Decision for George R Cran Transport Ltd  (OM2046005)
Source: gov.uk (2025-12-04)

Written decision of the Deputy Traffic Commissioner in Scotland for George R Cran Transport Ltd and George Cran as transport manager and driver

IN THE SCOTTISH TRAFFIC AREA

DECISION OF THE DEPUTY TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER FOR SCOTLAND

in the matter of

GEORGE R CRAN TRANSPORT LTD OM2046005

GEORGE CRAN - TRANSPORT MANAGER

GEORGE CRAN - DRIVER

Public Inquiry and conjoined Driver Conduct Hearings held at Aberdeen on 4 April 2025 and on Teams on 14 April 2025

Decision

George R Cran Transport Ltd is no longer is of good repute in terms of 13A(2)(b) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 and accordingly the Operator Licence OM2046005 will be revoked in terms of section 27 of the 1995 Act with effect from 23:59, 30 January 2026.

George R Cran Transport Ltd, and George Cran will be disqualified from holding an operator’s licence in terms of section 28(1) of the 1995 Act for an indefinite period. I also direct in terms of section 28(4) that, during the period of disqualification, should either become the director of, or hold a controlling interest in a company that holds an operator’s licence, or of a company of which such a company is a subsidiary, or operates any goods vehicles in partnership with a person who holds such a licence, the licence of that company or that person shall be liable to revocation, curtailment or suspension under section 26 of the 1995 Act. The disqualifications will take effect from 23:59, 30 January 2026.

George Cran, as Transport Manager, has lost his good repute and is disqualified from acting as a transport manager in terms of paragraph 16(2) of Schedule 3 of the 1995 Act for an indefinite period. The disqualification will take effect from 23:59, 30 January 2026.

George Cran, as a driver, is no longer fit to hold a Large Goods Vehicle driver’s licence in terms of s.115(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. George Cran’s Large Goods Vehicle driver’s licence is revoked in terms of s.116(2) with effect from 23:59, 30 January 2026, or if George Cran makes representations before 5 pm, 21 November 2025, on such earlier date as I may direct. George Cran is disqualified from holding a Large Goods Vehicle driver’s licence for two years from the revocation of his Large Goods Vehicle driver’s licence.

Background

George R Cran Transport Ltd (SC686140) (“the Operator”) is the holder of a standard national goods vehicle licence with authorisation for 2 vehicles and 2 trailers granted on 2 March 2023. The Operator is a limited company. Mr George Robert Cran (Mr Cran) is the sole director of the Operator.

Mr Cran was appointed as sole transport manager after his previous transport manager resigned with effect from 31 October 2021. Mr Cran is assisted by Irene Esson, who is the office administrator.

Although the Operator is a limited company, there is no-one else involved in the control or management of the Operator apart from Mr Cran. Mr Cran is in effect the Operator.

Previous compliance history

Mr Cran, as a sole trader, held a standard national goods vehicle licence OM0035794 with authorisation for the use of 2 vehicles and 2 trailers from 1 May 1997 until 2 December 2008. Mr Cran was one of the directors of Oakmist Ltd, which held a standard national goods vehicle licence OM1010511 with authorisation for the use of 20 vehicles and 20 trailers from 29 October 2002 until 3 November 2008. Both licences were revoked after a public inquiry on 16 January 2008. Mr Cran lost his repute as an operator and as a transport manager. Mr Cran was disqualified from holding an operator’s licence for 2 years from 5 June 2008.

On 25 June 2019, after a public inquiry held on 7 June 2019, George R Cran Ltd (SC519826) (“the old company”) was granted a licence authorising the use of 2 vehicles and 2 trailers. That public inquiry followed an earlier public inquiry on 25 July 2016 when the application had been refused. That decision was successfully appealed to the Upper Tribunal.

On 13 October 2020 the old company was dissolved. On 3 June 2021 the operator’s licence was revoked because of an undisclosed change in circumstances. The current company, George R Cran Transport Ltd (SC686140), was incorporated on 15 January 2021.

The Operator applied for a licence for a standard national goods vehicle licence authorising the use of 2 vehicles and 2 trailers on 3 June 2021. An interim authorisation was granted on 17 June 2021 for the use of 1 vehicle and 1 trailer. Mr Cran applied to be the transport manager on 3 September 2021 after the previous transport manager gave notice of his intention to resign with effect from 30 October 2021. On 14 November 2022 a DVSA Traffic Examiner carried out a visit to the Operator. This resulted in a Senior Team Leader interview on 19 January 2023. The result of the STL interview was that the full licence was granted on 2 March 2023.

The Call to Public Inquiry

On 2 January 2025 the Operator was served with a propose to revoke letter under s.27(2) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995. The Operator responded on 20 January 2025 requesting a public inquiry.

The Operator, and Mr Cran as Transport Manager, were called to public inquiry by letters dated 26 February 2025. The public inquiry was conjoined with Driver Conduct Hearings for Mr Cran, David Anthony Herron and Colin Duncan Whyte – see driver conduct letters dated 11 March 2025.

The reasons for the call to public inquiry included concerns that:-
- the Operator had failed to honour the undertaking that the Operator would observe the rules on drivers’ hours and tachographs and keep proper records (s.26(1)(f) of the 1995 Act).
- the Operator was no longer of good repute (s.13A of the 1995 Act).
- the transport manager, Mr Cran, was no exercising continuous and effective management of the transport activities, and that the transport manager was no longer of good repute (Schedule 3 of the 1995 Act).
The Public Inquiry

The Public Inquiry and the Driver Conduct Hearings took place at Aberdeen on 4 April 2025. The Public Inquiry could not be completed and the Public Inquiry was continued to a virtual hearing on 14 April 2025. The Operator and Mr Cran were represented on both days by Mr Neil Kelly, Solicitor.

The Public Inquiry and Driver Conduct Hearings on 4 April 2025 were attended by Mr Cran, and two drivers – Colin Duncan Whyte and David Anthony Herron.

The continued Public Inquiry was conjoined with an adjourned Driver Conduct Hearing for William Bremner, who had been on holiday on 4 April 2025. Mr Cran and Mr Bremner attended the virtual hearings.

Traffic Examiner Michael Munro attended on 4 April 2025 but did not attend on 14 April 2025.

The Evidence

There were no significant challenges to the DVSA evidence contained in the Public Inquiry Report submitted by TE Michael Munro (p.53 onwards). The Traffic Examiner Visit Report (TEVR) (p.207 onwards) identified a number of issues including:-
- Most Serious Infringements – Mr Cran had admitted using driver cards belonging to Mr Strachan and Mr Whyte. Mr Munro suspected Mr Herron had used another driver’s card (p.209).
- Deficiencies in driver licensing and training (p.210).
- Issues with drivers’ hours and record keeping e.g. no effective system for checking records and downloaded data (p.210-211).
- There was no effective system for managing working time (p.211).
At the Public Inquiry I decided to concentrate on the most serious allegations against the Operator, Mr Cran, and the three drivers: false records were being created by drivers using other driver’s cards. I accepted Mr Cran’s evidence that he had taken steps to remedy the other issues identified by Mr Munro.

