Decision for K Thorburn Ltd (OB2065197 & OD2061059) and transport manager Kyle David Thorburn
Source: gov.uk (2025-11-21)

Written decision of the Deputy Traffic Commissioner in the North East of England Traffic Area for K Thorburn Ltd and transport manager Kyle David Thorburn

NORTH EAST OF ENGLAND TRAFFIC AREA

K THORBURN LTD - OPERATOR OB2065187 and OD2061059

KYLE DAVID THORBURN - TRANSPORT MANAGER

BEFORE: MR M HINCHLIFFE

SITTING AT LEEDS ON 7 OCTOBER 2025

DECISION

Under S.27(1)(a) and (b) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995, with reference to S.13A(2)(a),(b), and (3)(a), and Schedule 3, and also under S.26(1)(b),(e),(f) and (h) - both operator’s licences OB2065187 and OD2061059 are revoked forthwith.

Under S.28(1), the operator is disqualified indefinitely from holding or obtaining an operator’s licence in all traffic areas. Under S.28(5) Kyle David Thorburn is also disqualified indefinitely (whether as an operator, director or partner) from holding or obtaining an operator’s licence in all traffic areas.

Under Paragraph 16(1) and (2) of Schedule 3, I find that Kyle David Thorburn is not of good repute as a transport manager and is not fit to serve in such a role for any operator in any traffic area. He is disqualified from acting as a transport manager indefinitely.

REASONS

K Thorburn Ltd is an operator that holds two goods vehicles standard international operator’s licences. OB2065187 has an operating centre near Hull and authorises 8 vehicles and 8 trailers, with 6 specified vehicles in possession. OD2061059 had an operating centre at Ross-on-Wye and authorises 2 vehicles and 2 trailers with (I was told) no specified vehicles in possession and no available operating centre. I was told that there is no intention of continuing to use this licence. Kyle David Thorburn has been nominated transport manager on both licences since they began. Joe Naylor was once an extra transport manager on the Hull licence, but he was removed as such on 9/9/24. The safety inspection frequency for any authorised specified vehicles and trailers on both licences is currently stated (as a binding statement of intent) to be 8 weeks.

Kyle David Thorburn is the principal director and principal shareholder of the operator company, and he is now the sole nominated transport manager on both licences. Both licences and Mr Thorburn as transport manager have been called before me at public inquiry. Mr Thorburn appeared at the hearing alone, and without representation.

Vehicle T2AOO was first specified on the OD licence and then, from 21/8/23, it was specified on the OB licence. It remained specified until 13/5/2024. Its most recent MOT certificate expired on 30/11/23 and it has not passed an MOT since then.

Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) systems recorded the use of this vehicle on the public roads in December 2023 (35 sightings), January 2024 (34 sightings) and February 2024 (145 sightings). As a consequence, the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) in Exeter emailed a letter to the operator asking for an explanation for the apparent repeated use of the vehicle without an MOT. That communication then triggered a lengthy and protracted exchange with Mr Thorburn (KT), which I summarise:

19/3/24 A DVSA letter was sent to the operator’s given email address referring to T2AOO being sighted on roads without a valid MOT. The letter said: “You are required to provide a fully detailed account of the process undertaken to investigate the circumstances leading to the stated offence. All of the information you provide must be detailed enough to demonstrate that suitable measures have been taken to ensure such shortcomings will not reoccur and give clear explanation of how compliance will be improved. Your submissions should be received by this office no later than 7 days from the date of this letter. Please note that this is an official request for information and a formal response is required. Failure to provide a suitable response to this request will result in further enforcement action by DVSA and/or a referral to the Traffic Commissioner.”

19/3/24 There was an email reply from KT. His complete response comprised: “This vehicle is in our yard in ross on wye and has not moved for weeks. It should be sorn as it has a mechanical fault and we are not intending on putting it back on the road”

19/3/24 The DVSA replied detailing the sightings and asking: “Please provide a detailed explanation as to why the vehicle was in use without a relative and current annual test certificate in force”

19/3/24 Email from KT: “I have no idea. I will need to look at this when i come back. Im sat in the airport waiting to fly out to florida for a couple of weeks with my kids and i will be back on Monday 8/4. I can only imagine that i’ve missed it for some reason. We have had some issues in hull with our maintenance garage and I’ve had swap as i wasn’t happy with how they were maintaining our vehicles. We have now found a garage who i feel is doing things properly and keeping our vehicles fully roadworthy. We keep our vehicles in a1 condition as I’m sure you can see with our roadside inspections and mot history. I can also provide you with the previous o licence number which also has no advisory history. With regards to T2AOO this vehicles has been sat in our Gloucester yard and should be sorn as we have no intention of putting it back on the road. I will be available for the next hour or so but then we fly out.”

