Decision for Tariq Ali and Partners is a partnership t/a Calder Stores (OM2034678)
Source: gov.uk (2025-12-04)

Written decision of the Deputy Traffic Commissioner in Scotland for Tariq Ali and Partners is a partnership t/a Calder Stores

IN THE SCOTTISH TRAFFIC AREA

DECISION OF THE DEPUTY TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER FOR SCOTLAND

TARIQ ALI & PARTNERS T/A CALDER STORES OM2034678

Decision

The present licence is hereby revoked, delayed to 2359, 11 November 2025 to allow for notification and any essential winding-down.

Any future applications by any or a combination of (1) Mr Tariq Ali, (2) Mr Tahir Ali, (3) Mrs Farkhanda Ali and (4) Mrs Sumera Ali should be considered by a commissioner, rather than under delegated powers.

Background

Tariq Ali and Partners is a partnership, which trades as Calder Stores. It holds a restricted goods vehicle operator licence, with authorisation for a single vehicle.

The operator was called to public inquiry under Section 26 and 28 and schedule 3 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995, because of an S marked prohibition for serious tyre and brake pipe defects, as well as an unsatisfactory MIVR. The summary of those failings is listed at page 4 of the Public Inquiry brief, being the “case summary”. The question of financial standing was also canvassed and evidence of same was sought.

The Calling Up letter is in similarly clear terms, as can be seen at pages 8 and 9 of the brief.

In my opinion the operator knew very well that there was a serious question mark over the conduct of this licenced operation, which required to be answered. At the very least, its partners knew that a traffic commissioner was seeking further information in order to responsibly regulate the industry.

No response was given to correspondence from the OTC. No evidence of financial standing has been provided. There was no attendance on behalf of the operator.

The only interaction from the operator came on the day of the public inquiry. Tariq Ali telephoned to indicate that he was in Pakistan and could not attend the hearing. Of course, he had known of it for several months prior. He personally signed for the PI bundle on 24 September. He was sent emails and various follow-up emails, which I do not narrate, but are replicated within the PI bundle.

Upon the request of the caseworker who took his call, Mr Ali emailed the OTC with his explanation, which was as follows:

REDACTED

Whatever unfortunate circumstances may have arisen, Mr Ali has ignored all correspondence from this office prior to the hearing. There are 3 other responsible persons on the licence, none of whom has been in contact either. I do not believe that Mr Ali’s REDACTED difficulties, whatever they may be, can justify such a protracted period of silence in the face of legitimate requests from his regulator.

I considered whether I was able to come to a decision solely on the papers, or whether I required to re-list the case in order to attempt to adduce parole evidence. Given that there has been no suggestion of contradiction to the Examiner’s MIVR report and its unsatisfactory conclusions, and given that I know the operator was aware of the hearing, I decided that I had sufficient information to take a decision. The public inquiry was formally convened and I indicated that a written decision would follow.

Discussion

As well as Tariq Ali, there are 3 other responsible persons on the licence. I take them to be fellow partners. These are Tahir, Sumera, and Farkhanda Ali.

Tariq Ali & Partners OM2028026 applied for a restricted goods vehicle operator licence on 04/11/2019 for authorisation of 1 vehicle. 4 names are listed on the application as the responsible person, they are; Mr Tariq Ali, Mr Tahir Ali, Mrs Farkhanda Ali and Mrs Sumera Ali (the same as on the present licence). I take that to be the same partnership. If I am wrong, then I take it to have the same partners as the present partnership. Nothing turns on any distinction in that regard.

That application was refused when no response was received in relation to queries about the operating centre and financial standing.

In relation to the present licence, I note the following concerning features, all of which I take into account:
- There was a serious S marked prohibition indicating a failure of maintenance systems or practice.
- The MIVR was unsatisfactory
- Inspection/maintenance records were deficient
- Inspection facilities and maintenance arrangements were deficient
- Wheel and tyre management was deficient
- No operator evidence was submitted to DVSA in advance of the inquiry
- Evidence of financial standing was not provided
- No engagement at all was forthcoming from the operator in the face of this public inquiry, save for that which I have mentioned above
It is all the more concerning that – an S marked prohibition having been issued in relation to a serious wheel/tyre defect – that the management of wheel and tyre systems was found to be deficient at the MIVR. One might have expected, or perhaps simply hoped, that the S marked prohibition would have been a shock to the system and that immediate improvements might have been forthcoming. Alas, that was not the case.

Balancing Exercise

I carried out a careful balancing exercise in considering the deficiencies and any positives or mitigations. I asked whether this operation was so deficient that it should be put out of business (2002/217 Bryan Haulage).

I considered whether this was an operator which I could trust to be compliant in future. As per the Upper Tribunal in 2014/008 Duncan McKee, trust is one of the foundation stones of operator licensing. I must be able to trust operators to comply with all the relevant laws, rules, and regulations because operators are not under supervision of a commissioner in the conduct of their daily business. It is important that all operators know that they must earn and maintain the trust of the traffic commissioner. Of course, the great majority do so.

I proceeded to consider the question posed by the appellate Tribunal in 2009/225 Priority Freight, namely how likely the operator is to comply in future.

I also took into account that Mr Ali – albeit with serious lateness – offered an explanation of REDACTED difficulties taking place in a different country as an explanation for his non-attendance. I concluded that the negative features should carry significant weight. There were no significant positive features to draw upon. I held that the company’s conduct as narrated at [2.4] 1-8 above fell into the “severe to serious” category defined in the senior traffic commissioner’s statutory document no. 10.

In considering the above tests, I decided that because of the number of failings, the seriousness of the prohibition, and the near-total lack of engagement on the part of the operator, combined with its historic failure to engage, that it should be put out of business. I could not trust it to be compliant in the future, and that the chances of meaningful or sustained compliance were low. The operator’s maintenance performance, uncertain financial standing, and its attitude to co-operating with reasonable requests from its regulator combined to convince me that it has a poor attitude to safety, compliance, and the regulatory regime as a whole.

Decision

The present licence is hereby revoked, delayed to 2359, 11 November 2025 to allow for notification and any essential winding-down. REDACTED

Further Directions

I am concerned that Mr Tariq Ali and his fellow partners in this business may not be fit to be the controlling minds of any entity holding an operator’s licence in this industry, but I do not disqualify them today. I would want to hear from the partners before taking such a step, although I wish to record that I consider their conduct in respect of the present public inquiry to be very poor indeed, particular that of Tariq Ali who certainly knew of the hearing and did nothing to engage with it. I also consider that the failings at [2.4] 1-8 to have cumulatively endangered road safety. Lest the blame be laid only at the door of Tariq Ali, I consider that his fellow partners are just as culpable in all of this. Whether they are silent partners or not, they are responsible persons, named on the present licence.

Therefore any future applications by any or a combination of (1) Mr Tariq Ali, (2) Mr Tahir Ali, (3) Mrs Farkhanda Ali and (4) Mrs Sumera Ali should be considered by a commissioner, rather than under delegated powers. It is my expectation that a hearing would be required before any of these named persons could be safely or responsibly named on a licence.

KT Young

Deputy Traffic Commissioner for Scotland

4 November 2025