Decision for National Refrigerants Ltd (OF1023749)
Source: gov.uk (2025-11-13)

Written confirmation of the decision of the Deputy Traffic Commissioner in the East of England for National Refrigerants Ltd and driver Liam Wale

IN THE EASTERN TRAFFIC AREA

NATIONAL REFRIGERANTS LTD – OF1023749

LIAM WALE – DRIVER

CONFIRMATION OF THE DEPUTY TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER’S DECISION

Decision

Pursuant to adverse findings under Section 26(1)(b),(e), (f) and (h) of the Goods Vehicle (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995, and further to the Undertakings given below Licence OF1023749 held by National Refrigerants Ltd is curtailed under section 26(1) of the Act with effect from 23:45 hours on Sunday 26 October 2025 and limiting the number of vehicles authorised under the licence to 5 vehicles and 2 trailers indefinitely.

Undertakings

The operator undertakes to identify an independent body to carry out an audit of transport safety and compliance systems. The audit will assess the systems for complying with maintenance and/or drivers hours requirements, and the effectiveness with which those systems are implemented. The audit should cover at least the applicable elements detailed in the guidance on Operator Compliance Audits available at: www.gov.uk/government/publications/operator-compliance-audits (http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/operator-compliance-audits). A copy of the report together with the operator’s detailed proposals for implementing the report’s recommendations is to be uploaded to the licence record via the Vehicle Operator Licensing self-service account, or, if the operator does not have a self-service account, emailed to xxx@xxx.xx (mailto:xxx@xxx.xx) by 31 May 2026.

The operator undertakes to instruct a specialist transport consultant to provide support and assistance as necessary for an average of one day a week for the next six months and for one day a month for the second six months until 21 October 2026 or until such time that a standard national licence may be granted on the licence.

Mr Liam Wale is provided with a strong formal warning that should similar incidents be before a traffic commissioner in the future it is not possible to rule out more formal regulatory action.

Reference to pages in the Public Inquiry Brief are in square brackets e.g. [101].

Background

This case is called under sections 26 and 28 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (GVLOA 1995) and sections 110-128 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. It is a conjoined hearing relating to alleged breaches of the operator’s licence OF1023749 by the operator, National Refrigerants Ltd and driver conduct relating to driver, Mr Liam Wale.

The public inquiry at 10.00 am on 22 October 2025 was attended by Mr Paul Mottram, one of the operator’s three directors, Mr Rob Schofield, the Operations Director and Mr Peter Gale, a specialist transport consultant. They were represented by Mr Christopher Harrington solicitor from CE Transport Law Ltd. Mr Wale also attended the hearing.

The history of this matter is within the inquiry brief with a concise background in the case summary [3-4] and the call-in letter of 20 August 2025 [6-15]. I need not repeat this. In outline, the operator was granted a Restricted Goods Vehicle Licence on 22 September 2003. It is currently authorised for 7 vehicles and 2 trailers. It has 5 vehicles in possession working from its operating centre at 4 Watling Close, Sketchley Meadows, Hinckley LE10 3EZ. Its main area of business is supplying refrigerants and associated products and services to the refrigeration industry.

Recent regulatory history included an investigation by DVSA in March 2020. A warning letter referring to driver and operational management was issued by the Office of the Traffic Commissioner (OTC) on 26 November 2020 [117] following an offer to undertake an audit. The undertaking was marked as fulfilled in April 2021.

The recent referral to the traffic commissioner follows a roadside check on 8 August 2024, when the analysis of vehicle data for vehicle BT72FZD showed five apparent offences of driving without a card for Mr Wale. DVSA analysed further data and found 11 occasions where Mr Wale had removed his card and continued to drive, often in excess of 4.5 hours without the required breaks.

On 4 October 2024 Mr Wale and Mr Mottram, the operator’s director was interviewed by the DVSA. Mr Mottram confirmed a basic knowledge of the drivers’ hours regulations and explained that analysis was undertaken by external consultants. Drivers’ daily instructions were overseen by Dave Briars. Mr Mottram accepted the operator should have picked up the offences earlier but explained that additional systems and training were being put in place to ensure this would not recur. Mr Wale was dismissed.

