a driver has attended counts for five years from the date they took the course or module. The training credit is not lost because a driver has passed their deadline, but if the requisite hours have not been completed in the five years leading up to the deadline, then the driver cannot drive professionally after the deadline until they have finished their 35 hours of CPC training. Furthermore, (contrary to Mr Butler’s erroneous belief) training will not count towards the 35 hours if the driver took it more than five years ago.

There is a distinction between online or remote training on the one hand (which is permitted so long as there is a “live” trainer and the training is delivered in real time by an instructor in an interactive way) and e-learning on the other hand, which may be a pre-recorded module which a viewer can watch at any time and start/stop at will. Of the 35 hours, only a limited proportion of hours can be comprised of e-learning modules.

This operator has previously been called to public inquiry for unconnected maintenance issues. This was in early 2024. As a consequence, the licence was curtailed and Mr Butler’s repute as transport manager was “seriously tarnished”.

As a follow-up to this, the DVSA (later in 2024) undertook a traffic investigation into the operator where, in all respects bar one, matters were (overall) deemed to be satisfactory. The outstanding issue which remained unresolved after the Traffic Examiner’s visit related to the drivers’ CPC certificates. On 7/11/2024 Traffic Examiner Walker of the DVSA asked Mr Butler for copies of all his drivers’ CPC certificates. On 19/11/2024, Mr Butler responded by email to explain that he could not send all the certificates because, he said, the recent driver CPC training for himself and the other four drivers before me had been delivered online. This was not really an answer since even online trainers can (and should) issue CPC certificates, which will usually be sent by email after a delegate has attended an online class or module.

Ms Walker therefore contacted colleagues in the relevant DVSA section and obtained copies of the course registers which purported to show that all drivers had physically attended various driver CPC courses in the Walsall area on diverse dates in August and September 2024. Ms Walker then asked for raw tachograph data and copy driver working time records for the relevant drivers over a period that included the dates when the CPC courses were recorded. She found that, for Mr Butler and drivers Daffin and Davies, the tachograph data showed that they were driving on the days (or most of the days) when they were shown as attending CPC courses.

Drivers Lee and Morley undertake only limited driving duties for the operator, and their principal role is to work as mechanics. For them, the documentation submitted came from their “Working Time Record” Books and, for each driver, this had handwritten entries in it for “CPC Training” on the very days that they had been previously told were the days when their names appeared in the registers as having attended training in person in Walsall. So, this documentation appeared to be consistent with the registers. However, due to the absence of CPC certificates from the training provider, these drivers’ links with the other drivers and the operator, and the anomalies in relation to the other drivers, DVSA suspicions remained. In addition, at some point, the DVSA became aware of (and began investigating) what seems to be a larger issue concerning serious and widespread irregularities concerning driver CPC training nationally.

Mr Butler and all drivers were called to interview by the DVSA. Mr Butler told the DVSA that as the deadline loomed, he realised that he and four other drivers needed to get their CPC hours in, otherwise the drivers would be unable to legally drive past their deadlines. Mr Butler himself had already done a module, but he urgently needed to complete his hours. Because of when the CPC scheme commenced, a high number of drivers (including Mr Butler and his drivers) had a deadline of 9 September 2024 and, although courses and modules can be completed at any time over the five-year period, they had all left it to the last minute – along with many other drivers around the country. This meant, said Mr Butler, that he was unable to get himself or his drivers booked on a course – either in a classroom, or online. He asked another operator friend for advice and, said Mr Butler, he was given a phone number for a trainer who might be able to fit everyone in. Mr Butler says he rang the number, spoke to a man, and the man then called round to the operator’s premises and took away nearly £2,000 in cash - being the course fees for Mr Butler and four drivers. Mr Butler did not ask for or get a receipt, he did not discuss what courses or modules would be offered, and he did not ask for or get any sort of documentation or business card indicating who the trainer was or what training business was involved. He simply handed over the cash, and copy driving licences, and waited to get a phone call or email with the dates he and the drivers had to attend. He then heard nothing until, in a panic, he logged on to see his CPC record – and saw that he had been recorded as attending courses and therefore had an updated CPC entitlement. The same applied to his drivers. Mr Butler and drivers Daffin and Davies admitted that they had not, in fact, attended any driver CPC courses. They had all seemingly been awarded a new CPC card without doing the necessary courses.

Messrs Daffin and Davies also said that, through Mr Butler, they had paid cash for the full 35 hours of CPC courses and they, too, had expected to be given dates when they had to attend (before their own deadlines in early September). To their very great surprise (they said) they also found that they had been credited by the DVSA as having attended five different modules – even though they had not – and in due course they received their updated CPC cards.

