Decision for N Bramall & Son Ltd  (OB0198344)
Source: gov.uk (2025-12-04)

Written decision of the Traffic Commissioner for the North West of England for N Bramall & Son Ltd

IN THE NORTH WEST TRAFFIC AREA

N BRAMALL & SON LTD – OB0198344

PUBLIC INQUIRY HELD IN GOLBORNE ON 12 NOVEMBER 2025

WRITTEN DECISION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER

DECISION:

Under provision of Sections 26(1)(c), 26(1)(f) & 26(1)(h) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (“The Act”), I order the revocation of this operator licence with effect from 23:45 on 02 March 2026.

N Bramall & Son Ltd holds a Restricted Goods Vehicle Operator’s Licence authorising 7 vehicles. The sole director is Mr. Michael Earnest Bramall. The licence was granted on 17 August 1993 and operates from a single operator’s licence given as “Near Coates Farm, Sheffield, S36 8YB. Maintenance inspections are said to be undertaken every eight weeks by Armstrongs Auto Services in Rotherham.

Background

This operator received a first warning letter in July 2014 following a vehicle stop, dated 21 May 2014, and subsequent interview with the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (‘DVSA’) regarding the operation of a vehicle/trailer without a valid MOT certificate in place.

A second warning letter was issued in October 2020. That followed a roadside check in December 2019 which resulted in a Traffic Examiner Visit Report in January 2020 which was concluded with a score of only “Mostly Satisfactory”. A follow up Desk Based Assessment in October 2020 was also concluded as “Mostly Satisfactory”. The second warning was issued as a result of these events.

On 05 September 2024 the DVSA completed a maintenance investigation which concluded as “Unsatisfactory” overall, with seven areas marked as “Unsatisfactory” and one marked as “Action Required”. Those areas, falling short of being considered satisfactory included: (i) Inspection/Maintenance Records; (ii) Driver Defect Reporting; (iii) Inspection Facilities & Maintenance Arrangements; (iv) Vehicle Emissions; (v) Security Requirements; (vi) Wheel & Tyre Management; (vii) Prohibition Assessment; and (viii) Transport Manager/Responsible Person.

The operator provided an in-depth response to the shortcomings noted. That response gave assurances of change to the operator’s existing policies and operating procedures. There was, however, no evidence supplied to show that these assurances have been put into operational effect.

On 29 January 2025 DVSA completed a Traffic Examiner desk-based assessment (‘DBA’) that assessment identified a number of areas as “Unsatisfactory”. These included Load Security; Driver Documentation; Driver Training Records; Drivers’ Hours & Recordkeeping; Working Time Directive; and – again – Transport Manager / Responsible Person. It was of concern that this assessment identified, despite claims that Tachometer was used for analysis, that no evidence was produced of any reports produced or retained by the operator, and no evidence of disciplinary processes or engagement with drivers on the content of those reports.

The DVSA Traffic Examiner who produced the assessment requested a response from the operator and, on reviewing that response, concluded “The operator has provided a response but has not fully addressed the shortcomings that were Identified. As noted in the assessment not all the VU digital data was submitted. The systems in place for Load Security and Driver Training Records do not appear to be fully effective. The operator was also asked to clarify how many vehicles they were in possession of, as there appeared to be a discrepancy between what was stated in the DBAQ3.2 and what was specified on Vehicle Operator Licensing (VOL). A registered keeper check of [specified vrm] indicated that the operator is the current keeper of this vehicle, but it is not specified on their licence.”

Due to the above issues a public inquiry was called to allow consideration as to whether the operator could demonstrate the fitness and finances needed to hold an operator’s licence; whether disqualification of the operator and its director is relevant; an apparent failure to notify a change in maintenance arrangements; and whether the shortcomings found within the DVSA MIVR and DBA demonstrated that the operator was not complying with the undertakings and conditions of the operator’s licence.

Pre-Hearing

A letter calling the operator to a public inquiry was issued to the given correspondence address. The initial hearing was adjourned with a new date notified on 11 September 2025. This set out the location, date and time of the public inquiry. It also provided a number of case management directions to be complied with ahead of the hearing. I am grateful to the operator for complying with these directions, and to the DVSA for providing its assessment of the more recent records.

Public Inquiry

The public inquiry took place on Wednesday 12 November 2025 at the Golborne Hearing Centre. The operator was in attendance by its director Mr. Bramall, and supported by Mr. Caleb Moore, Transport Consultant.