19/3/24 Because KT said he was on holiday until 8/4/24, the DVSA extended the deadline for a substantive reply to 12/4/24.

15/4/24 The DVSA officer emailed KT: “I do not appear to have received your written response to this matter. To avoid this being marked as “no reply” - please can you get this to me no later than Wednesday 17th April.”

17/4/24 KT sent a letter to DVSA. He apologised for the MOT issue relating to T2AOO but seemed to suggest that the matter was the fault of his then maintenance providers in Hull. He added: “T2AOO is sorn off the road and has been for quite some time. We currently have no intention of putting that vehicle back on the road. We are looking to sell it and replace it with something newer.”

7/6/24 DVSA replied by letter, stating that KT’s response “gives no satisfactory explanation”. Accordingly, the DVSA had decided to carry out a desk-based review of records and management systems. Within 14 days the operator was required to provide:

Vehicle Management

Maintenance Records as listed below are required for 2 vehicles T2AOO and SD65DFE, and for 2 trailers for the period between 21 August 2023 and the date of this letter:
- All Preventative Maintenance Inspection (PMI) records and associated records and printouts.
- All Driver Defect Reports (DDRs) that record defects, and rectification details.
- All records of interim inspections, repairs and maintenance carried out between planned safety inspections.
Traffic Management

The records listed as follows are required for 2 vehicles T2AOO and SD65DFE and all the drivers that have driven those vehicles between 19 March 2024 to 30 April 2024:
- All drivers’ hours/tachograph records. Important: Send the raw data downloaded from both the driver cards and vehicle units that have been driven by the selected drivers during this period.
- Where tachograph records are used supply the analysis summaries for the stated reference period.
- Working time directive (WTD) records for the last completed reference period in accordance with the provisions of the Road Transport (Working Time) Regulations 2005.
- Copies (front and back) of the current driving licence and driver CPC.
24/6/24 The DVSA emailed a reminder letter to the operator, referring to the operator’s “Failure to respond to an official request for records and information”. The DVSA extended the deadline for a substantive response to 1/7/2024 and the operator was advised that if there was still no response, the matter would be referred to the Traffic Commissioner.

25/6/24 KT replied to DVSA by email saying: “The job is hard enough, keeping on top of our paperwork, maintenance, police roadside checks, divers hours & tachos etc. But when you realise the person you are meant to be keeping these records in order for can’t organise themselves it does make you wonder why you bother. Firstly, i did reply to your email. I was going on holiday and then i replied again (for the second time) with the person that had originally dealt with this a few months back in the southern region. I even composed a letter to the southern region explaining why and what was going on at the time … Hopefully this time you will register this email and not send me another in bold and underlined saying i have not replied.”

21/3/25 A letter from the Office of the Traffic Commissioner (OTC) was sent to the operator by email – the letter recorded that the documents and records requested by the DVSA on 7/6/24 had not been provided and therefore the DVSA had been prevented from conducting their investigation. The Traffic Commissioner, having considered the history of protracted communication between the DVSA and KT, proposed to revoke the operator licences but, before he did so (and as required by law) KT was advised that he may request a public inquiry which, if a public inquiry was to be requested, he had to do by 11/4/25.

21/3/25 Email reply from KT to the OTC: “What is going on here? I don’t appreciate threatening letters when taking into consideration your endangering numerous peoples livelihoods. This is completely unacceptable. I have not heard from you since we last spoke some time last year. I have responded quickly every-time you have been in contact with me. I would like to come to warrington and have a meeting please. I am not going round in circles and have you land an email or letter on my desk threatening to take away my business in another 8-12 months time as you have not been able to use a telephone or send out a letter or email.”