Messrs Butler, Daffin and Davies accepted that, in an ideal world, they would (and should) have advised the DVSA that they had not attended the course/modules recorded, but they did not do so because, if they did, their courses and therefore their CPCs would be cancelled, and they then couldn’t drive professionally until they had re-enrolled on legitimate courses, paid for them (again), and attended them online or in person. This they did not want to do. As it happens, once the DVSA learned that these drivers had not actually done the courses recorded by the alleged trainer, the modules were in fact cancelled and the drivers have all had to complete their outstanding CPC training over an intensive period, and at extra cost to themselves.

Mr Lee and Mr Morley claimed to the DVSA that they had done the courses online – that is to say, they had not attended the session in Walsall in person but had done the “live” interactive courses online in real time, via Zoom. However, they had not received their CPC certificates. They had, however, got their CPC cards. Through Mr Butler, and with his knowledge, they had submitted their Working Time Record Books that showed entire days taken up with “CPC TRAINING” and this documentation supported their claims to have actually done their CPC courses online.

Not all the drivers were consistent. Mr Butler, for example, and another driver, told the DVSA that no drivers had done any courses, either in person or online. On top of that, the trainer who submitted the course registers to the DVSA said (when questioned) that he did not offer any online courses. All his courses/modules were in the classroom only. He did not have the knowledge, skills or equipment to do online courses via Zoom etc.

At the hearing before me Mr Butler stuck to the account given above and explained that his failure to get a receipt or any basic details about the identity of the man that he was giving money to, or about the courses or training provider, was because he trusted the friend who had initially given him the number of the trainer. He accepted that his email of 19/11/24 (when he said that all training had been completed online) was untrue.

Drivers Lee and Morley admitted to me that they had not, in fact, done any courses online via Zoom - and this meant that they had lied to the DVSA officers. They also then had to admit that the Working Time Record Book entries were false and untrue. Mr Butler, for his part, said that he knew that these false records had been submitted to the DVSA in support of dishonest answers given by Messrs Lee and Morley.

All the drivers asked me to accept that they had not realised that they would not have to attend the courses when they first handed over their money and, having lost their money, they all felt that they were in an invidious position – and had themselves been the victims of a scam by the trainer. Their subsequent lies and attempted cover-up arose because they did not want to face a period (however short) when they could not drive professionally, and they did not want to have to pay again for their required CPC training. I also heard evidence from Mr Butler about the nature of his business, about how it depended on school contracts and, if he was unable to fulfil those contracts, the consequences would be devastating for the company. He accepted, however, that the benefit he had obtained as a consequence of his admitted failure to notify the DVSA of the true circumstances, at any stage, until the facts compelled an admission – was that he and his drivers had avoided an enforced period when drivers could not drive. In other words, he had avoided an enforced period when his buses and coaches would, otherwise, have been effectively grounded for a period of time. Mr Butler was at pains to stress how all other aspects of his operation were now 100% compliant.

Having had an opportunity of watching and listening to Mr Butler and the four drivers give evidence, and of reading all the documentary evidence in the case, I reach the following conclusions.

First, Mr Butler is not a credible or trustworthy witness. Whatever the pressure of time, or his faith in his fellow operator, there is no reasonable explanation for his complete failure to get a receipt for a large amount of cash handed over to a stranger (most of it having come from his employees), or to discuss what course/modules would be offered, or to find out anything about the training organisation or trainers. If nothing else, Mr Butler is a businessman, and he did not strike me as a fool. The trainer’s dishonest behaviour (if that is what it was) would be far more likely to be reported and found out if those who gave him money were unaware of what would subsequently happen. It would be much more likely to remain undetected if all those involved knew what was going on. Why wouldn’t the trainer explain what he was offering in return for the cash? Not having to release all his drivers for 35 hours each was the real and tangible benefit obtained by paying over the odds to have names included in a fraudulent register. On top of that, Mr Butler (a) failed to disclose to the DVSA that he and his drivers had not done the CPC courses and, therefore, should not have CPC cards, (b) sent a dishonest email to the DVSA on 19/11/24 claiming training had been done online when he knew it had not, and (c) he colluded with Messrs Lee and Morley is sending to the DVSA fraudulent Working Time Record Book entries. I am sure beyond all reasonable doubt that Mr Butler either knew or at least suspected that the deal he was entering into was a sham which would effectively relieve him of the need to actually make his drivers available for 35 hours of online or classroom training. Whether he told his drivers about this is another matter.

Second, the drivers (apart from Mr Butler) may or may not have fully appreciated what was happening from the outset – although it soon became apparent and they did nothing about it. The drivers had not been directly involved in the initial discussions with the “trainer”. They handed over their money and left it to Mr Butler, their boss, to sort out the booking of their CPC modules. However, when it became clear that they had all illegally secured CPC cards without actually doing the training they all, to a man, accepted the unlawful benefit and did nothing to rectify the situation until they absolutely had to. On top of that, Messrs Lee and Morley aggravated matters (and made a bad situation far worse) by lying to the DVSA in interview about doing the modules via Zoom, and in also submitting fake and fraudulent Working Time Record Book entries to support their dishonest story.

