Decision for Kenneth Hale T/A Drum Disposal Collection Services (OG1115923)
Source: gov.uk (2025-07-14)

Written decision of the Traffic Commissioner for Wales for Kenneth Hale T/A Drum Disposal Collection Services – OG1115923

In the Welsh Traffic Area

T Kenneth Hale T/A Drum Disposal Collection Services – (OG1115923)

Public Inquiry held in Pontypridd on 24 June 2025

Written Decision of the Traffic Commissioner

Decision

The restricted goods vehicles operator’s licence held by Kenneth Hale is revoked with effect from 23:45 hours on 30 June 2025 pursuant to sections 26(1)(c)(iii), (e), (f), and (h) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (“the Act”).

Background

The operator, Kenneth Hale, trading as Drum Disposal Collection Services, holds a sole trader restricted operator’s licence authorising 1 vehicle (OG1115923). The licence application was considered at a public inquiry on 25 June 2013 due to Mr Hale having previously held an operator’s licence which was revoked at a Public Inquiry in 2010 pursuant to sections 26(1)(c)(iii), (e), (f), and (h) of the Act. The Traffic Commissioner granted the licence subject to specific undertakings, which were agreed to by Mr Hale, in the following terms:

i) that you are to employ a CPC qualified transport manager for 5 hours minimum per week;

ii) that a copy of the contract of employment between you and your transport manager is to be lodged within the Office of the Traffic Commissioner within 14 days; and

iii) that if any change of transport manager occurs then the Office of the Traffic Commissioner will be notified in writing.

Following an “S” marked prohibition notice being issued to the operator’s vehicle at annul MOT test on 12 November 2024, the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (“DVSA”) conducted an unannounced maintenance investigation on 23 December 2024. The report from Vehicle Examiner (“VE”) Richard Crawford following his visit his subsequent investigation was unsatisfactory. His report detailed shortcomings, including the following:

• The “S” marked prohibition issued at annual test highlighted a trend of the vehicle being presented multiple times for testing with safety defects present. The VE noted that this is indicative of significant weaknesses in the operator’s maintenance systems, with MOT tests being used to discover defects to the vehicles instead of pre-emptive safety inspections;

• Inspection facilities inadequate with no brake testing equipment present and maintenance records lacking crucial data, with brake testing arrangements found to be inadequate and no brake testing recorded on any of the safety inspection records examined, despite the roadworthiness declaration having been signed. 44% of inspections were late;

• Some safety inspection records revealed defects that should have been detected by the driver, but there was no corresponding driver defect report, and the system for assessing and repairing defects was ineffectively managed;

• Ineffective tyre management;

• Little or no evidence of load security training; and

• The undertakings given to the Traffic Commissioner at the Public Inquiry when the licence was granted were not being adhered to – no evidence of an active CPC qualified Transport Manager in place. A contract between the operator and Gareth Evans for transport manager services was sent to OTC in July 2013, however when VE Crawford interviewed Mr Evans about the relationship, he was clear that he had not been an “active” transport manager on the licence for a very long period of time – for at least 6 years and possibly 10. He had received no payment for services since then.

Public Inquiry

In light of the information received from DVSA, the operator was called to a public inquiry to consider whether the operator remained fit to hold an operator’s licence, whether he continued to have sufficient financial resources to keep his vehicle in a fit and serviceable condition, whether he had had prohibition notices issued to his vehicle, had fulfilled the statements made when he applied for the licence and had honoured the undertakings he signed up to, including the particular undertakings he agreed to at the public inquiry in 2013. The call up letter advised the operator that a public inquiry would be held at 10am on 24 June 2025 in Pontypridd. The call up letter explained that, if the operator did not attend, the case would be heard in its absence. It also clearly explained the regulatory action that I might take. The operator was asked to send recent documents evidencing his compliance with the operator’s licence requirements to VE Crawford, and evidence of finances to my office in advance of the hearing.

Kenneth Hale emailed my office on 11 June 2025. Attached to his email was a letter in relation to the call to public inquiry, indicating that he had decided to retire from the transport industry with immediate effect and seeking to surrender his operator’s licence with immediate effect. He was informed by email on 13 June 2025 that I had considered his request and had refused to accept the surrender of the licence in accordance with section 16(4) of the Act, given these regulatory proceedings. He was advised that he was still required to attend the public inquiry hearing on 24 June 2025.

