Decision for Gerald Parry Trading as Ger Minibus Hire (PG2002643)
Source: gov.uk (2025-05-23)

Written decision of the Traffic Commissioner for Wales for Gerald Parry Trading as Ger Minibus Hire and transport manager Gerald Parry

IN THE WELSH TRAFFIC AREA

DECISION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER FOR WALES

PUBLIC INQUIRY HELD AT PONTYPRIDD ON 1 MAY 2025

Gerald Parry Trading as Ger Minibus Hire PG2002643

& Transport Manager Gerald Parry

Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 (“the Act”)

Decisions made in respect of operator’s licence held by Gerald Parry PG2002643

Pursuant to adverse findings under sections 14ZA(2), 17(1)(a), 17(3)(a), (aa) and (c) of the Act, operator’s licence PG2002643 is revoked with effect from 23:45 hours on 16 June 2025.

Gerald Parry is disqualified from holding or obtaining an operator’s licence and from being involved in the management, administration or control of any entity that holds or obtains a licence in Great Britain for THREE years with effect from 23:45 hours on 16 June 2025.

Decisions made in respect of transport manager Gerald Parry

Transport Manager Gerald Parry no longer satisfies the requirements of section 14ZA(3) of the Act to be of good repute in accordance with Schedule 3 to the Act.

Pursuant to paragraph 7B(2) of Schedule 3 to the Act, Gerald Parry is disqualified from acting as a transport manager on an operator’s licence for THREE years with effect from 23:45 hours on 16 June 2025. As a rehabilitation measure, he is also required to re-sit and pass the transport manager CPC qualification exam before acting as a transport manager on an operator’s licence.

Background

Gerald Parry (trading as Ger Minibus Hire) holds a sole trader standard national PSV operator’s licence authorising 5 vehicles from two operating centres in Fishguard, South West Wales. The licence was granted on 22 May 2017. Until recently, the operator undertook a mixture of school transport contract work for the Local Authority and private hire work, including a twice daily private hire contract with Capestone Turkey Farm to transport its workers to and from its premises. However, the operator surrendered the local authority contracts in July 2024 to focus on the Capestone contract. Gerald Parry is also the Transport Manager on the licence.

Gerald Parry was called to a public inquiry on 7 November 2023 in his capacity as sole trader operator and as transport manager to consider maintenance compliance failings. The written confirmation of my decision given at that public inquiry is included at pages 90 to 93 of this latest public inquiry brief. I made adverse findings under sections 17(3)(a), (aa) and (c) of the Act and a finding that the operator’s repute was severely tarnished. I reduced the number of vehicles that could be operated from five to three vehicles for a period of 14 days in November 2023 and attached an undertaking for the operator to arrange an independent audit into his systems for complying with maintenance requirements (as proposed by the operator’s representative). That audit report, together with the operator’s proposals for implementing the report’s recommendations, was required to be sent to my office by 21 August 2024. I found that Gerald Parry’s good repute as transport manager was severely tarnished. The operator failed to fulfil that agreed undertaking.

On 11 July 2024 the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (“DVSA”) were conducting a routine check at Ysgol Bro Gwaun in Fishguard when one of the operator’s vehicles, driven by his son, Alex Parry, was issued with an “S” marked roadworthiness prohibition notice because the vehicle’s rear emergency door “open warning” device was not working. That is required to inform the driver that the door has opened and is a safety requirement for the safety of passengers and other road users. That prohibition notice then triggered a DVSA maintenance investigation. Vehicle Examiner (“VE”) Mark Davies carried out an investigation at the operator’s premises on 29 October 2024. His report following investigation was marked “unsatisfactory” and highlighted numerous concerns including the following:

• Inspection/maintenance records – safety inspection records missing; ineffective Vehicle Off Road system; concerns about reportable incidents not being reported;

• The same shortcomings found during the previous DVSA investigation that resulted in call to inquiry in 2023 still present with the assurances given following that previous investigation not being adhered;

• Driver defect walkaround and reporting system inadequate with evidence of defects which should have been reported by drivers found; and

• Transport manager was only partially aware of the systems in place and demonstrated ineffective control of the transport operation.

