Decision for MSB Freight Ltd (OD2029020)
Source: gov.uk (2025-11-13)

Written decision of the Deputy Traffic Commissioner in the West Midlands for MSB Freight Ltd and former Transport Manager Waldermar Szuberski

IN THE WEST MIDLANDS TRAFFIC AREA

MSB FREIGHT LIMITED – OD2029020

PUBLIC INQUIRY HELD ON 24TH OCTOBER 2025 AT THE OFFICE OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER BIRMINGHAM

DECISION

GOODS VEHICLE (LICENSING OF OPERATORS) ACT 1995

On finding the following grounds for action established under the Act:
- Breach of undertaking – sec. 26(1)(f) – failure to keep vehicle fit and serviceable
- Breach of undertaking – sec. 26(1)(f) failure to keep proper records relating to vehicle maintenance and driver defect reporting
- Prohibitions incurred by operator/driver – sec. 26(1) (c) (iii);
The operator’s licence held by MSB Freight Ltd is hereby revoked with effect from 23.59 on 30th November 2025.

The licence is also revoked under section 27(1)(a) of the Act in respect of :
- No longer satisfies requirements under sec. 13A of the Act in respect of good repute and financial standing.
The operator company and its sole director, Szymon Bednarz, are disqualified under section 28 of the Act, from holding or applying for an operator’s licence for a period of six (6) months with effect from 23.59 on 30th November 2025.

Former Transport Manager, Waldermar Szuberski, is issued with a formal final warning in respect of his good repute as a transport manager.

Background:

This licence was granted on 22nd March 2021 for standard national operations with an authority of 1 vehicle - 1 trailer.

The sole director is Symon Bednarz, who is effectively the operator and driver.

At the time of the grant the specified external Transport Manager was Waldemar Szuberski, who declared that he would commit 3 hours per week to the licence.

Following an “S” marked prohibition issued to a vehicle being driven by, and on behalf of the operator, on 18th January 2025, in respect of an insecure load and illegal tyre tread, a DVSA maintenance investigation took place on 20th February 2025.

The Maintenance Investigation Report was marked as “unsatisfactory” and failures were recorded across a number of areas of operation;
- Inspection/maintenance records
- Driver defect reporting
- Inspection facilities and maintenance arrangements
- Vehicle Emissions
- Wheel and tyre management
- Prohibition Assessment
- Transport Manager
On 13th March 2025, Mr Szuberski resigned as transport manager. He was called to attend the public inquiry in respect of his good repute having regard to the failings during his tenure as TM.

In April 2025 Anna Klisz was added to the licence as transport manager. She had sent in an action plan, and a training plan, which I considered as part of the brief, and she attended the public inquiry.

The call-up letter was sent on 9th September 2025. Specific Case Management directions were made to send maintenance records (to include preventative maintenance inspections (PMIs), driver defect reports and wheel removal/retorque records) for the period from 1st May 2025 to 31st August 2025 to DVSA by 3rd October 2025.

The first, and second, attempt to serve the call-up letter at the operator’s registered address by recorded delivery were returned “not called for”. However, the operator confirmed receipt by email and via Caselines on 2nd October 2025.

The operator failed to comply with the case management directions and DVSA had received no documentation prior to the hearing.

The Public Inquiry

The operator, Mr Bednarz, attended the hearing with his current TM, Ms Anna Klisz.

The former TM, Mr Szuberski, attended represented by a solicitor, Ms Laura Newton.

I heard evidence from the operator, present and former TM, and heard representations from Ms Newton.

Findings on the Evidence

I find that the operator failed to comply with the Case Management directions. Initially, the operator stated that he had sent the requested maintenance records to DVSA. When I asked for details of what was sent, he turned to his new transport manager who stated that she had only sent in the plan of action, and training plan, contained in the brief, to OTC.

Mr Bednarz then stated that he had the evidence with him. Eventually he handed in “the evidence”, a bundle of PMI sheets from 2023-2025, most of which were the very documents which the Vehicle Examiner had criticised. They were produced out of chronological order and the documents I saw looked no different from the unsatisfactory ones produced to the VE at the investigation.

I find the following grounds for action against the operator’s licence clearly established from the MIVR and the brief:

Prohibitions – sec. 26(1)(c)(iii). The mechanical prohibition rate stands at 54.55% with 5 “Immediate” prohibitions in recent years, showing imminent risks, and 2 “S marked” prohibitions, showing significant failings in preventative maintenance systems.

Failure to comply with undertakings to keep vehicle fit and serviceable and to keep full records of driver defect reports, safety inspections etc. – sec. 26(1)(f).

The unacceptably high prohibition rate and the MOT failure rate clearly evidence the poor maintenance standards. The MIVR shows an initial fail rate at MOT of 66.67% and a final failure rate of 66.67%.The Test Report for the duration of the licence shows an Initial and Final Fail rate of 80%. It is noted that the MOT is the minimum standard which a vehicle should reach.