21/3/25 Reply from OTC: “This matter has been referred to the Office of the Traffic Commissioner by the DVSA. They attempted to carry out a desk-based assessment and were in back-and-forth communication with you regarding this. They sent letters requesting that records were provided to allow checks to be carried out. The DVSA do not appear to have received a response with the required records. As such, they could not conduct their investigation. If you have evidence of providing DVSA with the required information, please provide this by return for consideration. With regards to your request for a meeting in Warrington, please can you confirm whether you are requesting a public inquiry before the Traffic Commissioner regarding this matter. As you are based in the North East traffic area, any hearing would be held in Leeds.”

21/3/25 Reply from KT: “This is the first time i have heard of this since last year. I was in America in April last year. Am going back this year from 14/4 - 30/4. I will need to go back and see what emails were sent at that time. I remember speaking to the southern region regarding a matter for a wagon that had no mot but this was dealt with by them and then i had the same letter from a different region, which is why i said it was already dealt with. I have not heard anything since until today. I have no idea what information they need? Regarding the public inquiry, no this is not something i want nor would i like to waste tax payers money to conduct. I simply wanted a meeting with some from the office so we can put this to bed.”

27/3/25 Six days later, KT emailed: “I’ve had no reply again. Does this mean I’m going to get another threatening letter in 12 months?”

1/4/25 The OTC replied: “The options available to you are to request a public inquiry before the Traffic Commissioner. Alternatively, you can make written representations as to why the licence should not be revoked. This would need to include an explanation as to why previous correspondence went unanswered from the DVSA which meant they were unable to complete their investigation. Any email correspondence you can provide with DVSA would assist as I note that you state below you spoke to the southern region and then received a request from a different region. Please note that, as per our letter dated 21 March 2025, a response is required by 11 April 2025, otherwise your operator’s licence will be revoked by the Traffic Commissioner.”

9/4/25 KT sent an email to the OTC with a letter attached. He added that he would be on holiday from 14/4/25 to 5/5/25. In the letter, KT said that: “I have no intention to withhold information from DVSA, and I provided them with everything they required thought it was resolved”. KT added that the MOT issue “was sorted with” the Southern Region, and then he was contacted again by different region. He told them this had “already been dealt with and never heard any more about the matter until recently, more than a year later.”

1/5/25 KT emailed the OTC to say he was just back from holiday, and he asked: “Has this been sorted now?”

2/5/25 The matter was then reviewed within the OTC and referred by way of submission for a decision to be made on whether or not to call up the operator and transport manager for a public inquiry - which had not, formally, been requested. The decision was made to hold a public inquiry rather than revoke in the absence of a formal request. The case was passed to the PI team for listing and preparation.

13/8/25 The OTC sent an email enclosing the call-up letter to PI, with directions.

13/8/25 KT replied by email stating: “This is absolutely ridiculous. I have been in touch numerous times regarding this. I have all the evidence going back and forth regarding this matter. … I will be bringing a solicitor with me and i hope you have done your homework regarding all the information!”

20/8/25 Further email from KT. He enquired about what email addresses were used to communicate with him. It was noted that KT had responded to (albeit not necessarily appropriately) or acknowledged receipt of emails sent to him and it was hard to understand why he wanted to know which of his email addresses had been used. The only email addresses used were the ones KT himself offered for use, or he himself used to send emails and which were then replied to.

21/8/25 KT sent a letter to the OTC. He said that there had been: “some confusion on my part due to different areas dealing with the same issue I was told was resolved. I never received the letter from DVSA requesting the information … I have sent everything originally requested by DVSA to you via email.” Regarding the no MOT issue, KT said that: “The MOT ran out in Dec 23, and it was used for 2 weeks in December and 1 week in January … we booked it in for inspection to comply with our 8-weekly inspections. It was then discovered it had no MOT and was VOR immediately. The wagon was instead sold to a trader than us putting it back on the road as we didn’t require an extra HGV at the time. We also had a transport manager in during this time, Joe Naylor. Following this incident it quickly became apparent he was out of his depth, and I took back control of maintenance and daily running of vehicles before we had to eventually terminate his contract.” KT asked that the PI be discontinued.

22/8/25 OTC consulted the Traffic Commissioner and then replied to KT – PI to continue.