I accepted Mr Cran’s evidence that the Operator was compliant in all other respects, for example maintenance. I also accepted Mr Cran’s evidence that he had taken efforts to demonstrate that the Operator was compliant by, for example, undergoing voluntary inspections by the DVSA at checksites, undergoing refresher CPD etc. No further issues had arisen since the DVSA investigation.

Two of the drivers whose cards were used in suspicious circumstances, Colin Whyte and Ian Bremner, were mechanics who worked for the Operator’s maintenance provider. The third driver, Douglas Strachan, whose card Mr Cran had admitted using on 24 April 2024, was a freight forwarder that the Operator did work for.

The Operator had two drivers- George Cran and David Herron. The Operator had two vehicles -Y55 GCT, which normally was driven by Mr Cran, and FJ66 FYM, which normally was driven by Mr Herron.

The DVSA investigation began on 24 April 2024 when Mr Cran was caught at a DVSA checkpoint using the driver card belonging to Douglas Strachan on 3 occasions (p.286) 15, 17 and 18 April 2024. Mr Cran’s misuse of Mr Strachan’s card had concealed the following offences:- on 15 April 2024 insufficient daily rest, and on 17 April 2024 insufficient daily rest and exceeding driving time and exceeding the daily driving limit. The use of the card on the 18 April 2024 had not concealed an offence (p.286 and 288). Mr Cran admitted these matters to the DVSA at the checkpoint.

TE Munro was provided with digital data for the period 27 January 2024 to 27 March 2024. This revealed a number of suspicious events relating to driver cards belonging to Colin Whyte, David Herron and William Bremner.

TE Munro interviewed Mr Cran on 19 September 2024. Mr Cran accepted that he had used a driver card belonging to a second driver, Colin Whyte on a number of occasions in vehicle Y55 GCT:-
- 31 January 2024
- 1 February 2024
- 2 February 2024
- 18 February 2024
- 21 February 2024
- 22 February 2024
- 23 February 2024
- 26 February 2024
- 27 February 2024
- 1 March 2024
At interview Mr Cran claimed that “I asked for the card and he [Mr Whyte] ga[v]e it to me” p.190. Mr Cran accepted that he had used Mr Whyte’s card when he had recorded manual entries to show that Mr Cran had been resting.

TE Munro asked Mr Cran why he had used Mr Whyte’s card. Mr Cran’s reply was “To be honest I was just trying to get the job done. I wouldn’t have gained anything extra out of it and I have held my hands up and I made a mistake” p.193.

TE Munro asked Mr Cran about a number of occasions when Mr Cran’s card had been inserted into Y55 GCT (the vehicle normally driven by Mr Cran) at the same time as Mr Whyte’s card had been inserted into FJ66 FYM (the vehicle normally driven by Mr Herron) on 29, 30 and 31 January 2024. This suggested to TE Munro that someone other than Mr Cran had been using Mr Whyte’s card. Mr Cran said that he had been the only one using Mr Whyte’s card (see p.86). Mr Cran denied that he had given his card to anyone else to use.

TE Munro was suspicious about the use of Mr Bremner’s card on 7 February 2024, 26 February 2024 and 28 February 2024 in FJ66 FYM when it was associated with the use of Mr Herron’s card. Mr Cran denied using Mr Bremner’s card (see p.92). He did not know who had used Mr Bremner’s card.

Mr Whyte, Mr Herron and Mr Bremner all denied that they had used cards belonging to other drivers. They all denied that they had given their cards to other drivers and, in particular, that they had given their cards to Mr Cran.

Mr Whyte explained that he knew that he did not have his card. He suspected that he had left it in one of the Operator’s vehicles after he had driven the vehicle while servicing the vehicle at the end of January 2024. Initially Mr Whyte did not report that the card had gone missing. He had thought that Mr Cran had the card, but he did not think that Mr Cran was using it. Eventually Mr Whyte reported his driver card had been stolen and he got a new card which was issued on 17 April 2024.

Mr Bremner gave evidence that he could not explain how his card had come to be used in FY66 FYM on 7, 26 and 28 February 2024. He had thought his card was in his wallet. He had used his driver card in the vehicle while carrying out maintenance. He had not needed to use his card so he had not noticed that it had gone missing. His card had eventually turned up and he had thought that he had temporarily mislaid it.

Mr Herron gave evidence that he had been on holiday from 24 January 2024. He could not have been driving on 29, 30 and 31 January 2024. He had left his card in his vehicle so that Mr Cran could download it. He had not used Mr Bremner’s card on 7, 26 and 28 February 2024. Mr Cran had never asked Mr Herron to do anything illegal.

Mr Herron produced 4 documents at his DCH. The first was an email, which he said had been sent to him on 1 April 2025 (Production 1) by the licensee of a restaurant in Cleethorpes confirming that Mr Herron had been at the restaurant on Thursday 25 January 2024 with his family for a birthday meal and he had returned on Tuesday 30 January 2024. The second was a copy of an email from a friend dated 31 March 2025, confirming that Mr Herron had been with him and a group of friends celebrating Mr Trueman’s birthday along with that of Mr Herron’s brother (Production 2). The third was a printout headed David Herron Holiday Entitlement (Production 3), which stated that Mr Herron had taken 5 days holiday between 26 January and 30 January 2024.

Mr Herron had been interviewed by Mr Munro on 9 October 2024. Mr Herron had been asked about who was driving FY66 FYM on 27 January 2024 (p.200). Mr Herron had replied that he was on holiday: he had finished on 25 January and he returned to work on 4 February 2024. He showed Mr Munro a screenshot from Ms Esson, who did the wages for the Operator, that stated that he had 5 days of holiday between 26 and 30 January 2024. The screenshot (p.220) was the same as Production 3. Mr Herron said that he had left his driver card in FY66 FYM while he was on holiday. He left his driver card in the vehicle so that it could be downloaded.

Mr Herron gave evidence that he was paid a set weekly wage. He usually worked Sunday to Thursday or Friday. He maintained his position that he had not driven between 26 January and 4 February 2024. He explained that he had taken 5 days holiday and the rest had been unpaid leave. He had been in England visiting family.

Mr Cran gave evidence. He explained that the Operator was a limited company that was owned and managed by him. He explained that he carried out freight forwarding for Mr Strachan. The work involved two trips a week to Grimsby and Hull. Mr Cran explained that Mr Strachan had left his card in Mr Cran’s vehicle by mistake. Mr Cran had taken advantage of this and had used Mr Strachan’s card on 15, 17 and 18 April 2024.

Mr Cran said that he had asked Mr Whyte if he could borrow Mr Whyte’s card and Mr Whyte had agreed. Mr Cran had been the only person using Mr Whyte’s card. Mr Cran had used Mr Whyte’s card in order to try and keep the job going, to satisfy the customer and to satisfy himself.