Gerald Parry was called to a public inquiry at Pontypridd in his capacity as both operator and transport manager to consider these issues and to consider whether he continued to meet the transport manager requirements to be of good repute and to be professionally competent.

Hearing

The Public Inquiry was listed for 1 May 2025 at 10.00am at the Office of the Traffic Commissioner for Wales in Pontypridd. It went ahead and was concluded on that date. Gerald Parry attended and was represented by Aled Owen, solicitor, of HCR Law.

Evidence

In addition to the papers in the Public Inquiry Brief I had also been provided, in advance of the hearing, with additional evidence. VE Mark Davies had prepared a supplementary statement dated 14 April 2025 following his review of updated maintenance documents sent to him by the operator as directed in the call up letter. VE Davies’ statement was also served on the operator, and I received a letter dated 28 April 2025 from the operator’s transport consultant, Neil Thomas, broadly accepting VE Davies’ findings but clarifying a point about a recently adopted tyre policy, which had only been introduced by the operator that month. The date specified on the policy was the date that Mr Thomas had produced it, not the date that the operator adopted it. The operator had provided financial evidence in advance of the hearing which met the financial standing requirements. I also received a bundle from the operator’s representative which included written submissions, witness statements (from Gerald Parry and Alex Parry) and other documents, including an audit report from Neil Thomas, transport consultant.

The operator’s representative indicated that the evidence of the DVSA examiner included in the public inquiry brief and his supplementary statement was not contested by his client, apart from regarding the criticism of failure to follow his own tyre policy (which was explained by Mr Thomas in his letter already mentioned above), and also in respect of non-reporting of incidents that VE Davies maintained required to be reported. The suggestion from VE Davies was that this was deliberate non reporting to conceal dangerous incidents (evidence at pages 39-40 of the Brief), however the operator submitted that the two incidents referred to in the VE’s report did not fulfil the criteria of a reportable incident and the operator’s bundle included evidence in that regard.

Gerald Parry did not give oral evidence. His representative indicated that he fully accepted his failures as both operator and transport manager. As transport manager, he accepted that he had not exercised continuous and effective control, as required by the relevant legislation, and accepted that a finding that he had lost his repute as transport manager and his disqualification was inevitable. I was advised that an application to nominate his son, Alex Parry, as Transport Manager on the licence had been submitted to the OTC licensing staff in Leeds. However, that application was not before me and my clerk confirmed that, having checked the licensing system, the application was incomplete, and further information had recently been requested by OTC to enable the application to be processed. I was asked to grant a period of grace, the operator having acknowledged that the requirement of professional competence was no longer met, to allow time for the application to add Alex Parry as transport manager to be processed. I was also advised that it was the intention that an application for a new licence would be made in the very near future by Parrys Travel Ltd, a limited company of which Alex Parry is now the sole director (his father having recently resigned as the other director). It is intended that the company will take over the operation of the business previously operated by Gerald Parry as a sole trader. In view of this information, I heard evidence from Alex Parry and from Neil Thomas, transport consultant, who both responded to questions from Mr Owen and from me. I heard closing submissions from Mr Owen, and I then reserved my decision.

Findings of fact

It is clear from the DVSA evidence, which was accepted by the operator, that safety inspections were not all carried out when they should have been. Accordingly, I find that statements made by the operator when applying for the licence have not been fulfilled, namely that vehicles would be inspected at the six weekly intervals the operator promised they would be and find that section 17(3)(a) of the Act is made out.