24/9/25 KT sent an email to the OTC re FP61VKD which had failed its MOT on 20/8/25. He enclosed what he said was the pre-MOT inspection report dated 25/7/25, and the subsequent invoice. As for the reason for the MOT fail: “It was a sensor nut needed a quarter of a turn to stop air leak, and then passed”

Along with his communication of 21/8/25, KT sent to the OTC by email a bundle of documents which, he said, were the documents that the DVSA had requested back in 7/6/24. The OTC forwarded these documents to the DVSA with a request for reports.

The DVSA Vehicle Examiner prepared a “Supplementary Statement” based on the maintenance documents emailed in by KT on 21/8/25. These comprised:
- Safety Inspection reports for SD65DFE (7/8/23, 3/11/23, 15/12/23, 20/2/24 with brake test results, 24/4/24, and 15/6/24). Apart from 20/2/24, no brake test results or reports are present. The dates show that the 8-weekly statement of intent has not been kept.
- Safety Inspection reports for T2AOO (8/8/23 and 6/11/23 - no brake test results or reports).
- A “vehicle history” for T2AOO prepared by KT, stating in writing that T2AOO had been sold on 7/2/2024.
- Safety Inspection reports for trailers C298482 (7/8/23, 27/9/23 with brake test results, 30/1/24, 4/3/24 with brake test results, 30/3/24, and 18/5/24) and C269437 (22/9/23 with brake test results, 6/11/23, 4/1/24, 26/2/24 with brake test results, 27/4/24 and 22/6/24).
- Daily driver defect reports – including 12 daily reports for T2AOO from January 2024 covering the period 8/1/24 to 30/1/24.
- Shift reports from 19/3/24 to 30/4/24 for a driver of SD65DFE (Robert John E Meffen) giving some start, drive, other work and end times – but no tachograph drivers hours data or analysis, mileage analysis, WTD records or copy driving licences and CPCs.
In his Supplementary Statement dated 28/8/25, the Vehicle Examiner analysed the maintenance documentation submitted and noted that a significant proportion of the safety inspections did not have an associated brake test, the inspection reports had stretched intervals and inconsistent recording of data, there were dangerous safety-critical defects found at safety inspection (including tyre worn to 0mm and brake inoperative) and defects found included driver reportable defects. Moreover, the driver defect reports included drivers ticking off components that were not actually fitted to vehicles, and records showed poor MOT rates compared with the national average.

The “Supplementary Report” dated 23/9/25 from the Traffic Examiner states that, in August 25, KT had sent in a “shift – by driver report” showing the driver’s name as Robert J E Meffen - dated between 19/03/2024 to 30/04/2024. However, “this was not a drivers’ hours infringement report”. In terms of the Traffic Management items actually requested by the DVSA back in June 2024, such as raw data, analysis, WTD records and copy driver licences and CPCs - there were still “No records/documents produced”.

The papers before me also contain DVSA ‘Encounter Reports’. These show an encounter on 20/2/24 involving vehicle FJ10CPX (specified on the Ross-on-Wye licence) and driver Kyle Thorburn. Tachograph downloads and analysis showed that KT had the following infringements - 4x Exceed 4.5 hrs driving; 1 x Exceed 10hr driving limit, and 2x Fail use tachograph. And less than five months ago, on 20/5/25, there was an encounter involving vehicle RK14ERJ. The vehicle had no valid Vehicle Excise licence and tachograph downloads and analysis showed that driver Matthew Holmes had the following infringements - 6x Fail use tacho; and 1 x Exceed 10hrs driving.

When the operator and KT were called up to public inquiry, directions were also issued. These were - by 23/9/25:
- Send to OTC original maintenance records for 3 vehicles and 3 trailers for the last three months (i.e. 13/5/25 to 13/8/25), along with the original maintenance contract.
- Send to OTC driver licence checks, infringement reports, vehicle download/missing mileage reports, CPD evidence and disciplinary records for 3 drivers.
Nothing was sent within the time limit specified but safety inspection reports for one vehicle and one trailer were sent to OTC on 24/9/25. The vehicle, HT14CBF, had numerous driver reportable defects and, on 29/3/25, a safety inspection was completed with no brake test at all. Trailer C178454 failed a brake test on 25/8/25 and then passed.

