Decision for Jody Nigel Hilton (OD2032918)
Source: gov.uk (2025-08-26)

Written decision of the Traffic Commissioner for the West Midlands for Jody Nigel Hilton (OD2032918)

IN THE WEST MIDLANDS TRAFFIC AREA

JODY NIGEL HILTON – OD2032918

WRITTEN DECISION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER

PUBLIC INQUIRY HELD IN BIRMINGHAM ON 16 JULY 2025, ADJOURNED TO A PUBLIC INQUIRY AT THE BRISTOL OFFICE OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER ON 07 AUGUST 2025.

DECISION:

The restricted goods vehicle operator’s licence held by Jody Nigel Hilton (the “operator”) is revoked with effect from 2359 hours on 23 August 2025 under sections 26(1)(a), (c)(iii), (e), (f) and (h) [loss of fitness and material changes.]

Mr Jody Nigel Hilton is disqualified from holding or obtaining any type of operator’s licence in any capacity in any traffic area with effect from 2359 hours on 23 August 2025 for three years until 23 August 2028 under sections 28(1), 28(3) and 28(4) of the Act.

Background

As a result of intelligence received by the DVSA regarding suspected use of an unauthorized operating centre, an investigation was undertaken by the DVSA. The resulting TEVR scored the operator 26 points (the highest score I have ever seen) when a score of 11 or more points requires a referral to the Traffic Commissioner. The resulting MIVR scored the operator as “report to OTC” in 8 areas and “unsatisfactory” in 3 areas with only one area scored as “satisfactory”. This was the worst scoring MIVR that I have ever seen.

From this evidence a decision was made to call the operator to a public inquiry. That was done via the calling in letter dated 10 June 2025 that was sent by recorded post, and also by email, to the last postal and email correspondence addresses given to the Office of the Traffic Commissioner by the operator. The public inquiry was subsequently adjourned and was finally held on 07 August 2025.

Public Inquiry on 16 July 2025 and 07 August 2025

In advance of the public inquiry no request to adjourn or postpose the hearing had been made. The hearing was listed for 1.30pm and the calling in letter required the operator to attend no less than 30 minutes before the hearing was due to start; in other words no later than 1pm. At as 1.45pm the operator had still not attended and no communication had been received from him to explain any difficulty in attending the hearing on time or at all.

I then scrutinised VOL and discovered that the licence had, just before the date of the public inquiry, terminated, but despite my direction that the licence be re-instated (and it was re-instated on 10 July 2025) no letter to explain that the licence had been re-instated had been sent to the operator.

Out of total fairness to the operator I adjourned the hearing so that the appropriate letter could be sent to the operator to (a) explain what had happened and to (b) explain that the public inquiry was still taking place.

It is worth explaining now what I discovered had happened. This licence had reached its 5th anniversary just before the date of the public inquiry. If the licence renewal checklist and fee are not returned on time or at all (which is what happened here) then the licensing system automatically records the licence as Continuation Not Sought (“CNS”). Seven days after the CNS date the licence then terminates. That is a fully automatic process with no human input. If a licence, that has been terminated in that way, needs to be re-instated it takes the intervention of a senior manager within the Licencing department of the Office of the Traffic Commissioner. However, I discovered that the automated system does not then write to the operator to explain that the licence has been re-instated. And that was the problem here; the operator had not been written to before the public inquiry to explain that the licence had been re-instated. Hence it was only fair to adjourn the public inquiry.

The adjournment letter dated 21 July 2025 was sent by recorded post and email to the last correspondence addresses given to the Office of the Traffic Commissioner and which are recorded on VOL. Those are the same addresses used for sending the calling in letter to the operator.