Mr Cran was asked by Mr Kelly about the use of Mr Whyte’s card on 29, 30 and 31 January 2024 and the use of Mr Bremner’s card on 7 February 2024, 26 February 2024 and 28 February 2024, both in FJ66 FYM. Mr Kelly drew Mr Cran’s attention to p.346 (Mr Cran’s Driver Conduct Brief) which showed the use of Mr Cran’s driver card in the week from 29 January 2024 to 4 February 2024. Mr Kelly contrasted that with the use of Mr Whyte’s card that week, which was at p.345.

Mr Cran explained that he had been using his card in Y55 GCT as shown in p.346. He agreed that p.345 showed that Mr Whyte’s card had been used in FY66 FYM on 29 and 30 January 2024. On 31 January 2024 he had used Mr Whyte’s card in Y55 GCT at 20:13 to disguise the fact that he had taken insufficient daily rest. He continued to use Mr Whyte’s card on 1 and 2 February in Y55 GCT.

Mr Kelly showed that if one overlaid p.345 (the use of Mr Whyte’s card) and p.346 (the use of Mr Cran’s card) it was apparent that both cards had been used at the same time in different vehicles (1) between approximately 10:30 and 12:00 on 29 January 2024, (2) between approximately 6:45 and 8:30 on 30 January 2024, and (3) between approximately 8:00 and 10:00 on 31 January 2024. Mr Cran agreed that he could not have been driving F66 FYM on those three occasions because he was driving Y55 GCT.

Mr Kelly asked Mr Cran if Mr Herron, the usual driver of F66 FYM, had been on holiday on those days. Mr Cran said that he did not know. I asked Mr Cran if Mr Herron was not driving on those days, who else could have been driving F66 FYM? Mr Cran said that he did not know.

Mr Cran did not know who could have been using Mr Bremner’s card on 7, 26 and 28 February 2024 in FY66 FYM. He did not think that Mr Herron had done so.

Mr Kelly asked Mr Cran what investigations he had carried out to find out who had been using FY66 FYM on 29, 30 and 31 January and 7, 26 and 28 February 2024. Mr Cran said that he had not carried out any investigation. There had been a difficulty with downloading and analysing data.

I asked Mr Cran about the use of Mr Whyte’s card and Mr Bremner’s card in FY66 FYM. Mr Cran accepted that he did not know who had been driving that vehicle on 29, 30 and 31 January 2024 if it had not been Mr Herron who was driving. Similarly, he did not know who had been driving that vehicle on 7, 26 and 28 February 2024. I suggested to him that if I accepted that Mr Herron did not use those cards on those days, then that meant that someone who was completely unknown to Mr Cran had used FY66 FYM on 6 different days without Mr Cran being aware of who was driving the vehicle. Mr Cran agreed but said that he did not know who had been driving FY66 FYM on those days. Mr Cran could not explain how some unknown person could have got access to FY66 FYM and driven it on 6 different days without him knowing about it. Mr Cran denied that he was covering for someone.

The submissions on behalf of Mr Cran as operator, transport manager and driver

Mr Kelly invited me to step back from revoking the Operator Licence. He pointed out that Mr Cran had taken steps after the DVSA investigation to remedy the deficiencies that had been identified.

While Mr Kelly accepted that I would be taking action against Mr Cran’s HGV licence because of Mr Cran’s misuse of driver card belonging to Mr Whyte and Mr Strachan, the misuse was not at the worst end of the scale. Mr Cran had not fully understood the seriousness of the using another driver’s card. He had voluntarily attended DVSA checkpoints to demonstrate that he was compliant. The misuse had taken place over a year ago and there had not been any issues since then. Mr Kelly invited me to depart from the guidance in the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document 6, Vocational Driver Conduct, Annex A, which suggested a starting point of “Revoke and disqualify for 12 months for a single offence - longer for 2 or more offences”. His primary position was that I should not revoke and disqualify Mr Cran. His fallback was that any period of disqualification should be less than the starting point of 12 months as suggested in Annex A.

So far as Mr Cran as an operator was concerned, Mr Kelly urged me not to revoke the Operator Licence. Although Mr Cran had admitted using Mr Strachan’s driver card and Mr Whyte’s driver card, this had been during a period when Mr Cran was undergoing personal difficulties. Mr Cran had explained that his motive was he was “just trying to get the job done”. There was no financial benefit to him. There would have been no financial penalty to him if he had not delivered the loads on time. Mr Cran had wanted to get the deliveries done on time as a matter of pride, and to keep the customer and Mr Strachan (who was acting as a freight forwarder) happy. Although some of the use had been to conceal rest offences, on other occasions there was no need for Mr Cran to use Mr Whyte’s card.

So far as F66 FYM was concerned, and who was driving it on the 6 days in question, Mr Cran was adamant that he had not used Mr Bremner’s card at all. Mr Kelly suggested that Mr Herron had used Mr Bremner’s card on a frolic of his own. Mr Cran accepted that he should have known from checking the tachograph data at the time that someone was misusing Mr Bremner’s card, and that he should have been able to identify who it was, but he had not done so at the time. Mr Cran could not explain how Mr Whyte’s card had been used in F66 FYM. Mr Cran had only used Mr Whyte’s card in Y55 GCT.

Mr Kelly drew attention to the fact that Mr Cran had endeavoured to show that he was now a fully compliant operator and driver. Mr Cran had attended the interview with Mr Munro and he had admitted what he had done. Mr Cran had undergone a Transport Manager refresher course and joined the RHA. Mr Cran had a perfect annual test record. There had been no repetition of the misuse of driver cards. The likelihood of Mr Cran repeating the misuse of driver cards was slim. In the circumstances Mr Kelly invited me to suspend the Operator Licence for two or three months as business could survive such a suspension. Alternatively, Mr Kelly suggested that the licence could be curtailed to 1 vehicle and 1 trailer.

Mr Kelly submitted that Mr Cran was likely to be a compliant operator in the future and that this was not a case where Mr Cran “ought to be put out of business”. The accepted misuse of the cards was for a relatively short period – Mr Whyte’s card had been misused between 31 January and 27 February 2024 and Mr Strachan’s card had been misused on 3 days in April 2024. Mr Kelly drew my attention to the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document no. 10: the principles of decision making and the concept of proportionality and in particular Annex 4 – suggested starting points for consideration of regulatory action.

Mr Kelly accepted that there were negatives. Mr Cran had attended a public inquiry in January 2008 at which his licence, and the licence of a company of which he was a director, was revoked, and Mr Cran had been disqualified from holding an operator’s licence for 2 years. Mr Cran had also lost his repute as a transport manager. Mr Kelly accepted that Mr Cran had obtained an unfair commercial advantage by the misuse of driver cards, although Mr Kelly submitted that this was limited to Mr Cran maintaining his reputation for being able to deliver on time, rather than any direct financial benefit. Mr Kelly accepted that Mr Cran had failed, as the transport manager, to exercise continuous and effective responsibility for the transport operation as Mr Cran had been unable to produce information that would have identified with certainty who had been driving FY66 FYM on the 6 days where this was in doubt. Mr Kelly submitted as a positive that the deficiencies in record keeping had been remedied.