In addition, KT sent what he said was the pre-MOT inspection report for FP61VKD. The date of the inspection is recorded as 25/7/25. The (failed) MOT took place on 20/8/25. At the inspection, a long list of items had to be rectified including wiper blades, tachograph out-of-date, and bulbs out. An invoice for this work was also submitted. According to the Test Report in the papers, four weeks later the vehicle failed the MOT test for four items - 2x Markers & reflectors and 2x Brake systems and components.

I heard evidence from KT. He began by maintaining that, before the correspondence scheduled above, he had had earlier exchanges with “the Southern region”. They had looked into everything and told KT they were satisfied, and the matter was resolved. Thereafter, KT said he had become confused as to who was dealing with the case, and what it was that the DVSA actually wanted. He did not realise that the DVSA were looking for additional information. Had he realised this, he would have sent it. It was not, and had never been, KT’s intention to prevent a DVSA investigation – he believed he had done everything that had been asked of him.

As for the use of T2AOO without an MOT after its expiry on 30/11/23, KT said that he had not been aware of this until the vehicle went for a safety inspection in January 2024. When the issue was discovered, the vehicle was immediately designated ‘VOR’, and it was then sold on 7/2/24. He was therefore not responsible for the sightings of the vehicle after that date. KT confirmed in oral evidence that the vehicle had been sold on 7/2/2024 – as first set out by him in writing in the document headed “Vehicle History” at page 262 of the brief. I asked KT to explain why he had not mentioned this in his two separate emails of 19/3/24 (when he said the vehicle was in the yard and SORN) and 17/4/24 (when he said that he was looking to sell it and replace it with something newer). KT could not explain this. Nor could he explain why the vehicle was not removed from the licence as a specified vehicle until 13/5/24. And if he had not sold the vehicle in February, he could not explain the numerous ANPR sightings that month.

In his letter of 21/8/25, KT said that in January 2024: “we booked it (T2AOO) in for inspection to comply with our 8-week inspections.”. KT accepted that the previous inspection had been on 6/11/23, so the January inspection – when it was realised that the vehicle had no MOT – should have to be around 2/1/24. But the driver defect report forms submitted showed usage on 12 days from 8/1/24 to 30/1/24. KT could not identify the date of this alleged safety inspection but said there was no safety inspection report because, once it was realised that the vehicle was out of MOT, it was decided not to continue with the safety inspection and to stop using the vehicle and sell it. In his letter (p.311 of the brief), KT had said that the vehicle was used for “1 week in January”. When asked why he had said this when the daily driver defect reports showed usage on 12 different days from 8/1/24 to 30/1/24, KT testified that this meant that it had been used on around 7 days, spread out over the whole month.

In summary, KT held to his account of confusion caused by different offices or people dealing with different things, an insistence that he had not failed to co-operate with the DVSA – at least, not intentionally, and an assertion that his compliance arrangements were as they should be, and he had never cut corners on his maintenance. He worked hard and had a wife and four young children to maintain. He apologised for any failings caused by his mistake in not fully appreciating what he was being asked to do.

It is hard to know where to start with this evidence. KT has never produced evidence of any prior communication with a different DVSA office before the DVSA letter of 19/3/24 – which was sent from DVSA Exeter just weeks after the February 2024 use complained about. The DVSA themselves confirmed to colleagues that there were no other relevant communications with KT other than those set out above. Both on 21/3/25 and 1/4/25 the OTC had specifically invited KT to submit evidence of any other communications from or to the DVSA, but no such evidence was sent. Nor was anything additional brought along to the hearing. I am satisfied that no other relevant communications exist and that, at least in its essentials, the papers before me contain the full record of exchanges between KT and the DVSA – from beginning to end.

Unfortunately, I have to conclude that KT’s comparatively recent claim – made both in writing and orally to my face at the hearing - that vehicle T2AOO was sold on 7/2/2024 - is patently untrue. In two separate emails sent on 19/3/24 and again on 17/4/24, KT said that the vehicle was in his yard at Ross-on-Wye or Gloucester, and he made no mention of it having been sold. Indeed, on 17/4/24, he said: “T2AOO is sorn off the road and has been for quite some time. We currently have no intention of putting that vehicle back on the road. We are looking to sell it and replace it with something newer.”