The adjourned hearing, listed for 1400 hours on 07 August 2025, was scheduled to be heard at the Office of the Traffic Commissioner in Bristol. That was because I was assigned to Bristol for the first three weeks in August to cover for the resident Traffic Commissioner. It was fair and reasonable to list it to that address as the travel distance and time were only slightly greater from the operating centre compared to the travel distance and time from the operating centre to the Office of the Traffic Commissioner in Birmingham. Balancing the serious nature of the allegations against the operator, and the minor inconvenience of travelling to the Office of the Traffic Commissioner in Bristol, the balance fell firmly in favour of it being reasonable to list the case in Bristol.

The operator did not attend the public inquiry on 07 August 2025. I considered the Upper Tribunal appeal case of Philip Drake UKUT [2023] 0098 (AAC). I was satisfied that the original calling in letter and the adjournment letter had been sent to the last correspondence addresses given to the Office of the Traffic Commissioner by the operator. It was more likely than not that at least one of the calling in letters and one of the adjournment letters was delivered to the address to which it was sent. It was more likely than not that the operator had been, as per the Philip Drake appeal case cited above, served with the calling in letter and with the adjournment letter. I was therefore satisfied that the operator had been made aware of the hearing but had, for whatever reason, decided not to attend.

I then considered whether there was any persuasive reason to adjourn the hearing (again) on my own volition. I reminded myself that the overriding objective of this jurisdiction was road safety and fair competition. Looking at the DVSA evidence, and taking it at its highest, there were extremely serious allegations that related to both road safety and fair competition. There was no persuasive reason for me to adjourn the public inquiry before me. It was in the interests of road safety and/or fair competition to proceed in the absence of the operator and to make a decision just from the evidence that was before me.

Evidence

I have taken into account the evidence that is within the electronic case bundle including the adjournment letter dated 21 July 2025.

Burden and Standard of Proof

The burden of proof was upon the DVSA to prove any allegations that it had made. The standard of proof is the civil law standard; the balance of probabilities. In other words what is more likely than not to have occurred.

Findings of Fact

All of my findings of fact were made after applying the correct burden and standard of proof to the evidence before me. For the avoidance of any doubt each finding of fact is deemed to start with the words “It is more likely than not that…”

The operator has totally failed to co-operate with the public inquiry process. He has failed to comply with any of the case management directions that attach to the calling in letter. No evidence was sent to the DVSA Traffic Examiner and as a result no supplemental report could be prepared. No evidence was sent to the DVSA Vehicle Examiner and as a result no supplemental report could be prepared. No documents at all for use in the public inquiry have been received by my office therefore the only, and best, evidence before me that relates to the operator’s driver’s hours, tachograph, operator licence and maintenance compliance is that contained in the electronic bundle from the DVSA; the TEVR and the MIVR.

The operator is not of sufficient financial resources because no financial evidence has been received in response to the calling in letter.

The TEVR from Traffic Examiner Lewis has not been challenged, or materially challenged, by the operator. It is an evidenced based report from an expert witness. It is credible, cogent and highly persuasive and I have accepted it as such. All of the allegations within it are proven. I repeat all of those proven allegations and adopt them all as my findings of fact in this case. Principle amongst the proven allegations of Traffic Examiner Lewis are that more vehicles than authorised were being operated from an unauthorised operating centre.

The MIVR from Vehicle Examiner Mark Davies has not been challenged, or materially challenged, by the operator. It is an evidenced based report from an expert witness. It is credible, cogent and highly persuasive and I have accepted it as such. All of the allegations within that report are proven. I repeat all of those proven allegations and adopt them all as my own findings of fact in this case.

There are too many, now proven allegations, for me to repeat here as my own findings of fact. Principle amongst them all are the following:

(a) The wrong legal entity was being operated by Mr Hilton. The correct entity was the limited company that Mr Hilton had set up some time ago. It did, after the MIVR, apply for an operator’s licence but that application was refused on the papers because sufficient financial evidence was not provided in the name of the limited company; and

(b) The vehicle specified on the operator’s licence had been sold and was not being operated by this operator; and

(c) An “S” marked prohibition (the notice appears at page 63 of the bundle) was imposed at the fleet check undertaken as part of the MIVR. The “S” marking demonstrated to my satisfaction that there was a serious failure in maintenance; and

