Decision for Hugo Miller t/a Arun Coaches (PK0001130)
Source: gov.uk (2025-01-23)

Written decision of the Deputy Traffic Commissioner in the South East and Metropolitan area for Hugo Miller t/a Arun Coaches

Background

The operator Hugo Miller is the holder of a standard international licence authorising three vehicles granted on the 18 June 1991.

Mr Miller attended a previous public inquiry on the 29 November 2017 when expectations for future compliance were set and agreed. A warning had also been issued on the 16 July 2015.

Information was received by the DVSA that a vehicle CU51 UCL had been sighted on public roads during in June and July 2024 and at that time the vehicles did not have a current roadworthiness certificate or excise licence. A written request was made to Mr Miller to supply compliance related documentation on the 7 September 2024 but no documentation was supplied. A follow up visit took place on the 24 September 2024 when a vehicle ARU 500A was seen parked at the operating centre. No inspection was made of that vehicle as Mr Miller had indicated by e mail that it had not been used for approximately four years. Vehicle CU51 UCL was not seen at the operating centre.

The Public Inquiry

Mr Miller attended the public inquiry and was unrepresented. He confirmed that vehicle ARU 500A had not been used for approximately four years and said that this was the only vehicle that should be on the operator’s licence record. I said that vehicle CU51UCL was also an authorised vehicle on the licence and Mr Miller confirmed that his wife, who was now deceased, had been the registered keeper of that vehicle since the 1 December 2023 and the vehicle was kept on a farm in Wisborough Green He had omitted to remove the vehicle from the operator’s licence.

I asked Mr Miller about the use of the vehicle in June and July 2024 and he said he thought this may have use by his wife and others as a way of promoting and advertising his candidacy in the General Election. He had been in Florida until a few days before the election so had been unaware of this. He could not say whether he had discussed the use with his late wife.

Mr Miller said that he wished to retain the operator’s licence but would consider surrendering it at the next stage of renewal.

Findings and Decision

In deciding what action to take in this case, if any, I have to decide if I believe Mr Miller did not know that vehicle CU51 UCL was operated for the period in June and July 2024. I find that it more likely than not that he did know. He was the candidate who was standing for election on the 4 July and stated that he returned to the UK a few days before the election. The vehicle was seen on ANPR cameras on 11 occasions on the 4 July and 14 occasions on the 5 July. It is highly unlikely that he would not have been aware of the use and Mr Miller accepted that he may have discussed the use of the vehicle with his late wife in any event. As a minimum the vehicle should have been subject to a roadworthiness test and been taxed before use. The vehicle was authorised on Mr Miller’s licence and the responsibility for the vehicle was not lost by changing the registered keeper to his wife.

Having found that Mr Miller was aware of the use of vehicle CU51 UCL it follows that he has breached Sections 17(3) (a) and (aa) of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 because there is no evidence to show that the maintenance requirements expected as a result of those promises and undertakings were complied with.

I go on to consider whether I am satisfied that Mr Miller is of good repute bearing in mind the past history and my findings in this case. He is an operator of long standing and has not been subject to regulatory action beyond a warning but on the other hand he has been untruthful in relation to his knowledge of the use of vehicle CU51UCL and the fact that the vehicle should not have been on the road at the time it was. Ultimately it is a question of trust and whether, if the licence is allowed to continue, I can be confident that Mr Miller will comply with the undertakings and regulatory requirements of the licence.

On balance I have decided to draw back from revoking the licence but nevertheless believe that this case is serious enough for me to order a suspension of the licence for an indefinite period and a curtailment to one vehicle. The disc for vehicle ARU 500A should be sent to the Office of the Traffic Commissioner and only returned to Mr Miller when an up to date roadworthiness certificate and pre-use preventative maintenance inspection record is provided for vehicle ARU 500A. No other vehicle can be added to the licence during the period of the suspension.

Decisions

Breach of Sections 17(3) (a) and (aa) of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 found

Curtailment of licence to one vehicle and indefinite suspension of the licence with immediate effect ordered. Licence disc to be sent to the Office of the Traffic Commissioner and only returned to Mr Miller when an up to date roadworthiness certificate and pre- use preventative maintenance inspection record is provided for vehicle ARU 500A. No other vehicle can be added to the licence during the period of the suspension.

John Baker

Deputy Traffic Commissioner

14 January 2025