This means that the usage in February 24 (145 ANPR sightings) remains unadmitted and unexplained. Moreover, KT’s oral evidence before me - that the written statement made to the OTC that vehicle T2AOO was used for “1 week in January” was technically true when it had been used for 12 days between 8/1/25 and 30/1/25 – defies reason and lacks credibility. In fact, all the usage without an MOT should have been reported by the operator to the Traffic Commissioner within 28 days of it becoming apparent. Nor is there logic to the idea that a safety inspection would be aborted due to a vehicle being out of MOT. The safety inspection, in fact, could have preceded submission for MOT.

The failure to explain usage without an MOT is what prompted the DVSA to request both maintenance and drivers’ hours/tachograph data in a letter from Elaine Prentice of the DVSA dated 7/6/24, and sent by email. To make the official nature of the DVSA letter clear, some sections were written in bold and underlined. It is apparent that KT received this request because, by email sent at 22:02 on 25/6/24 and commencing “Hi Elanie (sic)”, KT said he had responded to it. It is also clear beyond doubt that KT received the reminder dated 24/6/24 because he replied to it directly and, in his reply, he did not claim that he had not received the official request of 7/6/24. Rather, he said: “I did reply to your email” and launched into “The job is hard enough” etc - and then concluded with: “Hopefully this time you will register this email and not send me another in bold and underlined saying i have not replied.” In the circumstances, I find that suggestions by KT that he did not get the DVSA request, or did not understand it, are untrue.

I accept that, more than 14 months after the official request was made in June 24, KT sent to the OTC in August 2025 a bundle of “Vehicle Management” maintenance records that substantially complied with the DVSA request of June 2024. This had not been established by evidence produced at the hearing, but I have subsequently gone back through all the individual maintenance records sent in (and forwarded to the DVSA) and, although they show a very poor level of compliance, they were at least, finally, sent. The same cannot be said for the request for “Traffic Management” drivers’ hours/tachograph data, analysis, WTD records, and driver licences/CPCs. This request, to this day, remains unanswered - which is concerning having regard to the Encounter Reports that show compliance infringements including not using a tachograph when required to do so, and including infringements by KT himself. The use of a vehicle in May 2025 without a Vehicle Excise Licence just continues the pattern. And then, despite the gravity of the situation, Case Management Directions (B) have not been complied with.

In the case of JWF (UK) LTD [2010] UKUT 469 (AAC), the Upper Tribunal said:

“5) It is abundantly clear from reading the reports of the Vehicle Examiner and, particularly, the Traffic Examiner, that this operator was intent, at all times, on avoiding proper contact with VOSA. That strategy of avoidance then continued in relation to the public inquiry. The Traffic Commissioner was entirely right to consider the alleged conduct of the operator in relation to VOSA investigations when she came to consider her own approach. …”

“7) Having regard to all the circumstances, the tribunal is of the view that, for the reasons she gave, the Traffic Commissioner’s decision to revoke this licence was plainly right. This operator had ample opportunity to engage in a professional and co-operative way with VOSA and with the Traffic Commissioner. If operators fail to do so, they cannot complain when such repeated and obvious avoidance of engagement results in the loss of a licence. In this case, serious questions relating to maintenance and road safety remained unanswered, quite apart from the other matters that seriously undermined the ability of VOSA and the Traffic Commissioner to investigate and regulate the activities of this operator effectively.”

“8) All operators have a positive duty to co-operate with VOSA and the Traffic Commissioner. This operator has manifestly failed to do so. From beginning to end there has been no sign of Mr Nazir Patel, the operator company’s sole director. In our view he was very lucky not to have been disqualified, indefinitely. The appeal is therefore dismissed.”

In Stuart McAuliffe [2013] UKUT 0395 (AAC) the Upper Tribunal said:

“The refusal of a Transport Manager to provide compliant documentation is a matter that is highly relevant to the issues of professional competence and good repute.”

Traffic Commissioners have to trust operators to be compliant and to demonstrate compliance when asked. There is no right to silence for an operator or transport manager when called upon to account for apparent use of a vehicle without an MOT, or to provide key data. There is a duty of candour, too – that is, an obligation to tell the truth, especially when looking directly at a Traffic Commissioner at a public inquiry.

Before asking, and answering, the necessary questions, I do my best to extract and consider such positive features as there are. First, this is a first public inquiry. Second, I am not faced with a serious road traffic accident or a catalogue of “S” marked prohibitions. Third, albeit 14 months late, the requested “Vehicle Management” maintenance documents were finally produced for consideration and analysis by the DVSA, and there was in place a maintenance regime of sorts. And fourth, KT has built up a niche business, and loss of the operator’s licence will bring that business to an end.