(d) The authorised operating centre was not in use. The specified operating centre on the operator’s licence is at The National Grid, Perseverance Road, HR4 9SN but an unauthorised operating centre was being used at Lyde Arundel Farm, HR4 7SN; and

(e) The use of an unauthorised operating centre is an absolute criminal offence contrary to section 7 of the Act. An absolute offence is one where the mental intent of the alleged perpetrator does not have to be proven, merely doing the prohibited activity is enough to prove the offence. A good example of an absolute offence is speeding; and

(f) For a significant period of time offences, contrary to section 7 of the Act, were being committed by the unauthorised use of Lyde Arundel Farm as an operating centre; and

(g) The operator failed to inform me of the material change to its operating centre within 28 days of its occurrence; and

(h) The operator failed to apply for a new operating centre; and

(i) No operator can plead ignorance to the use of an unauthorised operating centre; every operator’s licence (standard or restricted) has a general undertaking recorded upon it that states “An unauthorised operating centre is not used” and Note 6 recorded at the end of every operator’s licence warns operators of the potential criminal and regulatory consequences of using an unauthorised operating centre; and

(j) No operator can plead ignorance to the law or to the Statutory Documents issued by the Senior Traffic Commissioner. In this case it is Statutory Document number 4 that deals with operating centres. The appeal authorities I rely upon are LA & Z Leonida T/A ETS 2014/024 where the Upper Tribunal held that operators cannot plead ignorance because “they are required to have sufficient knowledge of the regulatory regime to ensure compliance in general” and I also rely on the Upper Tribunal appeal case of MGM Haulage and Recycling Ltd 2012/030 where it was held that operators are deemed to know the advice and guidance that is in the public domain. That would clearly include the Statutory Documents issued by the Senior Traffic Commissioner; and

(k) No maintenance records were made available to Vehicle Examiner Davies that were relevant; from the records provided the most recent was March 2024. In other words, the operator had no maintenance records after March 2024. One of the general undertakings that attaches to this operator’s licence is that “Records are kept (for a minimum of 15 months) of all driver reports which recorded defects, all safety inspections, routine maintenance and repairs to vehicles and that these are made available upon request.” Two things therefore arise; first that this undertaking was breached from March 2024 onwards and second, in the absence of any maintenance records I cannot be satisfied that any, or any meaningful, maintenance has been undertaken to any vehicle that this operator has operated. That has clearly put road safety at a significant risk for a significant length of time; and

(l) There was no, or no effective, driver defect reporting system in place at all. No evidence was presented to Vehicle Examiner Davies of a driver defect reporting system despite the general undertaking that attaches to this operator’s licence states that “Drivers report promptly any defects or symptoms of defects that could prevent the safe operation of vehicles and/or trailers, and that any defects are recorded in writing.” [emphasis added]. It is not more likely than not that no defects would have been found in the previous 15 months. The failure to have any, or any effective, driver defect reporting system clearly put road safety at a real risk; and

(m) There was no evidence of any, or any sufficient, maintenance facilities being in place with clear evidence of poor maintenance standards. The specified maintenance provider recorded on this operator’s licence was visited by the DVSA and from that visit it was discovered that they had ceased maintaining vehicles six months before the MIVR. Road safety was clearly put at a real risk as a result; and

(n) The initial MOT failure rate for this operator is 80% with a final failure rate of 60% (against respective national averages of 13.4% and 9.1%). The MOT is the one day of the year, known about in advance, when a vehicle must meet the bare minimum standard of maintenance. To have initial and final failure rates as poor as this is clear evidence that the vehicle(s) were not being properly maintained and could not even be brought up to a basic level of roadworthiness for the day of the MOT. It also satisfied me that if the MOT was the one day when this operator was seeking to demonstrate a basic minimum level of mechanical maintenance compliance then from these MOT statistics the condition of the operator’s vehicle(s) is more likely than not to have been to a lower standard than at the MOT for the rest of the year. The MOT failure rates were clear evidence that vehicles were not being kept in a fit and serviceable condition and that road safety had been put at risk; and