The evidence is clear that the operator failed to comply with the undertakings on the licence that its vehicles would be kept fit and serviceable as evidenced by the prohibition notices issued and poor MOT pass rate. There is clear evidence of drivers failing to report defects that could prevent the safe operation of the vehicles promptly in writing. The evidence about the driver defect walkaround check and reporting on the day of the “S” marked prohibition issued at the school in Fishguard in July last year was conflicting. The operator’s own evidence (paragraph 13 of his statement to the inquiry) states that the driver did not complete a driver defect report upon completion of his check, although maintains that a pre-journey check was carried out. Whereas VE Davies’ evidence (page 45 of the Brief) is that the driver, Alex Parry, confirmed on the day of the check that he did not check the operation of the door open warning device as part of his daily check. He also refers to a driver defect report for that day which shows “nil defects”. However, Alex Parry, when questioned about this disparity, was adamant that he was the driver, and he had carried out his check which included the operation of that door warning device. He could not explain why VE Davies had included that in his report but said that it was possible that he might have said something which was misinterpreted by the issuing officer, particularly as he was nervous and concerned at the time. That instance aside, in relation to which I cannot make a finding due to the conflicting evidence before me, I find on the evidence from the DVSA and from Neil Thomas, the operator’s own transport consultant, that there were instances of driver reportable defects found at safety inspections, and the defect found to a passenger seat belt during VE Davies’ fleet check was a defect that should have been identified by the driver at walkaround check. On the evidence before me, which was conflicting, I do not make a finding that the operator deliberately failed to report incidents to the DVSA in order to hide reportable incidents. I find that the undertaking that the operator must keep records for 15 months of safety inspections and routine maintenance and make them available on request was not complied with given the multiple missing inspection records at the time of the DVSA visit in October 2024.

It was accepted by the operator at the public inquiry in November 2023 that there were still concerns about his future compliance with maintenance requirements, particularly regarding brake testing. As referenced in my written reasons following that inquiry, Gerald Parry gave me assurances that he would continue to engage with Neil Thomas, transport consultant, and I was asked to trust him to comply going forward. Mr Thomas’ evidence at this public inquiry was that he was only engaged for about a month after those assurances were given to me by Mr Parry and he was only re-engaged in preparation for this inquiry. Mr Parry’s representative proposed an undertaking to be attached to the licence to give me the assurance that he was taking his obligations seriously and implementing the changes discussed and the undertaking that he would arrange an audit of his maintenance compliance systems and send that to my office along with his proposals for implementing any recommendations made was attached. Gerald Parry accepts that he failed to comply with that undertaking. In his evidence he describes this failure as “an oversight with no disrespect intended”. Accordingly, I find that section 17(3)(aa) of the Act is made out.

It is undisputed that the operator has been issued with prohibition notices by the DVSA in the past 5 years. Accordingly, I find that section 17(3)(c) of the Act is made out.

I find that there have been persistent operator licence failures, with many of the same failures found by the DVSA in October 2024 that were present in 2023, and in relation to which I made adverse findings in my decision at public inquiry on 7 November 2023, when I found the operator’s repute was severely tarnished. Those same failures persisted as at the date of this latest public inquiry, and I find that there has been a wholly inadequate response by the operator who did not retain the services of external consultants, as he assured me he would. He also failed to arrange for an audit of his maintenance systems and send the audit report to my office in August 2024, as he had undertaken to do as a condition of his licence being allowed to continue in November 2023. Given the DVSA findings in October 2024, it is highly likely that any audit report would have found his systems for complying with maintenance obligations to be unsatisfactory, which would have resulted in him being called to another public inquiry, as Mr Parry would have been aware. There have been insufficient changes made to ensure future compliance, with the supplementary report prepared by the DVSA examiner for this public inquiry highlighting ongoing issues of compliance and, indeed, the operator’s own audit report also identifying continuing failures as to brake testing and driver defect reporting. The operator has a high prohibition rate, with its mechanical prohibition rate more than double the national PSV average (44.44% compared to the national average of 17.17%). The operator’s first-time pass rate at MOT is low – the initial fail rate of 28.5% is well over double the national average (10.73%), although I do note that there have been no failures since the last public inquiry. There was ineffective management control and insufficient procedures in place to prevent the operator licence compliance failings found by the DVSA. There was ineffective or insufficient driver training with insufficient monitoring and disciplinary procedures in place, particularly as regards driver walkaround checking and completion of the driver defect report. All these findings, but particularly the absence of any evidence to show, even by the date of the inquiry, that proper brake testing was being carried out or that vehicles were being properly maintained according to a planned maintenance schedule leads me to find that road safety has been significantly compromised by the operator’s actions.