Of particular concern is the evidence in the MIVR at section 6 of the report (page 76 of the brief), that “the vehicle is taken to test and the items it fails on are fixed”. Such a reactive approach poses a significant risk to the public. The report further confirms that the operator had ignored the advice of the previous TM to have pre-MOT inspections.

I find that the operator cannot be trusted to run a compliant licence.

As part of the former TM’s evidence, designed to rebut the operator’s minimizing Mr Szuberski’s involvement and efforts to improve compliance, there were over 90 pages of translated WhatsApp messages between the former TM and the operator from 2022-2025.

These clearly showed a level of communication and direction from Mr Szuberski way above that portrayed by the operator to VE Dixon.

However, they also contained a number of concerning references to “making some defects” and a maintenance contractor “undoing the dates”.

Questioned about these by myself, Mr Szuberski admitted that the phrase “making some defects” referred to driver defect sheets demonstrating that some defects had been identified and repaired. He denied that these would be fabrications, as he was aware that the operator did minor repairs without recording them. However, he accepted that such reports should always relate to specific defects and repairs and be done contemporaneously.

As to Darek, “undoing some dates”, I referred to the exchange on the 5th October 2023;

WS “unfortunately it will be two weeks after the deadline” (for a PMI)

SB “Darek will undo the date”.

Mr Szuberski admitted that this did not look good and that he should have recorded his disapproval.

I noted that the same expression was then used on the 1st June 2024. Again, Mr Szuberski conceded that this related to altering PMI sheets and he should have been more vocal to stop this.

The operator confirmed that he was aware of the WhatsApp message chain submitted and he accepted the accuracy of the messages.

He could provide no satisfactory explanation for stating that he would ask Darek, the maintenance provider, “undo dates” to make them appear within deadlines.

He also did not deny that the request to “make some defects” was, at best, an attempt to record, long after the event, matters that should have been recorded contemporaneously, as part of the driver daily defect reporting.

Whilst the discussions between the operator and former TM potentially undermine the integrity of the records produced, I cannot say positively, that documents were fabricated or manipulated. To the extent that both parties planned or condoned such manipulations, I do find that their good repute has been undermined.

Whilst I can give credit to the former TM for his openness in sharing these communications, the contents do not reflect well on him, or the operator in particular. I make due allowance for translation issues from Polish to English, and the inevitably more informal nature of text messages between an operator and TM.

I find that the operator has failed to take responsibility for the failures on the licence.

At the maintenance investigation the operator clearly laid the blame on the former TM stating that he attended “roughly every 3 months” and making no mention of the regular communications I have seen.

He accepted in evidence and under questioning, that he understated the frequency of Mr Szuberski’s visits and that there had been 2 monthly or monthly meetings, and sometimes, every couple of weeks.

The response to the MIVR was from the new TM rather than the operator and she too, provided no explanation for the shortcomings other than to point to omissions by Mr Szuberski, most of which were proved to be false once Mr Szuberski’s evidence was presented.

The VE initially stated “from the information and evidence provided the transport manager hasn’t work to educated (sic) and instruct the operator to run in a satisfactory manner.”

On receipt of Mr Szuberski’s evidence and statement, the VE clearly amended his view stating “the response from Mr Waldemar (Szuberski) shows with evidence that he was in control of his side of the operation and the shortcomings are from the operator not following the policies which had been put in place”.

I find that the operator failed to comply with Case Management directions. The call-up letter states “as an operator you are expected to have the documents to evidence your compliance with the operator’s licence requirements”. It is reasonable to expect those documents to be sent to DVSA for examination prior to a public inquiry, or at least, brought to the hearing.

Considerations and Decision

I consider that the operator’s approach to vehicle maintenance and record keeping, and the condition of his vehicle, pose a serious threat to road safety. He acknowledged that the current vehicle is an old vehicle which he hoped to replace, but there were no firm steps taken towards replacement of the vehicle at the date of the inquiry.

In the case of Arnold v DoE (NI) [2016] UKUT 0392 (AAC)15 the Upper Tribunal said:
- “The Tribunal has stated on many occasions that operator’s licensing is based on trust. Since it is impossible to police every operator and every vehicle at all times, the Department in Northern Ireland, (and Traffic Commissioners in GB), must feel able to trust operators to comply with all relevant parts of the operator’s licensing regime. In addition other operators must be able to trust their competitors to comply, otherwise they will no longer compete on a level playing field.”
I have considered the operator’s response to the MIVR and the call to public inquiry in line with the approach in Arnold.

On the positive side, the operator has engaged a new TM since Mr Szuberski’s resignation. Anna Klisz submitted her plan of action and training plan prior to the public inquiry and I have no doubt that she is genuine and keen to commit to her role as a TM.

However, she is inexperienced in this role and I do not consider that this operator is open and amenable to advice and instruction. I note that even Ms Klisz states, “the situation I have met from day 1 has been difficult”. She requests time to be “allowed to make the better progress”, and asked the operator to sign a commitment to his co-operation.