A Traffic Examiner Visit Report (TEVR) of 4 October 2024 received a satisfactory marking noting that the operator would benefit from training. Mr Wale was convicted 7 January 2025 for 12 offences of ‘record data known to be false on a tachograph or on a driver card’. (REDACTED) On 30 April 2025 an application was granted increasing the licence authorisation to 7 vehicles and 2 trailers.

The call-in letter referred to potential breaches of the following provisions of the GVLOA 1995:
- section 26(1)(b) and a breach of licence conditions including the failure to notify the Traffic Commissioner that it is unable to meet the operator licence requirements;
- section 26(1)(e) and a failure to fulfil statements made in the licence including to abide by conditions;
- section 26(1)(f) relating to undertakings given when applying for the licence including that vehicles are to be fit and serviceable, the rules on drivers’ hours and tachographs would be observed, that drivers would report promptly any defects or symptoms of defects that could prevent the safe operation of vehicles and/or trailers and that any defects would be promptly recorded in writing and that the traffic commissioner would be informed of any changes or convictions; and,
- section 26(1)(h) and a failure to notify the Traffic Commissioner of a material change in the operations relating to fitness and sufficient financial resources.
The call-in letter to Mr Liam Wale of 20 August 2025 explained that the hearing would consider whether he should retain his LGV driving entitlement [282-285].

The evidence and findings

I noted at the outset of the hearing that I was satisfied as to the operator’s financial resources. Relevant evidence considered at the hearing included the DVSA reports, and information provided by the operator including policies on driver management and maintenance. During the hearing the operator accepted the findings in DVSA reports. I heard oral evidence from Mr Mottram, Mr Gale and Mr Wale.

As this is an existing licence, the burden is on me to be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence as against the civil standard of proof, (i.e. on the balance of probabilities or, more likely than not) before making an adverse finding. Applying those standards to the evidence before me I make the following findings.

Mr Mottram was open and honest about the operator’s shortcomings and his limited awareness of operational activities relating to the licence. I find that the operator had attempted to manage the operator’s licence according to good practice and to employ managers to ensure that there would be licence compliance. However, it was accepted by Mr Mottram that the steps taken during 2024 and into 2025 were not fully successful. This included the availability of specialist transport consultants to provide bespoke advice about compliance, but this simply was not used. There was a willingness by senior management to take action, but it was not put into effect.

I find that more recently (i.e. within the last two months) and with some focus on the public inquiry further material, positive changes and re-adjustment have taken place. This has included updating the maintenance agreement for vehicles, securing more intense specialist transport consultancy and fundamental appraisal of key staff, including management that had the primary ‘transport manager’ role.

One key finding drawn from Mr Gale’s evidence was that while Mr Mottram was the ‘person responsible’ for the operator’s licence internally he had, perhaps understandably for the managing director of a business of this size and structure, delegated the tasks of the person responsible to a colleague, Dave Briars, but Mr Briars had not then acted as a person responsible under an operator’s licence, possibly because, in terms of any obligations under the licence, he wasn’t actually the ‘person responsible’.

Having regard to the above, and the submissions and acknowledgements by the operator, I find that there have been the following breaches of the GVLOA 1995:
- section 26(1)(b) and a breach of licence conditions including the failure to notify the Traffic Commissioner that it is unable to meet the operator licence requirements;
- section 26(1)(e) and a failure to fulfil statements made in the licence including to abide by conditions;
- section 26(1)(f) relating to undertakings given when applying for the licence including that vehicles are to be fit and serviceable that the traffic commissioner would be informed of any changes; and,
- section 26(1)(h) and a failure to notify the Traffic Commissioner of a material change in the operations relating to fitness.
Having made the above findings, I remind myself of relevant provisions from the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document 10 including paragraph 4 and that the legislation exists to promote road safety and fair competition and that commissioners will: “have regard to the principle of proportionality in deciding what intervention is commensurate with the circumstances of each individual case”. At paragraph 50 it also notes that:
- “A traffic commissioner should consider all the relevant negatives and positives when balancing the relevant factors and so should also carry out an assessment of the weight to be given to all the various competing elements. …”
On the positive side the operator has taken a series of material and positive steps towards compliance. However, because some of the action and procedures are recent it is not possible to draw upon extensive evidence of full compliance.