Gerald Parry fully accepts that, as transport manager, he failed effectively and continuously to manage the transport activities of his business. On the evidence, I have no hesitation in finding that he failed in that regard.

Considerations and Decisions in respect of the operator

I have weighed up the adverse findings set out above with the positive features in this case in considering regulatory action. There is little to put on the positive side of the balance, although I do note that the situation as to missing inspection reports, though still unsatisfactory, had improved between the DVSA visits in 2023 and 2024. As mentioned above, the operator’s initial fail rate at MOT remains poor, although there had been no further failures since the last inquiry.

Balancing these negative and positive features and having regard to the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document 10 (“Stat Doc 10”), Annex 4, I consider this case to be in the “severe to serious” category. In determining whether the operator continues to satisfy the mandatory and continuing requirement to be of good repute in section 14ZA(2) of the Act I have had regard to Schedule 3 to that Act and the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document No. 2 on good repute and fitness. I found the operator’s repute to be severely tarnished at a public inquiry only 18 months’ ago and determined that the regulatory starting point then was “severe to serious”. Gerald Parry made promises and gave me assurances at that inquiry which persuaded me to allow his licence to continue. However, only weeks later, he stopped using the external transport consultant and then failed to comply with the undertaking he had given to arrange an audit. Shortly after that audit report was due, the DVSA found many of the same serious operator licence compliance failings were continuing. Of particular concern for an operator who carried school children were the DVSA findings as to missing safety inspections and brake testing arrangements. Those failures give rise to obvious road safety concerns and the operator’s failure to follow through on assurances he gave me goes directly to the question of repute and trust.

Even when balancing the positives, I find that I am no longer able to trust the operator. I simply do not believe the assurances given that he would operate compliantly in future with his son as his transport manager. Despite being given an opportunity to demonstrate that he could operate compliantly following the public inquiry in November 2023, the operator was not doing so at the time of the VE visit in October 2024 and was still not doing so at the time of this inquiry hearing. In Arnold Transport & Sons Ltd v DOENI (NT/2013/82) the Upper Tribunal said:

• “The Tribunal has stated on many occasions that the operator 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 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…cutting corners all too easily leads to compromising safe operation. It is important that operators understand that if their actions cast doubt on whether they can be trusted to comply with the regulatory regime they are likely to be called to a Public Inquiry at which their fitness to hold an operator’s licence will be called into question. It will become clear, in due course, that fitness to hold an operator’s licence is an essential element of good repute.”