So far as other positives were concerned Mr Kelly invited me to take account of the above average first time pass rate at MOT and low prohibition rate as demonstrating that the vehicles and trailers were being properly maintained. Mr Kelly submitted that as at the date of the Public Inquiry there were effective management control and appropriate systems and procedures in place to prevent operator licence failings. There were effective analysis procedures in place to detect falsification, drivers’ hours and/or WTD infringements. There was proper and effective staff training. There had been sufficient and effective changes made, with tangible evidence in support, to ensure compliance. Mr Cran had co-operated with the enforcement investigation.

Mr Kelly submitted that Mr Cran’s conduct fell into the “SEVERE to SERIOUS” starting point with possible outcomes ranging from revocation with detailed consideration of disqualification to significant time limited curtailment that may materially affect the transport operation. It was on that basis that Mr Kelly had submitted that I could step back from revocation and that I could deal with the matter by a curtailment to one vehicle and one trailer which would have a material effect on the Operator’s transport operation or that I might order the suspension of the licence for two or three months.

Mr Kelly submitted that Mr Cran’s position was “what had happened in the past is in the past and will remain in the past. Mr Cran has learned from what has happened and there will be no repetition in the future” if I was to allow Mr Cran to continue to operate.

Mr Kelly submitted that, if I was not prepared to deal with the matter by way of a curtailment or a suspension of two or three months, and I revoked the Operator’s Licence, I should not disqualify Mr Cran from holding an Operator Licence. If the licence was revoked only Mr Cran would be able to reapply for a licence and might, therefore be able to keep the business going if the application was granted. Disqualification would mean the end of his business which would have a serious effect on him and his family. Mr Cran had had a year with no serious compliance issues. If I did disqualify Mr Cran, it should be for less than five years. Mr Kelly emphasised that his primary submission was that Mr Cran should be allowed to retain his Operator’s Licence and for his business to be allowed to continue subject to a curtailment to one vehicle and one trailer.

While Mr Kelly accepted that Mr Cran might have lost his repute as a transport manager, Mr Kelly invited me to find that as the Operator was a limited company, I should compartmentalise loss of repute as a TM from loss of a repute as an operator. Mr Kelly invited me to find that Mr Cran could lose his repute as a transport manager without the limited company losing its repute as an operator. In those circumstances the Operator would have to find another transport manager to replace Mr Cran. Mr Kelly offered an undertaking for an independent audit if the licence were allowed to continue. Mr Kelly drew my attention to Alistair Walter [2017] UKUT 0438 (AAC) and in particular to paragraph 23 where the Upper Tribunal had stated that it was questionable if such an approach was feasible or appropriate where an operator was a sole trader and the transport manager. He argued that such an approach was feasible and appropriate where the operator was a limited company and a director of the company was the transport manager. Mr Kelly did not go further and seek to argue that Mr Cran’s conduct as director could not be attributed to the limited company because of the “corporate veil”. I assume this is because Mr Kelly is well aware of para. 1(2) of Schedule 3 to the 1995 Act which requires me to consider a director’s conduct in determining if a company is of good repute.

Findings in fact

There were only three areas of controversy that required me to make specific findings in fact. Mr Kelly, very helpfully, made it clear that there was no dispute about the evidence that Mr Munro had produced in his Public Inquiry Report and the other evidence in the Public Inquiry except (1) whether Mr Cran had been given Mr Whyte’s driver card by Mr Whyte, (2) who had been using Mr Herron’s card in FY66 FYM on 29, 30 and 31 January 2024, and (3) who had been using Mr Bremner’s card in FY66 FYM on 7, 26 and 28 February 2024.

There is one undisputed matter that I need to make a finding in fact about. Mr Cran gave evidence about the Operator and its business. Mr Cran explained that the Operator was a limited company that was owned and managed by him. It was clear from his evidence about the business he was the “controlling mind” of limited company. In the circumstances I find that it is appropriate to find that Mr Cran was the Operator and vice versa. In these circumstances it is appropriate for me to look behind the corporate veil – see T/2013/08 Vision Travel Ltd.

(1) Had Mr Cran had been given Mr Whyte’s driver card by Mr Whyte?

Mr Cran said that he had asked Mr Whyte if he could borrow Mr Whyte’s card and Mr Whyte had agreed. Mr Whyte denied having leant Mr Cran his card. Mr Whyte said that he had suspected that he had left it in one of the Operator’s vehicles after he had driven the vehicle while servicing the vehicle at the end of January 2024. He had thought that Mr Cran had the card, but he did not think that Mr Cran was using it.

I preferred Mr Whyte’s evidence to Mr Cran’s evidence. Lending cards is a serious matter that would normally result in revocation and disqualification of a HGV licence. Mr Cran did not offer any reason why Mr Whyte would lend his card to Mr Cran and risk losing his HGV licence. It seemed to me to be implausible that Mr Whyte, who was a mechanic working for the company that serviced Mr Cran’s vehicles, would lend his card to Mr Cran for no reason other than Mr Cran asked him to. Mr Whyte was not a friend of Mr Cran. Mr Whyte would have not derived any benefit from lending his card to Mr Cran. It seems to me to be much more probable that Mr Whyte left his card in Mr Cran’s vehicle by mistake, and that Mr Cran took advantage of that mistake. I also take account of the fact that Mr Cran accepted that he had done this in the case of Mr Strachan’s card. Further, although it is to Mr Cran’s credit that he accepted that he had used Mr Whyte’s card when he was interviewed by the DVSA, I find that Mr Cran was not candid in his evidence about who had been driving FY66 FYM, when Mr Whyte’s card and Mr Bremner’s cards were used in it, for the reasons that I set out below (see paras 70-73).

These reasons lead me to conclude that Mr Cran did not tell the truth to the DVSA, and myself, about how he came to be in possession of Mr Whyte’s card, and that he had found Mr Whyte’s card in one of the Operator’s vehicles.

(2) Who had been using Mr Herron’s card in FY66 FYM on 29, 30 and 31 January 2024?

Mr Herron denied that he had been driving and said that he had been in England. Mr Cran’s position was that he did not know if Mr Herron had been driving on those days or if Mr Herron had been on holiday- he could not remember.

I prefer Mr Herron’s evidence that he had not been driving FY66 FYM as he had been on holiday in England. Mr Herron relies upon four documents that he produced at the conjoined DCH/PI. I note that one of these documents was a screenshot that had been shown to Mr Munro when he interviewed Mr Herron on 9 October 2024. In other words, it had been created long before the Public Inquiry. I consider that it is unlikely that Mr Herron would have had the knowledge to create a screenshot from his phone (and the other productions he produced) or that he would have had the foresight to create these documents. While Mr Herron’s version is, on one view, contradicted by evidence produced by Ms Esson to Mr Munro in October 2024 (see p. 222-225), Ms Esson did not give evidence at the PI or the DCHs. Looking at these documents more closely, it seems to me that they can be explained as being the result of Ms Esson drawing conclusions that Mr Herron had been the driver on those occasions from information derived from Mr Herron’s driver card, which it is not disputed showed that Mr Herron’s card had been used in FY66 FYM. I do not consider that the documents unequivocally show that Mr Herron had been at work and driving FY66 FYM, and that he had, therefore lied to TE Munro during his investigation and that he had lied to me at his DCH.