The negative factors are a number of breaches of legislation and some unsatisfactory shortcomings evident from a review of the operator’s driver management and maintenance documentation. One of the difficulties is that Mr Mottram as the person responsible on the licence has not been the fully aware of nature and extent of their responsibilities under the licence mainly because the operator had employed staff to help ensure that senior management were informed of those responsibilities; and, importantly, any potential liability arising from the responsibilities. Yet, operators are deemed to know the advice and guidance that is publicly available. In LA & Z Leonida t/a ETS [2014] UKUT 0423 (AAC) the Upper Tribunal noted that:
- … it does not matter whether an operator’s licence is held by an owner operator, a partnership or a limited company because in each case the person or persons responsible for managing the business bear the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that the road transport aspect of the business operates in compliance with the regulatory regime. That means that they cannot plead ignorance or put the blame on the transport manager because they are required to have sufficient knowledge of the regulatory regime to ensure compliance in general and the proper performance of the transport manager’s duties in particular.
I also take into account the fact that the products being delivered may be regarded as playing an important role in civil society in the delivery of refrigerants to businesses and commercial enterprises. This point may be regarded as being a positive feature. However, it places a greater responsibility on the operator to get its licencing obligations fully compliant (and so it may be a potentially be a negative factor if it is not compliant).

Taking into account the positive and negative factors and by reference to the suggested starting points of regulatory action found in Statutory Document 10, Annex 4, I find that this case may be regarded as serious to moderate. I also have regard to the effect of the regulatory action proposed on the business. Do consider that I can trust this operator going forward and it would be disproportionate to impose regulatory action that materially restricted the operations going forward.

Accordingly, I am curtailing indefinitely the number of vehicles on licence OF1023749 from 7 vehicles to 5 vehicles from 23.45 hours on Sunday 26 October 2025. I do so as a way to encourage continuous improvement in performance. In particular, should the business need to increase its fleet, it will need to apply to vary its licence, and any such application will benefit from evidence of continuing improvement and compliance in the light of this decision. Any such application will no doubt be assisted by a positive independent audit arising from the undertaking now provided to me. In that regard, the audit undertaking will have a long-stop date for compliance but there is no reason why the audit and responses cannot be brought forward.

Driver conduct

I provide a strong formal warning to Mr Wale that should similar incidents be before a traffic commissioner in the future I cannot rule out the possibility of more formal regulatory action. This is an exceptional departure from one reading of the suggested starting points in Statutory Document 6. However, I consider that there to be a number mitigating factors including: that this appeared to be Mr Wale’s first professional role after gaining his LGV licence in the army, that he had been provided with little or no training on starting for the operator and that there was some peer pressure on him to ensure that he finished his driving tasks. I also take into account the fact that after some period of reflection Mr Wale has been courageous enough to return to professional driving and that any formal regulatory action would, in my view, be counter-productive to his progress and could adversely impact on his career. Finally, I take into account the fact that the offences occurred some 14 months ago and after being fined for the breaches in the magistrates’ court there is little added deterrent value in any other regulatory action. Mr Wale has learnt from the incidents.

Undertakings

The operator undertakes to identify an independent body to carry out an audit of transport safety and compliance systems. The audit will assess the systems for complying with maintenance and/or drivers hours requirements, and the effectiveness with which those systems are implemented. The audit should cover at least the applicable elements detailed in the guidance on Operator Compliance Audits available at: www.gov.uk/government/publications/operator-compliance-audits (http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/operator-compliance-audits). A copy of the report together with the operator’s detailed proposals for implementing the report’s recommendations is to be uploaded to the licence record via the Vehicle Operator Licensing self-service account, or, if the operator does not have a self-service account, emailed to xxx@xxx.xx (mailto:xxx@xxx.xx) by 31 May 2026.

The operator undertakes to instruct a specialist transport consultant to provide support and assistance as necessary for an average of one day a week for the next six months and for 1 day a month for the second 6 months until 21 October 2026 or until such time that a standard national licence may be granted on the licence.

Dr Paul Stookes

Deputy Traffic Commissioner

22 October 2025