So far as the operator and Mr Butler as transport manager are concerned, this conduct is directly relevant to the operation and the driving of vehicles authorised under the operator’s licence - and directly affects repute. Having said that, all other aspects of compliance have significantly improved and, were it not for this matter, the DVSA investigation would have concluded without concern. The business is reasonably successful (hence the application to increase authorisation) and fear of not having drivers available to fulfil contracts, with the serious commercial harm that may flow from that, was the main reason for the disreputable conduct now before me.

I have decided to draw back from revoking the operator’s licence on grounds of loss of repute. It is finely balanced, but I think complete revocation could be a disproportionate outcome. Jobs, and a valuable public service to local schools, would be lost if the licence was revoked. There are other regulatory actions I can take that will have a very significant impact but which, if I time it carefully, may be survivable. If I am wrong, and if the action I feel I must take has consequences equivalent to revocation – so be it. My public duty, and fairness to other operators, requires that appropriately robust action be taken. The dishonest conduct of Mr Butler and, through him, of the operator generated a real and immediate benefit – a period when the drivers could not drive and so the company could not operate was completely sidestepped. My action is designed to put that right, and to deprive the operator of that benefit. I think that a period of reflection is necessary, and not just over the holidays. This was conduct that undermined the driver CPC system as a whole. The standard international PSV operator’s licence held by Butler Brothers Ltd will be suspended in its entirety for four weeks from (and including) Saturday 6th December 2025 until (and including) Friday 2nd January 2026.

I take this regulatory action because the operator is in breach of undertakings to observe the law relating to the driving and operation of authorised vehicles and to keep and make available on demand honest and accurate records.

Mr Butler has already been to public inquiry and, following an extremely troubling case, has had a Traffic Commissioner declare that his repute was seriously tarnished. This current case may be for different matters but, following that outcome, Mr Butler should have been beyond reproach in all aspects of his conduct as transport manager. After all, trust lies at the heart of the transport manager role – which is a statutory role with particular and important responsibilities. Dishonesty in corresponding with the DVSA and then colluding in the submission of fake and fraudulent records – by a man who has already had his repute declared as seriously tarnished – inevitably puts repute as transport manager in grave jeopardy. Despite the positive aspects it is clear that Mr Butler has squandered his repute and put his drivers in a precarious position. Nevertheless, I keep the disqualification I must impose to a minimum and I do not require any remedial measure beyond the passage of time. But lessons must be learned. As things stand, Mr Butler is not fit to be his own transport manager. If he wants this licence to continue, he must employ a competent transport manager CPC holder to provide continuous and effective management and control appropriate to the size of the fleet (including the increased size in the new year). In my judgement, in this case, the proposed transport manager should be offering not less than 20 hours per week. I allow a three-month period of grace for the nomination and appointment of an acceptable, qualified and professionally competent transport manager.

Drivers John Arthur Daffin and Richard Graham Davies, at the very least, weighed up their options and took advantage of a situation which allowed them to bypass the legally required training they needed in order to continue to work as professional drivers. That undermines their fitness by reference to their conduct. Accordingly, they will have their vocational PSV (and any Goods Vehicle vocational driving) entitlements suspended for three weeks from (and including) Saturday 13th December 2025 until (and including) Friday 2nd January 2026. Drivers James Thomas Butler, Nicholas Michael Lee and Paul Morley will have their vocational PSV (and any Goods Vehicle vocational driving) entitlements suspended for five weeks from (and including) Saturday 29th November 2025 until (and including) Friday 2nd January 2026. The damage to their fitness to hold a vocational entitlement is greater than is the case for drivers Daffin and Davies because of their additional dishonesty. Mr Butler played a knowing part in that and colluded with it - so his suspension ranks alongside theirs. In all cases, this action does not affect the drivers’ ordinary motor car driving licences, but during the period of suspension they must not drive the sort of bus, coach or lorry that requires a vocational entitlement. If they do, they can expect to lose their vocational entitlement indefinitely.

I turn, finally, to the application by Butler Brothers Ltd for an increase in authorisation. I hope, once we get into the new year, that this sorry episode can be put in the past. I acknowledge that some of those before me may have, themselves, been victims of a deception. But that does not excuse their own subsequent participation in perpetuating and seeking to benefit from the irregularity. Having said that, I have decided to set no further impediments in the development of what otherwise is now a compliant and successful small business. A 50% increase in authorisation seems a bit much and is more than is immediately needed. So, the application to increase authorisation is granted in part, once the period of suspension is over. I allow an increase to 14 vehicles with effect from Saturday 3rd January 2026.

Mark Hinchliffe,

Deputy Traffic Commissioner

29/10/2025