(o) The day-to-day level of maintenance compliance was demonstrated by the fact that two prohibitions were issued to two vehicles examined at the fleet inspection as part of the MIVR and that one of those prohibitions was “S” marked. The “S” marking provide a serious failure in maintenance was found to be present. These prohibitions issued at the fleet inspection clearly demonstrated that vehicles were not being kept in a fit and serviceable condition and as a result road safety had been put at risk; and

(p) The responsible person for this licence, Mr Jody Nigel Hilton, had no control over compliance with the general undertakings that attached to the operator’s licence.

It is clear from my findings relating to the TEVR and MIVR that the following five general undertakings that attach to this operator’s licence were breached:

(i) Vehicles and trailers, including hired vehicles and trailers, are kept in a fit and serviceable condition

(ii) Drivers report promptly any defects or symptoms of defects that could prevent the safe operation of vehicles and/or trailers, and that any defects are recorded in writing

(iii) Records are kept (for a minimum of 15 months) of all driver reports which recorded defects, all safety inspections, routine maintenance and repairs to vehicles and that these are made available upon request

(iv) The number of vehicles and trailers kept at each operating centre specified will not exceed the maximum number authorised

(v) An unauthorised operating centre is not used

Pulling everything together it is clear to me that there had been no, or no effective, maintenance system in place with this operator and road safety had been seriously compromised and put at a real risk for at least 12 months, but for probably much longer. By not properly, or at all, maintaining its vehicle(s) the operator had saved significant money both directly (by not having to pay for maintenance that should have been done) and indirectly (by not having to take vehicle(s) out of service whilst being maintained). That gave the operator a clear unfair commercial advantage over other compliant operators who properly maintained their vehicle(s) as per the specified PMI interval on their operator’s licence.

That failure to have any, or any effective maintenance system in place continued right up to the public inquiry on 07 August 2025. The operator cannot plead otherwise because it failed to produce any maintenance records in accordance with the case management directions that attached to the calling in letter. In the absence of such records I find that no maintenance took place.

The unfair commercial advantage gained over other compliant operators also continued right up to the date of the public inquiry on 07 August for the same reason; that in the absence of any maintenance records requested being produced I could not be satisfied that maintenance was being undertaken, and therefore that money was being spent on the same.

The five general undertakings that were found to be breached under paragraph 21 above continued to be breached right up to the date of the public inquiry.

Looking at this case in the rounds this was one of the very worst cases I have seen in many years.

There were no, or no meaningful, positives in this case for which I could give this operator credit. The operator had failed to co-operate with the public inquiry process by its failure to submit any documents or attend the public inquiry where I could have at least taken into account the operator’s oral evidence.

Balancing Exercise

Looking at the operator, as it appeared before me at the public inquiry on 07 August 2025, I was unable to give the operator any credit to balance against the negative findings of fact that I have made. The balance only tipped in one direction as a result, in favour of the negatives.

Statutory Document 10, Annex 4 Consideration

After repeating all of my findings I have considered Statutory Document 10, Annex 4, issued by the Senior Traffic Commissioner. There it defines, as a starting point for regulatory action, “Severe” as being:

“Deliberate or reckless act(s) that compromised road safety and/or gave the operator a clear commercial advantage and/or operator caused or permitted driver offending and/or any attempt by the operator to conceal offences or failings” [emphasis added]

From my findings of fact the operator falls within the definition of “Severe”.

I have then turned to the definition of what “Severe” regulatory action means. It is defined as:

“SEVERE

●Revocation with detailed consideration of disqualification

●Revocation

●Suspension for an extended time period that materially affects the transport operation

●Significant indefinite curtailment that materially affects the transport operation”

Decisions

I have, next, repeated all of my findings and then considered the appeal case of Priority Freight and the question posed therein; is it likely that this operator will be compliant in the future? I answer that firmly in the negative. Being a restricted licence holder, I do not need to go on to consider the appeal case of Bryan Haulage.