At the commencement of the inquiry, I set out the issues as follows:
- The Unsatisfactory Maintenance Investigation dated 05 September 2024
- The Unsatisfactory Traffic Examiner Desk Based Assessment dated 29 January 2025
- The Red OCRS Score and an above average prohibition rate and annual test fail rate.
Evidence was provided by Mr. Bramall with a very heavy reliance on Mr. Moore. Mr. Bramall displayed hearing difficulties but doesn’t wear a hearing aid and he was content to proceed with the hearing. Some questions took longer than they otherwise might have in order to get to the conclusion but I am satisfied that Mr. Bramall was aware of the questions I was asking. I took time to repeat questions, and to explain them. Often, when Mr. Bramall disagreed or suggested he didn’t understand he was corrected by Mr. Moore. I was satisfied that when Mr. Bramall stated he didn’t understand something it was the compliance requirement he failed to understand, and not my questioning.

Summary of Evidence

I was provided with a background to the business, and it was set out to me what the operator’s licence was used for. I was advised that the business is primarily an abattoir and uses the vehicles to deliver animal carcasses. About 10% of the work involves local farmers delivering animals for private slaughter. Those animals are delivered by the local farmers, with the carcases collected by the same farmers. The remaining 90% of the business involves the operator buying livestock, slaughtering, then selling (and delivering) the carcasses to customers which included a combination of stores, farm shops, and so on.

Standard vs Restricted Licence

Section 3 of the 1995 Act sets out the requirements for Standard and Restricted licences:

A standard licence is an operator’s licence under which a goods vehicle may be used on a road for the carriage of goods (a) for hire or reward, or (b) for or in connection with any trade or business carried on by the holder of a licence.

A restricted licence is an operator’s licence under which a goods vehicle may be used on a road for the carriage of goods for or in connection with any trade or business carried on by the holder of the licence, other than that of carrying goods for hire or reward.

The Senior Traffic Commissioner reminds us, at paragraph 55 of Statutory Document 0, when applying for a licence:
- “The starting point is to consider the need for a standard licence. A restricted licence is only appropriate for the carriage of the operator’s own goods (i.e. the goods are the property of the business or, in the case of a company that entity or its parent or subsidiary) and on their own account, i.e. no more than ancillary to the overall activities of the undertaking. So, where an operator only carries goods that are, or become and then remain, the operator’s own property, a restricted licence is likely to be appropriate”.
To paraphrase the untested decision of OH2025739 – Pillory Down Skips Ltd, the test is simply whether the transport of goods is carried out for “hire” or for “reward”. “Hire” purports a narrow meaning in that the operator hires out their transport services explicitly as such. “Reward”, however, carries a much larger meaning. The Oxford English Dictionary cites a reward as being “a thing given in recognition of service, effort or achievement”.

As set out above, it is the evidence of the operator that it sells and delivers animal carcases to customers. The goods do not remain the property of the operator, and the cost of transportation – whist not considered by Mr. Bramall to be “additional” – is calculated within the overall price. I also have regard to the fact that 90% of the business is reliant on the operator’s licence, and that revocation or even a short suspension of the licence would end the business. I do not consider, therefore, that transport can be considered as merely ancillary to the overall activities of the business.

Unsatisfactory MIVR & Desk Based Assessment

The evidence provided by the DVSA was not challenged. It was recognised by the operator that the report was a fair reflection of how things where at the time. Following the report the operator engaged Mr. Moore to assist with the necessary improvements. I was told that the operator considers himself a slaughterman and relied on the maintenance provider. The maintenance provider had, however, let him down due to health issues. Due to the maintenance providers heath issues, which are unsubstantiated, I was told that the required work wasn’t being done. I was advised that vehicles were being taken to annual test to identify the issues which would then be rectified ahead of a retest. I was also told that the vehicles were presented on time for inspection but would then be delayed with preference given to other customers. Inspection sheets were not being returned with the vehicles.

I was advised that things have improved following a change of maintenance provider. Annual Test pass rates are improved, and service sheets are now being emailed. I was given no reason as to why the operator failed to properly manage the initial maintenance provider and, unfortunately, the evidence provided to me during the hearing - to show that vehicles were now being inspected, signed off as roadworthy and emailed to the operator – failed to provide proper notice of the vehicle as being roadworthy. It was clear that the operator was not looking at inspection reports before returning the vehicles to the road even as at the date of the inquiry. The example that I assessed – taking less than a minute to identify the issue – had been with the operator for 9 days. Despite being told that it was then subject to an annual test, I was provided with no assurances as to the effective oversight of transport operations.