I had the benefit of seeing Mr Herron give evidence in person. He seemed to me to be telling the truth. More importantly there was no convincing reason why Mr Herron would lie about being on holiday in England from 25 January 2024 unless he had been using Mr Whyte’s driver card. My understanding of Mr Cran’s position was that he had Mr Whyte’s card at that time. Mr Cran, when he was interviewed by Mr Munro, denied passing Mr Whyte’s card to Mr Herron (p.193-195). I have no reason to disbelieve Mr Cran’s evidence on that point.

As Mr Kelly demonstrated it is obvious from the tachograph records (p. 345 and 346) that Mr Herron’s card and Mr Cran’s card had been used at the same time in two different vehicles. I conclude that the most probable explanation is that Mr Cran was, as the records show, driving Y55 GCT and that he did not, therefore, use Mr Herron’s driver card in FY66 FYM.

I do not know who was using Mr Herron’s card on the dates in question, but I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr Herron was not the driver as he was on holiday in England. For the reasons I set out below I find that Mr Cran was aware of who had been using Mr Herron’s card (paras 70-73).

(3) Who had been using Mr Bremner’s card in FY66 FYM on 7, 26 and 28 February 2024?

Mr Bremner denied driving on 7 and 28 February 2024. Mr Bremner explained that he had driven FY66 FYM while carrying out a road test for the MOT on 26 February 2024 but he had not driven it later that day. I accepted Mr Bremner’s evidence. It was not challenged. There was no reason for Mr Bremner to have been driving F66 FYM other than as part of his duties as a mechanic. I consider that it is far more likely that he left his card in FY66 FYM by mistake and someone took advantage of that mistake. Mr Cran’s evidence was that he had not used Mr Bremner’s card and he did not think that Mr Herron had done so either. There was no other information, e.g. records of journeys, that might assisted with identifying who was using Mr Bremner’s card. I am prepared to give Mr Cran the benefit of the doubt and to accept that he did not use Mr Bremner’s card.

Mr Herron gave evidence at his DCH that he had not used Mr Bremner’s card. Mr Herron’s evidence to Mr Munro in interview was that he had seen the unidentified driver who had been in FY66 FYM on 7 February 2024, who would have been using Mr Bremner’s card just before Mr Herron took over driving, but that he chose not to say who the person was (p.202). Similarly, Mr Herron said he knew who had been driving before him on 28 February 2024, and, therefore, who would have been using Mr Bremner’s card, but he was not willing to say who that was. Mr Herron’s evidence to me at the DCH was different. Mr Herron did not know who had been driving before he took over on 7 February 2024 nor on 28 February 2024. Mr Herron said that he had been flippant as he had not liked Mr Munro’s tone.

Mr Herron’s change in position was unsatisfactory however it does not lead me to the conclusion that Mr Herron was lying when he denied using Mr Bremner’s card. The evidence about FY66 FYM’s movements and who was driving on those two days was unclear and unsatisfactory, but I accepted Mr Herron’s evidence that he had not been using Mr Bremner’s card and that he did not who had been using Mr Bremner’s card.

I find that I cannot say, on the balance of probabilities, who was driving FY66 FYM using Mr Bremner’s card, on 7, 26 and 28 February 2024, other than at the times when Mr Bremner accepted that he was driving as part of his duties as a mechanic.

I am left in the unsatisfactory position that I am unable to identify who carried out substantial periods of driving when Mr Bremner’s card had been inserted into FY66 FYM e.g. between 05:43 and 11:33 on 7 February 2024 (p.91), between 11:55 and 17:51 on 26 February 2024 (p. 92) and between 04:35 and 08:15 on 28 February 2024 (p.93).

I asked Mr Cran if he was concealing the identity of the driver or drivers in question from me: he denied that he had done so. I asked Mr Cran, if I found that Mr Herron had not been driving F66 FYM on the 6 days in question, would that mean that the someone had been driving F66 FYM for lengthy periods of time on 6 different days without Mr Cran’s knowledge. Mr Cran agreed that it would.

I have found that Mr Herron had not been the driver of F66 FYM on 29, 30 and 31 January 2024. I have found that I do not know who was driving using Mr Bremner’s card on 7, 26 and 28 February 2024 (apart from the road test by Mr Bremner) however, I am satisfied that it was not Mr Bremner or Mr Herron.

Either Mr Cran knew the identity of the person or persons who had been driving on those days, and was concealing that information from me, or someone had managed to take F66 FYM and drive it for significant periods of time without Mr Cran’s knowledge.

It seems to me that it is completely implausible that a mystery driver, whose identity was not known to Mr Cran, could have taken F66 FYM and driven it for significant periods of time on numerous occasions. I find that it is more probable than not that Mr Cran knew the identity of the person or persons and was concealing that information from me. It follows that, when Mr Cran failed to tell TE Munro who was driving on those occasions, he was concealing information from TE Munro as well. I consider that this was dishonest behaviour by Mr Cran.

Findings regarding breaches of legislation

Mr Cran accepted that he had created false tachograph records by inserting, and using, Mr Whyte’s driver card in Y55 GCT ten times between 31 January 2024 and 1 March 2024. Mr Cran also accepted that he had created false tachograph records by inserting, and using Mr Strachan’s driver card in Y55 GCT, three times on 15, 17 and 18 April 2024. The Operator was, therefore, in breach of the undertaking given in its application for a Goods Vehicle Operator’s Licence that “The rules on drivers’ hours and tachographs are observed, proper records kept and that these are made available on request.” (p.36). This is a breach of s.26(f) of the 1995 Act.

Mr Cran’s creation of false tachographs gives rise to the question of whether Mr Cran, is fit to hold of a Large Goods Vehicle driver’s licence in terms of s.115 and 117 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

I have found that Mr Cran knew who had driven F66 FYM on 6 occasions – 29, 30 and 31 January and 7, 26 and 28 February 2024, using driver cards belonging to Mr Herron and Mr Bremner. This gives rise to the questions of whether or not the Operator and Mr Cran, as Transport Manager, have lost their good repute in terms of s.13A(2)(b) and paragraphs 1 and 14A of Schedule 3.

The remaining issues that I need to decide in this case are, therefore:-
- What action, if any, should be taken against Mr Cran, as the holder of a Large Goods Vehicle driver’s licence (s.115 and s.117 of the Road Traffic Act 1988)?
- Should the Operator’s Goods Vehicle Operator’s Licence be revoked in terms of s.27(1)(a) because the Operator is no longer of good repute in terms of s.13A?
- If I do decide to revoke the Operator’s licence, should I disqualify the Operator and/or Mr Cran from holding an operator’s licence under s.28 and if so for what period?
- Is Mr Cran, as transport manager, no longer of good repute (paragraph 14A of Schedule 3)?
What action, if any, should be taken against Mr Cran, as the holder of a large Goods Vehicle driver’s licence (s.115, s.116 and s.117 of the Road Traffic Act 1988)?