The public inquiry called in Pontypridd on 24 June 2025. In advance of the hearing, VE Crawford produced an update statement dated 19 June 2025 confirming that he had not received any of the requested documents from the operator, and that statement was served on the operator before the hearing. The operator did not attend the inquiry hearing and did not submit any written representations in advance of the hearing. Nor did the operator submit evidence of his financial resources as requested. I was satisfied that the call up letter and Brief were properly served on the operator and that it was in the interests of justice to proceed with the hearing in his absence. I indicated that I would make my decision on the evidence available to me included in the public inquiry brief and the VE’s update statement, and I reserved my decision.

Findings

I make the following findings based on the evidence before me and on the balance of probabilities:

The operator’s vehicle has been issued with prohibition notices in the past five years (section 26(1)(c)(iii) of the Act refers);

Statements made by the operator when applying for the licence have not been fulfilled, namely that vehicles would be inspected at the 6 weekly intervals he promised they would be (section 26(1)(e) of the Act refers);

The operator has failed to honour the undertakings on the licence, namely, that vehicles would be kept fit and serviceable, that drivers would report promptly any defects or symptoms of defects that could prevent the safe operation of vehicles and that any defects would be promptly recorded in writing; that the operator would employ a CPC qualified transport manager for a minimum of 5 hours per week and that any change to that transport manger arrangement would be notified to my office in writing (section 26(1)(f) of the Act refers);

By failing to attend the public inquiry hearing or provide any of the requested documentation, the operator has shown that he is not fit to hold an operator’s licence. In view of my findings about the operator’s failures I am entitled to question his fitness to hold a licence. I find that there has been a material change in circumstances of the licence holder, namely that he no longer remains of the required fitness to hold an operator’s licence. Furthermore, in the absence of any financial evidence, I am not satisfied that the operator holds the necessary financial resources to hold a restricted heavy goods vehicle operator licence (section 26(1)(h) of the Act refers).

Balancing exercise and decisions

In considering the balancing exercise to determine appropriate regulatory action, I have considered the negative and positive features of this case. On the negative side there was ineffective management control and insufficient procedures in place to prevent operator licence compliance failings. There was ineffective or insufficient driver training particularly as regards driver defect reporting and load security. There is no evidence before me that the operator has made sufficient and effective changes to ensure future compliance. There was an “S” marked prohibition notice issued at MOT and the operator has a low average first time pass rate at MOT with multiple failure items found at test – his initial fail rate at 83.33% is more than 6 times higher than the national HGV average. There is evidence of previous unsatisfactory maintenance investigations in respect of the licence previously held by the operator and which was revoked following the same adverse findings made by the Traffic Commissioner then – prohibition notices issued, statements of intent not fulfilled, and undertakings not honoured. This licence was only granted by my predecessor, Traffic Commissioner Jones, upon acceptance by Mr Hale that there would be a qualified transport manager engaged by him for a minimum of 5 hours per week, with any change to that arrangement to be notified to my office. Although there was a satisfactory arrangement in place at the time of licence grant, there has been no active transport manager on this licence for a very long time – the evidence suggests between 6 and 10 years. The evidence demonstrates that Mr Hale is a danger to road safety. There is very little to put on the positive side of the balance, other than the fact that the operator co-operated with the enforcement investigation. Mr Hale’s failure to attend the hearing or provide documentation meant that he passed up the opportunity of demonstrating how he is acting in compliance with the licensing requirements or explaining any of these serious failures, particularly his failure to adhere to undertakings he gave the Traffic Commissioner to persuade him to grant this licence. The negative features of this case, as set out in my findings above, significantly outweigh the positives. I consider that this case falls into the “severe to serious” category when considering the starting points for regulatory action and having regard to the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document 10.

I find the answer to the Priority Freight (2009/225) question of how likely is it that the operator will comply in the future to be “unlikely”. That is in view of the findings I have made and outlined above. In considering the Bryan Haulage (no.2)(2002/217) question “is the conduct such that the operator ought to be put out of business?”, I have had regard to the positive and negative features of the case. However, the evidence demonstrates to me that the operator fails to operate in a compliant manner, fails to honour bespoke undertakings given to the regulator which were designed to give assurance that there would be continuous and effective management of the transport aspects of this operation, and that the operator is no longer fit to hold an operator’s licence. I consider that it is both proportionate and appropriate to answer the Bryan Haulage question in the affirmative and revoke this licence with effect from 23:45 hours on 30 June 2025 to allow a short period for an orderly run down, noting that Kenneth Hale has indicated that he no longer intends to operate.

I make no order for disqualification under section 28 of the Act, however, should Kenneth Hale wish to apply for another operator’s licence in the future he will need to satisfy the Traffic Commissioner that he meets the statutory requirements, and this Decision will be highly relevant in that regard.

Victoria Davies Traffic Commissioner for Wales

24 June 2025