Oversight, I was told, initially sat with office manager (given as ‘Sebastian’). He was tasked with reviewing the relevant paper paperwork. It transpired that this was not happening. I was not advised of any training, qualifications or competency of ‘Sebastian’ which would qualify him for that oversight role. I was then advised that a new person had been identified to check records. Mr. Whitley works three days a week and is a holder of a transport manager CPC qualification. I was told, however, that Mr. Whitley refuses to be formally involved with transport operations as “he has enough on”. I am concerned that an individual with ‘too much on’ as an office manager would then be tasked – reluctantly it would appear – to undertake this important oversight function for the licence holder.

I was told that Mr. Whitely “can’t ignore a dripping tap” and therefore will assist. The current arrangement is that Mr. Moore will look at documentation and, should he identify anything issues, he will advise Mr. Whitely who will ensure the issue gets resolved. I was asked to consider that the day-to-day running of things was in the hands of a competent person.

Noting that Mr. Bramall has made no attempts to undertaking his own training, such as an Operator Licensing Awareness Training (“OLAT”) course I was asked to consider that his 42-year-old son is thinking of getting involved in the business. Mr. Bramall Jnr. holds third level education and has his own business but I was advised that he has no experience in transport services.

The DVSA assessment of recent records provided for assessment indicates that infringement reports (primarily mode switch issues) have not been signed off by the drivers, and there is no evidence of review or disciplinary – one driver is clearly known to Mr. Moore due to repeated issues, and I was told of verbal intervention but also that no records are held. Training material was available, but no record of who has been in attendance at that training.

OCRS, Prohibitions and Annual Test

Despite the improving position at annual test the licence holder’s risk score (“OCRS”) is Red. The annual test final failure rate for the past five years is a concerning 31.82% (against a national average of 8.32%), and the prohibition rate at roadside encounter is 50%, (against a national average of 22.94%). The operator also has a Drivers’ Hours prohibition rate of 12.50% (national average 2.50%) and an overloading prohibition rate of 100% (national average 29.21%).

Findings

Standard vs Restricted Licence

Mr. Bramall struggled to follow this issue during the hearing, and this contributed to my decision to reserve matters for a written decision. I’ve sought to set out the issue above in terms that are as clear as possible. I am satisfied that the price of animal carcases includes delivery and therefore the carriage of goods is subject to reward. As the carriage of goods by N Bramall & Son Ltd does not fall within the categorisation of restricted operations as set out at Section 3(3) “other than that of carrying goods for hire or reward” I conclude that a Standard licence is required.

Unsatisfactory MIVR & Desk Based Assessment

The evidence before me satisfies me to the civil standard that the findings of the DVSA are made out. The more recent records give only limited assurance. Improvements are noted but other issues remain unresolved. Driver defect reporting remains problematic and drivers’ hours systems, mode switch errors, and driver training gaps remains unresolved. Critically, Mr. Bramall’s lack of knowledge is a concern, and the lack of oversight is significant. Whilst the improvements are noted, these are weighed against a considerable volume of negative features.

It was important to get the point across to Mr. Bramall that it is he was he who is responsible for compliance with the requirements of the operator’s licence, and not his maintenance provider or anyone else. I made the observation during the hearing that all assurances were received from Mr. Moore. Had he not been in attendance I would have had little to rely upon by way of evidence or response. I was asked to consider the role provided by Mr. Whitley and Mr. Bramall’s son as options for demonstrating improvement.

I note that neither were in attendance. As Mr. Whitely did not attend the hearing to provide evidence and that I am told he wants no formal involvement in the management of transport operations, I have no confidence in his proposed input. Additionally, due to the lack of relevant experience of Mr. Bramall Jnr, and that his engagement appears to be an afterthought, this also carries very little to no weight.

OCRS, Prohibitions and Annual Test

I note that, since the change of maintenance provider, the annual test performance has improved. This is one of a small number of positives. It reinforces, however, the heavy reliance of this operator, and Mr. Bramall, on third party suppliers. I took time during the hearing to remind Mr. Bramall of his responsibilities, quoting the following extract from the Upper Tribunal’s decision in 2014/024 LA & Z Leonida t/a ETS
- “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 consider this to be applicable to others that an operator relies upon, including maintenance providers.