Mr Kelly accepted that the conduct that Mr Cran admitted was such that the licence should be suspended or revoked. I consider that Mr Kelly was right to do so. The only other alternative disposal of a warning would be an obviously inadequate response to what is, on any view, serious falsification of tachograph records by using digicards belonging to Mr Whyte and Mr Strachan on 13 occasions over a ten-week period. Mr Cran’s behaviour was dishonest. It was an obvious example of conduct which is such that a driver would be unfit to hold a Large Goods Vehicle driver’s licence in terms of s.115(1)(b) of the 1988 Act. The consequence that s.116(2) of the 1988 Act requires me to consider if Mr Cran’s licence should be suspended or revoked. If I decide to revoke his licence, then I need to consider if Mr Cran should be disqualified from holding such a licence in terms of s.117(2) of the 1988 Act.

I have had regard to Statutory Document no. 6 Vocational Driver Conduct and in particular Annex A. recommends as an entry point for use of a digicard belonging to another “Revoke and disqualify for 12 months for a single offence – longer for 2 or more offences”

I have considered Case Examples 21, 22 and 23. Although Case Examples 21 and 22 involve the use of a magnet, the use of another person’s driver card is regarded as being as serious as the use of a magnet (see Case Example 23).

I have considered Annex C: Examples of Aggravating and Mitigating Features. In this case the aggravating features are: (1) the use of a device, another driver’s digicard, (2) the use of the card was deliberate to falsify tachograph records, (3) the use was from 31 January 2024 until 1 March 2024 (on 13 occasions) and (4) the result was the Operator gained a commercial advantage although Mr Kelly characterised this as a reputational rather than direct financial benefit.

The mitigating factors are: (1) Mr Cran does not have any previous driver conduct issues – this was his “first offence”, (2) there was co-operation with the DVSA investigation and (3) there has been no repetition of the offending behaviour.

The exercise that I have to carry out is not simply totting up the number of aggravating and mitigating factors to determine whether Mr Cran is unfit to hold a licence. I have to consider the weight that I attach to each factor and I have to make a judgement embracing the whole of Mr Cran’s conduct as a driver (see paras 60-61). In considering fitness, Mr Cran’s personal circumstances are not relevant as they do not concern his conduct as a driver (para. 63). They are relevant, of course, to the whether the conduct results to revocation and disqualification, or if a lesser sanction might be a more proportionate response (para. 64). I am entitled to consider a longer period of disqualification where there has been the use of another driver’s digicard (para. 65). I am entitled to set down a marker regarding deterrence (para. 66)

I have had regard to paras 94-96:-
- Drivers’ hours (EC & domestic) / working time and tachograph offences
The drivers’ hours, working time and tachograph rules assist in keeping the public safe when using public roads and it is always serious when a deliberate false record is made by a vocational driver.

The Court of Appeal has confirmed that it is appropriate in principle to pass a custodial sentence of significant length for offences related to falsifying records which involve the use of commercial vehicles on the roads in a way that concerns public safety and has potentially serious consequences. The concealment of evidence required for effective regulation of drivers’ hours should therefore result in a traffic commissioner taking a very serious view.
- Traffic commissioners are likely to regard the falsification as more serious than the offence that it may be designed to conceal. Those who commit offences of this kind must understand that there will be serious consequences if and when the matter comes to light. A cumulative and significant period of disqualification which reflects the offence that has been subject to concealment, the falsification of records and/or use of a manipulation device, is the likely outcome. Subsequent conduct is also likely to be of limited weight.
Mr Cran gave evidence on both days about his personal circumstances and the effect that losing his LGV driver licence, and/or his Operator’s Licence and/or his repute as a transport manager. I have accepted his evidence on these matters and I have taken it, together with Mr Kelly’s helpful submissions into account.

In summary if Mr Cran loses his LGV licence he does not have any other skills. He is likely to struggle to find employment that would match his earnings from the Operator’s business (in all of his roles). He supports family members who will be adversely affected if his income is reduced. If the Operator’s licence was revoked then the business would survive if he was able to apply for, and was granted a new operator licence. If the licence was suspended for two or three months, then the business could survive. If the licence was suspended for a longer period then the business would not survive and he would have to start again. If, however, the licence was revoked and the Operator and Mr Cran were disqualified that would mean the end of a business that Mr Cran has worked hard to build up. Mr Cran would have to look for alternative employment which would be unlikely to match the income that he had got from the business. That would result in significant financial hardship for him and his family members.

I am conscious that the result of Mr Cran’s conduct could lead to the revocation of his LGV licence, the revocation of the Operator’s licence and disqualification from holding an operator’s licence, and the loss of Mr Cran’s repute of a transport manager. If I was a criminal court who was sentencing Mr Cran, for what might be characterised as a single course of conduct, I would have to take care that Mr Cran was not being punished three times for the same thing. However, my role is not to punish Mr Cran. My role is to consider, in simple terms, whether Mr Cran is fit to be a LGV driver, an operator and a transport manager. In each case, I have to make a decision about his fitness for that role. So, for example, Mr Cran’s fitness to be a LGV driver is unaffected by the fact that he might lose his business and his repute as a transport manager as well.

I accept that in considering the sanction that I should impose if I were to find that Mr Cran was not fit for a role, e.g. as a driver, I should step back and look at the consequences for Mr Cran as a whole, in deciding what a proportionate response should be. However, I also need to bear in mind that, as the regulator of drivers, operators and transport managers, I have to consider deterring others from repeating Mr Cran’s conduct and I have to maintain the integrity of the regulatory system.

As I have stated above Mr Kelly, in his submissions, invited me to step back from revocation of Mr Cran’s LGV licence and from refrain from imposing a lengthy period of disqualification as suggested in Annex A. Mr Kelly’s submissions highlighted the following factors. Mr Cran had not understood the seriousness of using another driver’s card. It was his first offence. There had been no repetition of the offences. The Operator had not gained any direct quantifiable financial benefit, e.g. avoiding penalties for late delivery. The Operator had not saved money by avoiding having to employ other drivers: the deliveries could have been managed if Mr Cran had not used the other drivers’ cards and had simply stopped driving at the appropriate times. Mr Cran had wanted to get the job done and to deliver within the expected timeframe but he chose not to do so. The only consequence would have be reputational: the delivery would have been late but there would not have been, e.g. any financial penalty or extra cost.