I weigh the positives in asking the question posed in the Upper Tribunal decision in Priority Freight Ltd (2009/225): how likely is it that this operator will, in future, operate in compliance with the operator’s licensing regime?

I have substantial doubts as to whether the operator grasps the seriousness of the shortcomings in the MIVR. When asked to explain at the hearing, he stated that he thought it was “ok” and the report “not that bad” despite the call to PI.

Taking his evidence and all matters into account, and particularly the willingness to manipulate/create false records, I cannot trust this operator and I find it highly unlikely that he will, in future, operate in compliance with the operator licensing regime. I determine that the operator company/operator has lost its/his good repute.

Having regard to the length of default since the licence was granted and the seriousness of the failings I answer the Bryan Haulage (No 2) (2002/217) question; “Is the conduct such that the operator ought to be put out of business?”, in the affirmative.

In terms of Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document No 10 – The Principles of Decision Making and the Concept of Proportionality, I place the operator’s conduct in the “severe” category, meriting “revocation with detailed consideration of disqualification”.

The licence is revoked under sec. 26 (1)(f), s26(1)(c)(iii) and sec. 27 of the Act in respect of loss of good repute.

In ignoring the Case Management Directions, the operator had failed to provide bank statements to prove financial standing under sec. 27(1) of the Act. I did not question the operator directly about this failure. I stress that even if the operator had been able to produce financial evidence at the hearing, or within days thereafter, this would not alter my decision to revoke on the grounds cited above.

In the call-up letter the operator company/director were warned of the power to disqualify from holding or obtaining an operator’s licence on revocation.

I consider that disqualification is, proportionate and necessary. The operator/director, Szymon Bednarz, requires training and a marked change in approach to safety, record keeping and compliance in general. Taking the positives identified into account, I keep the period of disqualification to the minimum period I consider to be appropriate, and that is 6 (six) months w.e.f. 30.11.2025.

Former Transport Manager – Waldermar Szuberski

Prior to the public inquiry I received a full statement and bundle of supporting evidence from Mr Szuberski and his representative.

I am in no doubt that Mr Szuberski should have withdrawn his services before February 2025, having regard to the difficulties he had in securing co-operation and compliance from the operator. Mr Szuberski had, in fact, resigned in 2022 but he was persuaded to change his mind. With hindsight, he conceded that this was a mistake.

The prohibition and MOT history and the poor records since grant of the licence undermine the TM’s duty to provide “continuous and effective management”.

The WhatsApp messages from 2022-2025 showed the former TM’s involvement in trying to address shortcomings. Unfortunately, they also closely associated Mr Szuberski with potential manipulation/creation of false records. For a transport manager, such association is likely to be fatal to retaining good repute.

In considering the former TM’s good repute, I have had regard to the following factors:
- The Vehicle Examiner is supportive of TM’s level of involvement
- The VE identified no actual evidence of manipulations of records, only constant omissions/errors in completion
- The “undoing the dates” messages were initiated by the operator and the TM’s fault was one of omission/failing to correct, rather than creation
- The content of the discussions has only been made available through the openness of the TM in disclosing the full transcript of the WhatsApp messages
- The consequences of losing repute would be severe, and possibly disproportionate to the 3 hours per week commitment on this single vehicle licence. Mr Szuberski is employed full-time in a transport manager role with a reputable operator, who hold his services in high regard and provided a character reference in support.
Most importantly, I am satisfied that the experience has provided a salutary lesson to a relatively young TM and from his evidence, character references, and demeanour, I find the chance of repetition slight. If I am proved wrong in this assessment, then Mr Szuberski can be in no doubt as to the likely consequences.

I mark Mr Szuberski’s good repute as a TM as being “severely tarnished” and issue a “severe formal warning” in respect of his future conduct.

Anthony Seculer,

Deputy Traffic Commissioner,

28th October 2025

Driver conduct

Szymon Bednarz was called to separate but conjoined, proceedings in his capacity as the holder of an LGV Vocational Licence.

The call-up letter cited the “S-marked” prohibitions issued in respect of the tyre with tread below the legal limit and the insecure load (“load securing is grossly inadequate”).

Also cited were the encounter reports from 2022-2025 where the operator was the driver. These detailed offences relating to;
- Failing to use tachograph card
- Failing to enter details on centrefield
- Incorrect use of mode switch
- Failing to produce record sheets/driver card/print out.
Evidence given by the driver is contained within the Operator (MSB Freight Ltd) decision, the driver being the sole director/driver.

I have regard to the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document No. 6 – Driver Conduct, and the Case Examples contained therein.

I deal with the various offences in a global manner rather than aggregating the periods of suspension and suspend Szymon Bednarz’s vocational licence for 28 days with effect from 23.59 on 30.11.25.

Anthony Seculer,

Deputy Traffic Commissioner,

28th October 2025