I ask myself the question posed in Priority Freight (2009/225), “how likely is it that this operator will, in future, operate in compliance with the operator’s licensing regime?” I have had regard to the failures I have found proved which are serious and persistent. Gerald Parry has failed to heed an earlier warning given at public inquiry only 18 months’ ago. He failed to fulfil the audit undertaking he proposed and agreed to at that inquiry and I do not accept his explanation that this was simply “an oversight”. As at the date of this inquiry, he was unable to demonstrate that he was complying with maintenance requirements, although he had re-engaged Mr Thomas in the run up to this inquiry to assist with his compliance systems, which had improved since October, but were still lacking in many respects, particularly as to brake testing and maintenance scheduling. He previously engaged Mr Thomas prior to a public inquiry, gave assurances about retaining his services, only then to stop using him, allowing standards to fall again to the poor level found in the latest maintenance report. In my written reasons following the public inquiry in 2023 I referred to a clear succession plan that I was told about which involved Alex Parry sitting the transport manager CPC and taking over in that capacity and a new licence application soon to be made with Alex Parry and Gerald Parry as named directors who would run the business in that different legal entity. Although Alex Parry has passed his transport manager CPC, no application had been made to add him to this licence by the time these public inquiry papers were prepared, although an application has been made since then which was incomplete at the date of the hearing. I heard evidence about why the “succession plan” I was told about in 2023 had not come to fruition and, as I was told in 2023, that Gerald Parry no longer intends to continue as a sole trader operator. Alex Parry currently has no formal responsibilities in terms of the operation of this licence or the management of its transport operations. Those responsibilities rest entirely with his father, Gerald Parry, who is a sole trader operator and the transport manager. Alex explained the difficulties he encountered when trying to persuade his father to re-engage Mr Thomas, which he had sought to do once or twice, and when trying to push the succession planning arrangements which had been outlined at the previous public inquiry. He had been “fobbed off” and, without a role in the business beyond being a PAYE driver, he felt it was very difficult to influence his father. I appreciate that giving evidence about his father in this way would not have been easy and I accepted Alex Parry’s evidence in that regard. I was invited to consider allowing the operator to continue operating with his son, Alex Parry, as transport manager on the licence. He has only recently qualified as a transport manager (December 2023), has no experience of working in that capacity for any other operator and, given the family dynamics and on the evidence before me, I don’t consider that arrangement is likely to lead to Gerald Parry complying in the future.

I have considered the evidence presented about the intentions for this family business going forward. It is the operator’s stated intention that he will cease trading as a sole trader and the business will be operated by Parrys Travel Ltd. An application is to be made imminently (I was told within a matter of days) for 4 authorised vehicles, and the nominated transport manager will be Alex Parry. He is also sole director of that company, Gerald Parry having recently resigned as a director. Gerald Parry does not intend to have any managerial or directing role in the new entity which will operate the business. I invited representations on the effect of disqualification of the operator if I were to revoke his licence. His representative submitted that, given what has been suggested as the succession plan and Gerald Parry’s intentions going forward it would not really be an issue, although Mr Parry would feel the loss of his personal dignity. In the circumstances, I was invited to consider that such action would not serve a purpose given what I had been told about Gerald Parry wishing to step back.

In considering the question posed in Bryan Haulage (No.2) (2002/217): is the conduct of the operator such that he ought to be put out of business? I had regard to the evidence and to Statutory Document 10. The operator has clearly compromised road safety by persistently failing to keep his vehicles fit and serviceable. The starting point for regulatory action is “severe to serious”. I also take the view that other operators who carry out their business in a compliant manner would be shocked if another operator were permitted to operate against this background. In the circumstances of this case, it is appropriate and proportionate to answer the Bryan Haulage question in the affirmative. I find that the operator has lost his good repute and I direct that the licence is revoked pursuant to adverse findings in terms of sections 14ZA(2), 17(1)(a), 17(3)(a), (aa) and (c) of the Act. To allow for an application to be made by Parrys Travel Limited and an orderly running down of the sole trader business, I direct that revocation of the licence held by Gerald Parry shall take effect from 23:45 hours on 16 June 2025. Please see the final paragraph of this Decision as to any application made by Parrys Travel Ltd or Alex Parry as sole trader or partner.

I have had regard to submissions made on behalf of the operator as to the effects of disqualification and to Statutory Document 10. I have also reminded myself of the authority in David Finch Haulage (2010/29). In that case, the Transport Tribunal said: “The imposition of a period of disqualification is not a step to be taken routinely, but nor is it a step to be shirked if the circumstances render disqualification necessary in pursuit of the objectives of the operator licensing system. Although no additional feature is required over and above the grounds leading up to revocation, an operator is entitled to know why the circumstances of the case are such as to make a period of disqualification necessary…”.

The Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Directions state that serious cases may merit disqualification of between 5 to 10 years and severe cases may merit disqualification for an indefinite period. For a first public inquiry, the suggested starting point is between 1 and 3 years. The operator has attended public inquiry as recently as November 2023, where the same maintenance concerns were at issue and a specific audit undertaking was agreed to give me the assurance that concerns were being addressed by the operator and compliance would be achieved in that regard. However, the operator failed to heed the warnings given and failed to fulfil that undertaking, resulting in the same failings being at issue yet again by the time of this inquiry. I have already set out my reasoning for determining that this is a severe to serious case, by reference to Annex 4 of Statutory Document 10.

Taking account of all the circumstances, I consider that a period of disqualification is necessary to meet the objectives of the operator licensing regime. Acknowledging that this is a severe to serious case but giving credit for the positives that I have found, I have decided to disqualify Gerald Parry from holding or obtaining an operator licence for a period of three years. The disqualification order shall be in the terms set out at paragraph 2 of my Decision above.

Considerations and Decisions in respect of transport manager Gerald Parry

Gerald Parry accepted that he had not complied with his duty effectively and continuously to manage his transport activities, as required by legislation. The role of the transport manager is a key one which he has failed to fulfil effectively, resulting in compliance failures and a clear risk to road safety.

In considering the good repute of Gerald Parry as transport manger I performed the same balancing act as set out above with reference to the negative findings and features that I have already set out above. I have also considered the positive features to be weighed in the balance. He has fully accepted his failures and acknowledges that he has lost his good repute and that he will be disqualified. As a rehabilitation measure, I was invited to consider a requirement that he resit his transport manager CPC qualification.

In considering whether his good repute is lost, rather than merely tarnished, I have had regard to relevant Upper Tribunal case law, including Angus Smales trading as Angus Smales Eventing (2014/058) when the Upper Tribunal confirmed that being a transport manager is far more than just holding the qualification. I find that Gerald Parry has not demonstrated the ability to meet the statutory duty and that continued to be the case until the time of the inquiry hearing. In the circumstances, and as was confirmed in Matthew Reynolds (2015/049) and accepted by him, I must find that he has lost his repute as transport manager and no longer satisfies the requirements of section 14ZA(3) of the Act to be of good repute in accordance with Schedule 3 to the Act. I have considered whether such a finding would be a disproportionate response but consider that it is entirely proportionate and, indeed, inevitable on the evidence before me.

Having concluded that Gerald Parry’s good repute is lost I must also disqualify him under paragraph 7B(2) of Schedule 3 to the Act from acting as a transport manager on an operator’s licence. The disqualification is for a period of three years. As a rehabilitation measure, I require him to re-sit and pass the transport manager CPC qualification examination.

I heard detailed evidence about the succession plan for this business. I did so in anticipation of the application soon to be made by Parrys Travel Limited for 4 authorised vehicles, with Alex Parry nominated as transport manager, as already outlined above. I would be prepared to grant such an application, subject to there being no issues as to finances and transport manager qualifications. However, in view of Alex Parry’s inexperience as operator and transport manager and the previous compliance failings on this linked licence, I am only prepared to grant the new application with the following additional undertakings attached: i) The operator will engage the services of Neil Thomas, NRT Consultancy, to assist with operator licence compliance for a minimum of 4 hours per week and for a period of at least 12 months from the date of licence grant. A contract for services must be provided to the Office of the Traffic Commissioner for approval before the licence is granted and the operator must inform the Office of the Traffic Commissioner immediately should the contract for services be terminated for any reason; and ii) The operator undertakes to identify an independent body (but not NRT Consultancy) to carry out an audit of transport safety and compliance systems. The audit will assess the operator against the standards published under the DVSA earned recognition scheme: www.gov.uk/government/publications/dvsa-earned-recognition-vehicle-operator-standards A copy of the report together with the operator’s detailed proposals for implementing the report’s recommendations is to be submitted to the Office of the Traffic Commissioner at xxx@xxx.xx by [date since months after licence grant]. The audit will assess the systems for complying with maintenance 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.

Victoria Davies

Traffic Commissioner for Wales

16 May 2025