I accept Mr Kelly’s submission that there was no direct quantifiable financial benefit to the Operator as a result of Mr Cran’s conduct. However, the submission that the benefit to the Operator was only reputational only takes Mr Cran so far. Reputation, and the preservation of that reputation, are important parts of any business. If an operator loses a reputation for delivering in time, then that may well result in that operator losing business to other operators who are able to make deliveries in time without creating false records by using other drivers’ cards. Mr Kelly accepted that Mr Cran’s conduct did result in a commercial advantage – the retention of a reputation for delivering on time when that was achieved by unlawful means. In any event the Upper Tribunal has made it clear in NT/2013/82 Arnold Transport & Sons Ltd v DOENI that conduct does not have to result in an actual unfair advantage in order to affect competition:-
- “19. It was an offence intended to obtain an unfair advantage in relation to the Appellant’s competitors. The fact that it is now asserted that it did not achieve that purpose should, in our view, carry little if any weight. One reason is that it is the underlying intention that matters. Another reason is the potential impact of unfair competition on other operators. The impact of unfair competition is insidious in that it gradually and subtly undermines the confidence of compliant operators that their competitors will comply with the regulatory regime and thus compete fairly. What matters is the perception that other operators are competing unfairly not whether they are achieving any benefit as a result. Once rumours, of unfair competition spread, (or clear evidence of it becomes apparent), the assumption will be made that it must be advantageous because there would be no point in running the risks involved if it was not. It is also corrosive because once rumours of unfair competition, (at the very least), begin to spread the perception that some operators are competing unfairly, (whether or not they profit by doing so), has a damaging effect. It means that normally compliant operators will feel tempted to ‘cut corners’ in relation to the regulatory regime in order to remain in business. Some may decide to resist that temptation but others are likely to succumb. The end result, if swift and effective steps are not taken to stamp out unfair competition, is that the operators who are most determined to remain compliant will be at greatest risk of being put out of business, even though they are the very operators who most deserve to remain in the industry. Trust, (whether between operators and the Traffic Commissioner or between operators themselves), is all too easily destroyed. Rebuilding it, if that is even possible, is likely to be a long and slow process”.
The fact that this was Mr Cran’s first offence and he did not appreciate the seriousness of his conduct is also of limited weight. Mr Cran was an experienced driver, operator and transport manager. If he did not know how serious his conduct was, which I find hard to believe, he ought to have known that using another driver’s card to falsify tachograph records was a serious matter. In any event, what is more important is on any view Mr Cran’s behaviour in using driver cards belonging to Mr Whyte and Mr Strachan to create false records was clearly dishonest. Mr Cran knew that he should not have done it, even if he did not know how serious the consequences might be.

I accept that Mr Cran did co-operate with the DVSA when he was stopped by TE Munro on 24 April 2024 and in the subsequent investigation. He admitted using driver cards belonging to Mr Strachan and Mr Whyte. However, I have found Mr Cran knew the identity of the person or persons who had used driver cards belonging to Mr Herron and Mr Bremner to drive FY66 FYM on 6 days. I have found that Mr Cran chose to conceal that information from TE Munro and from me and that behaviour was dishonest. Mr Cran can, therefore, only get credit for what was limited co-operation with the DVSA investigation and at the Public Inquiry, which is outweighed by his dishonesty in concealing information.

Similarly, the fact that there has been no repetition of the offending behaviour is of limited weight. It would be a very bold driver who, having been caught using another driver’s card, continued to do so up until the date of a driver conduct hearing or a public inquiry. I do take account of the fact that Mr Cran has taken steps to ensure that he is now compliant and that there has not been any repetition. However, I consider that the fact Mr Cran has taken considerable steps to demonstrate that he was compliant and that there had been no repetition by, for example, voluntarily attending at DVSA checksites to have his vehicle and his tachograph data examined has little weight. The reason that Mr Cran did so was self-serving: it was a way of Mr Cran demonstrating that he was now compliant.

I have taken into account Mr Cran’s personal circumstances in considering whether I should take suspend his licence rather revoke and disqualify. I accept that Mr Cran’s personal and family circumstances put him under pressure both at the time of the offences and that these circumstances are still present. I accept that the consequences of him losing his LGV driver’s licence will have a serious effect on his financial circumstances and that will affect not just him but also his family. Mr Cran has been a driver, operator and transport manager for many years and he may well struggle to find alternative employment.

However, I agree with the guidance provided by the Senior Traffic Commissioner that I should take a very serious view of the concealment of evidence required for the effective regulation of drivers’ hours. Mr Cran’s behaviour was dishonest. Mr Cran’s behaviour was not a “one off”: it was not restricted to one or two occasions. It was repeated behaviour on 13 days over two and a half months. In addition, Mr Cran did not just misuse one driver’s card: he misused two.

I accept that there is no evidence that when Mr Cran was misusing the driver cards he was an actual danger to the safety of the public. He was not, for example, driving for 24 hours without a break which would, obviously, have resulted in him being a danger to himself and other road users. However, if misuse of driver cards did not result in serious consequences for drivers this would undermine the integrity of the regulatory regime, one of whose aims is the safety of the public. The drivers’ hours and tachograph regime depends upon drivers not making false records by misuse of driver cards: it is a fundamental requirement for the regime to operate effectively. Dishonest drivers, who are prepared to ignore such a fundamental requirement, are an obvious danger to the safety of the public.

I do not need to wait for an actual instance of a driver driving while s/he is unfit to drive because of tiredness before I can take action. I can take action to deter others from endangering the safety of the public in the future. I consider that in this case I should take action to send a message to other drivers that Mr Cran’s dishonest behaviour was unacceptable.

For these reasons, I consider that it is proportionate for Mr Cran’s LGV driver licence to be revoked and for Mr Cran to be disqualified from holding a LGV driver licence in terms of s.116(2) and 117(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

I do not see any justification for departing from the guidance in Annex A which suggests as a starting point “Revoke and disqualify for 12 months for a single offence – longer for 2 or more offences”. Mr Cran committed 13 offences, using 2 driver cards over a two and half month period. Although I accept that any period of disqualification will have a significant financial impact on Mr Cran, this is outweighed by the need to impose a period of disqualification that will deter others. I consider that period of disqualification is two years is sufficient to deter others.

I was not addressed on when any revocation and disqualification should begin. I am prepared to allow Mr Cran until 5 pm, Friday 21 November 2025 to make representations about a suitable date. If Mr Cran does not do so, then the revocation and the disqualification will take effect from 23:59 on 30 January 2026.

Whether the Operator’s Goods Vehicle Operator’s Licence should be revoked in terms of s.27(1)(a) because the Operator is no longer of good repute in terms of s.13A?

Mr Kelly invited me to find that if Mr Cran had lost his repute as a transport manager, that did not mean that the Operator should lose its repute even though the actings that gave rise to the loss of repute were the same – the conduct of Mr Cran.

I agree with Mr Kelly that where an operator is a limited company and is not a sole trader, it is possible for a transport manager, who is also a director of the company, to lose his or her good repute without the operator losing its good repute. However, given my finding that Mr Cran is the Operator, and vice versa, and the Transport Manager as well, I consider that it is not appropriate for me to compartmentalise good repute in such a way. This is a one person operation: it should be treated in the same way as if it was a sole trader and not a limited company. It would bring the regulatory regime into disrepute if someone who was, in reality, both the transport manager and the operator, could avoid losing “his or her” operator licence simply because the business was a limited company. I should, therefore, make separate assessments of whether or not there has been a loss of good repute and of the consequences of any loss of good repute, for the Operator and Mr Cran, as Transport Manager).