But the extent of non-co-operation, obfuscation and confrontation in this case is truly astonishing. In what can only be seen as a deliberate strategy, KT has - throughout - adopted a challenging and dishonest approach, both to the DVSA and to the OTC, and the dishonesty at any rate continued right up to, and including, the public inquiry. KT has also sought to diminish and belittle the serious maintenance failings that emerged once documentation was produced. Even the recent MOT failure by FP61VKD for four items, including brake systems and components, is reduced by KT to the turn of a nut.

Do I trust the operator to be compliant in the future? Of course not. Does the operator deserve to be put out of business – I’m afraid the answer has to be ‘yes’, because if the business depends for its existence on holding an operator’s licence, then I cannot see any way, or any time in the future, when this would be feasible or workable. The conduct of the operator and its transport manager are intertwined, and it is not really possible or realistic to disentangle or separate the role of one from the other. In reality, they are both KT. The strategic campaign of non-co-operation, challenge, lies and obfuscation directly affects the repute of both the operator and transport manager. It has made it impossible to imagine either the DVSA or the Traffic Commissioner being able to work constructively with KT in the future, to have trust in him, and to take him at his word.

With regard to the operator, I find loss of repute and a breach of the statements of intent and undertakings given in relation to making and keeping proper maintenance and drivers’ hours/tachograph records and making those records available on request. Several safety inspection intervals were stretched beyond 8 weeks. Insufficient brake testing was done. The driver defect reporting system was poor at picking up obvious and, sometimes, safety-critical defects, and a vehicle was run for three months without an MOT. Not only was this matter not reported to the OTC by the operator, as it should have been, but it was the subject of avoidance, combative denial, and dishonesty.

It is not possible to know the level of compliance or non-compliance with driver’s hours and working time directive obligations because the required raw data has not been seen and analysed. I doubt that it exists. The business of this operator was the carriage by large vehicles of static caravans and mobile homes on the roads, and the potential on-the-road consequences of a badly maintained vehicle or a tired driver are grave indeed.

In reality, the two licences are not separate entities - they are part of the same business, held by the same operator, controlled by the same director and shareholder, and have the same transport manager. Licence OD2061059, in addition, no longer has an operating centre or vehicles in possession. Therefore, with some regret but no hesitation, I revoke both of the operator’s licences held by this operator, forthwith.

I judge that this is a case that cries out for an indefinite disqualification. I just do not see how any new business run by KT that requires an operator’s licence could be fitted comfortably into today’s modern compliance and operator licencing regimes with any degree of confidence. The time may come, perhaps, when KT finally realises how his conduct has made a bad situation far, far worse and, if so, it is open to him to apply to have the disqualifications cancelled. But I cannot foresee any such application succeeding until many years have passed, if ever. I therefore disqualify K Thorburn Ltd indefinitely from holding an operator’s licence in any traffic area and, likewise, as its director I disqualify Kyle David Thorburn indefinitely from holding or obtaining an operator’s licence in any traffic area (whether as operator, partner or director).

In concluding that such revocations and disqualifications are proportionate, including consideration under Paragraph 16(1) of Schedule 3, I judge that it is not so much that there is an additional reason for the disqualifications over and above the reasons given for revocation, it is simply that this case is almost as bad as it gets when it comes to endless non-co-operation, deliberate and confrontational obfuscation, and dishonesty in the operator’s dealings with the DVSA and the Traffic Commissioner. If a person conducts themselves in such a way as to deliberately disrupt and undermine the integrity and the efficient and effective functioning of the compliance and operator licencing systems (or attempts to do so) it generally becomes not just proportionate, but necessary, to exclude them from such systems in the future. There is no alternative.

For the same intertwined reasons, I find that Kyle David Thorburn has lost his repute as a transport manager, and he is not currently fit to occupy that function with any operator. I disqualify him from serving as a transport manager on any licence indefinitely. I have considered whether there is a remedial step that could be taken to restore repute but, on the facts of this case, there is nothing that springs to mind.

Mark Hinchliffe

Deputy Traffic Commissioner

10/10/2025