The poor performance is indicative of a licence holder who has failed to adequately manage its licence for an extended period. Even the recent improvements have failed to positively impact the 5-year scoring to a sufficient degree.

Decision

In consideration of the facts of this case I make adverse findings under the following provisions:
- 26(1)(c) – that during the past five years there has been a prohibition of the driving of a vehicle of which the licence holder was the owner when the prohibition was imposed.
- 26(1)(f) – The operator does not have proper systems to ensure Motor Vehicles and trailers, including hired vehicles, are kept fit and serviceable as evidenced by the MOT failure rate, prohibitions, and findings from the DVSA reports.
- 26(1)(f) – The operator does not have proper systems to ensure drivers report promptly defects or symptoms of defects that could prevent the operation of vehicles and/or trailers and that any defects are recorded in writing
- 26(1)(f) – The operator does not have proper systems to ensure compliance with Drivers’ Hours and Tachograph rules as evidenced by the DVSA reports.
26(1)(h) - Material Change – This operator is no longer considered “Not Unfit” to hold an operator’s licence.
- 26(1)(h) - Material Change – The type of licence held is inappropriate for the type of operations undertaken by the licence holder and a standard licence is required.
The findings above are significant, but I am mindful that regulatory action under provision of Section 26 is discretionary. On consideration of the guidance provided by the Senior Traffic Commissioner on starting points for regulatory action, as set out at Annex 4 of Statutory Document 10, I place this case within the category of “Serious”. There are persistent operator licence failures with a response which has, thus far, been inadequate.

In the positive, the operator has been honest about their shortcomings and have advised me that they are improving with a view to ensuring full compliance. This is supported to a degree in evidence but on the negative, little of that evidence came from the operator. I note a lack of training – being told that Mr. Bramall has been “busy” – and a number of late assurances relating to engagement with a Transport Manager, training, and a future audit. Overall, I find the operator, and Mr. Bramall, to be wholly lacking in knowledge, with a shortage of effective of systems, and an absence of oversight. I also consider that the current reliance on a Restricted licence is misplaced and that a Standard licence is necessary for the type of transport operations.

Significant regulatory action is, I conclude, justified and proportionate in this case. In balancing the positives and negatives I find that the negatives, as detailed above, far outweigh the limited positives. I do not consider a warning or curtailment to be appropriate given the shortcomings identified.

This operator is not one that I can currently trust to comply with the licensing regime. I consider that it needs an opportunity – and motivation – to step back and review all systems and procedures, and to design and put in place necessary measures and improvements. Support from a qualified transport professional is a must, and any such individual must hold statutory responsibility to ensure that they can be held to account should failings continue. The engagement of a Transport Manager would, additionally, resolve the issue of the misplaced reliance on a Restricted licence.

On consideration of all the facts I conclude that revoking the licence, with three months’ notice, strikes the balance between providing justified and proportionate regulatory action, and providing the operator with an opportunity to survive. I am told that a period of suspension, to allow time for the operator to develop and implement systems without the distraction of managing vehicles and drivers, would be fatal to the business. This revocation, on the other hand, allows operations to continue – for now – but places the burden on the operator to reapply and provide evidence within that application which satisfies the statutory requirements. This falls into the category of “I hope you survive but, if not, so be it”.

Accordingly, the operator’s licence is to be revoked with effect from 23:45 on 02 March 2026.

The Senior Traffic Commissioner reminds us, at paragraph 28 of Statutory Document 10, of the requirement to make decisions which are commensurate with the circumstances of each individual case and the purposes of the legislation, quoting 2013/046 Shearer Transport Ltd:
- “any regulatory action by the traffic commissioner should not be punishment in itself, but designed to assist in the promotion and achievement of the legislation. Clearly, such action can include an element of deterrence in order to prevent and discourage conduct that undermines the licensing regime.”
The time allowed before revocation takes effect is granted in the understanding that Mr. Moore remains involved in the business. Should this position change the operator is to inform me within 7 days. Additionally, this time allows the operator to consider whether it wishes to remain a licence holder. I appreciate that the business is that of an abattoir, and it has a choice to make. It can either choose to use smaller, out of scope, vehicles or subcontract the work, or it can fully commit to holding an operator’s licence. In that case the operator is open to make a new application. Any application will be considered on its own merits, but I would propose that Mr. Bramall undertakes relevant training and that the operator engages the support of a qualified transport manager with statutory responsibilities under a Standard licence.

David Mullan

Traffic Commissioner for the North West of England

02 December 2025