From the acts and omissions of Mr Hilton I am left with absolutely no doubt that this operator is no longer fit to hold a restricted operator’s licence. That is a fundamental material change and it is entirely proportionate to revoke the operator’s licence under section 26(1)(h) as a result. Indeed, it is a mandatory requirement as you cannot hold a restricted licence unless you are fit to do so.

After, again, repeating all of my findings I have then considered my discretionary powers under section 26 of the Act. From the acts and omissions of Mr Hilton it is proportionate to revoke this operators licence under the following sections of the Act:

26(1)(a) being the use of an unauthorised operating centre; and/or

26(1)(c)(iii) being the prohibitions and in particular the “S” marked prohibitions; and/or

26(1)(f) being the breach of the general undertakings particularised in paragraph 21; and/or

26(1)(e) being the failure to maintain vehicles at the stated, or any, inspection frequency; and/or

26(1)(h) being the material changes since the licence was issued including the operator no longer being of sufficient financial resources

All orders of revocation take effect at 2359 hours on 23 August 2025.

Consideration of Disqualification under Section 28 of the Act

This is a very bad case.

I have considered the Transport Tribunal (as it was before the Upper Tribunal) appeal case of 2006/27 Fenlon where it was held that:

‘trust is one of the foundation stones of operator licensing. Trafﬁc, commissioners must be able to trust operators to comply with all the relevant laws, rules and regulations because it would be a physical and ﬁnancial impossibility to police every aspect of the licensing system all day and every day. In addition, operators must be able to trust other operators to observe the relevant laws, rules and regulations. If trust between operators breaks down and some operators believe that others are obtaining an unfair commercial advantage by ignoring laws, rules or regulations then standards will inevitably slip and the public will suffer.”

I have also considered the appeal cases on the subject of disqualification including 2018/072 St Mickalos Company Ltd & M Timinis and 2010/29 David Finch Haulage.

This was a bad case where there was an “S” marked prohibition at the fleet inspection, and where road safety was put at real (and sometimes significant) risk for a very long period of time and where there had been no co-operation at all with the public inquiry process.

There is no legal requirement for there to be a special feature in order for a Traffic Commissioner to disqualify an operator and/or director. However, here there are several such features in any event; “S” marked prohibition at the fleet inspection, the length and extent of road safety being put at a real risk (and sometimes significant risk) and the failure to co-operate with the public inquiry process.

Disqualification is proportionate and necessary to prevent Mr Hilton from putting road safety at risk. I am also more than satisfied that this is a case where disqualification is both proportionate and also necessary in order to send the right message out to the public at large and to compliant operators so that they see that robust regulatory action will be taken in the most serious of cases.

Statutory document number 10, Annex 4, gives a range of 1-3 years when disqualification is directed after a first public inquiry.

In this case I have determined that the proportionate length of disqualification is 3 years (the maximum) in order to mark the very serious nature of this case and the lack of any meaningful mitigation.

Mr Jody Nigel Hilton is therefore disqualified from holding or obtaining any type of operator’s licence in any capacity and in any traffic area under sections 28(1), 28(3) and 28(4) of the Act and the period of disqualification starts at 2359 hours on 23 August 2025 and ends on 23 August 2028.

Pre-Impounding Case and Warning about Impounding

The revocation decision of a Traffic Commissioner is treated by the DVSA as a pre-impounding letter. From 2359 hours on 23 August 2025 Mr Jody Nigel Hilton holds no operator’s licence and he is also disqualified from holding any type of operator’s licence in any capacity. He therefore has no lawful basis to operate any vehicle over 3,500kg for any commercial purpose. He is now given actual knowledge that were he to operate any vehicle over 3,500kg for any commercial purpose from and including 24 August 2025 then the DVSA have the power to impound that vehicle without any further notice or warning.

Traffic Commissioner Mr Dorrington Traffic Commissioner for the West Midlands 13 August 2025