I have had regard to the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document 1: Good Repute and Fitness, and Statutory Document No.10: The Principles of Decision Making and the Concept of Proportionality.

I have considered the positive and negative features in this case and, in particular, the non-exhaustive list at Annex 4 of Stat. Doc. 10. I have considered Mr Kelly’s submissions (paras 42-53 above).

Fitness to hold an operator licence is an essential element of good repute for an operator (Stat. Doc. 1 paras 43 and 44). Similarly, fitness to be a transport manager is an essential element of good repute for a transport manager- see T/2015/49 Matthew Reynolds v Secretary of State for Transport.

In considering good repute of operators and transport managers traffic commissioners must have regard to “all the relevant evidence and in particular to…(b) such other information as the commissioner may have as to [Mr Cran’s] previous conduct, in whatever capacity, in relation to the operation of vehicles of any description in the course of a business.” – see paragraph 1 of Schedule 3 of the 1995 Act.

Lady Justice Sharp explained what “relevant evidence” is in Catch22bus Ltd v The Secretary of State for Transport [2019] EWCA Civ 1022
- “6. Thus, the guiding principle as to matters that the traffic commissioners can and should take into account in this context is relevance. In Crompton t/a David Crompton Haulage v Department of Transport North Western Traffic Area [2003] EWCA Civ 64 (https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2003/64.html)[2003] RTR 34 (regarding the Goods Vehicles regulatory regime and Schedule 3 to the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995) Kennedy LJ said, at para 19(5):
- “…Parliament cannot have intended a traffic commissioner ever to have regard to immaterial evidence, so the conclusion must surely be that the Schedule requires the traffic commissioner when considering alleged loss of repute to focus on matters relevant to the individual’s fitness to hold a licence…”
- Ø 7.There are a number of subsidiary points to be made on relevance.
- First, the conduct does not have to be unlawful in order to fall within the wide scope of relevance… There is nothing explicit or implicit in the legislative regime to suggest otherwise. The requirement is to have regard to “all the relevant evidence” of conduct when considering good repute…
- Secondly, relevance is a threshold question. If conduct is relevant, the weight and significance to be attached to it is a matter for the traffic commissioner to consider.
- Thirdly, relevance is both context and fact specific. The context here is good repute and the holding of licenses under the 1981 Act. There must therefore be some connection between the conduct in question and the fitness of the person to hold the licence (though there is no requirement that the conduct be directly connected with road transport). One aspect of this (important in this appeal) is trust. Licensing is based on trust so that: “Traffic commissioners must be able to trust those to whom they grant operator’s licenses to operate in compliance with the regulatory regime”: see Martin Joseph Formby t/a G & G Transport at para 17.
- Ø 8. The ultimate question when considering what action to take against an operator is a prospective one, namely how likely it is that the operator will, in future, operate in compliance with the operator’s licensing regime? See Priority Freight Ltd & Paul Williams 2009/225 at para 9. A Traffic Commissioner need not be satisfied that the appellant would not comply with the licensing regime in the future, but need only consider the likelihood of compliance.
- Ø 9. The question then to be considered is not whether the conduct is so serious as to amount to a loss of repute, but whether it is so serious as to require revocation. To put it another way, the question is whether the conduct is such that the operator ought to be put out of business, which in turn, involves a consideration of the proportionality of such a conclusion. See Bryan Haulage (No 2) 2002/217 at para 11.”
Mr Cran’s admitted dishonest conduct in misusing cards belonging to Mr Whyte and Mr Strachan obviously is conduct that is relevant to Mr Cran’s fitness to hold an operator licence (and to be a transport manager). These are “serious infringements” (Stat. Doc. 1 paras 36, 41, 48 and 56 “Adherence to the rules relating to drivers’ hours is fundamental to road safety”

The fact that I do not know who was using FY66 FYM on 29, 30 and 31 January 2024 and on 7, 26 and 28 February 2024 (see paras 69-73 above) is also relevant. I have found that Mr Cran dishonestly concealed the identity of the driver or drivers from TE Munro and from me.

Statutory Document No. 1 states:-

“43. The Upper Tribunal has explored the scope of the requirement to be of Good Repute. The provisions refer to an individual’s or company’s fitness to hold a licence as relevant considerations. The Upper Tribunal in their decision [in NT2013/082 Arnold Transport & Sons Ltd v DOENI]:“underlined the word ‘fitness’ in both these provisions because it is critical to understanding the breadth of the requirement to be of good repute. It means, for example, that an operator who cannot be trusted to comply with the operator’s licensing regime is unlikely to be fit to hold an operator’s licence” .
- Traffic commissioners may examine matters where there is no conviction …Other conduct such as a lack of co-operation and/or honesty during the course of the public inquiry will also be relevant…
§ 58. A licence is issued to an operator on trust that the operator will comply with the requirements…
- Dishonesty… are very serious matters which need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine the substance, nature and degree… All operators have a positive duty to co-operate with the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) and the traffic commissioner. Any attempt to deceive a traffic commissioner is serious conduct which cannot be condoned,…Similarly operators who deliberately deceive and present false evidence to traffic commissioners, either in correspondence or at public inquiry, are also liable to prosecution through the criminal courts and are likely in serious cases to receive a custodial sentence…”
Many of the factors that Mr Kelly relied upon applied to Mr Cran as a driver as well as an operator and a transport manager. I have already discussed the weight that I attached to these factors when considering Mr Cran’s LGV driver’s licence. I accept Mr Kelly’s submission that there have been sufficient and effective changes made, with tangible evidence in support, to ensure compliance. I accept that it is to Mr Cran’s credit that he has undergone a transport manager refresher course and he has joined the RHA. I accept that, at the date of the Public Inquiry, there were effective management control and appropriate systems and procedures in place to prevent operator licence failings. I accept that, at the date of the Public Inquiry, there were effective analysis procedures in place to detect falsification, drivers’ hours and/or WTD infringements. I accept that, at the date of the Public Inquiry, there was proper and effective staff training. I accept Mr Kelly’s submission there were no issues with the maintenance of the vehicles and trailers, either before or after the Public Inquiry. I accept that there has been no repletion of Mr Cran’s dishonest conduct.

I agree with Mr Kelly that the previous public inquiry was a negative. I do, however, attach limited weight to this as I do not know what the reasons were for the revocation of Mr Cran’s licence and his disqualification, and his loss of repute as a transport manager were. What I take from it is that Mr Cran was not a “first offender” with an unblemished history in operating LGVs.

I agree with Mr Kelly that the Operator did derive an unfair commercial advantage. I do not agree that the fact that this was “reputational”, to use Mr Kelly’s description means that this means it deserves less weight than if there had been a direct quantifiable financial benefit to the Operator. I consider, for the reasons set out in para. 90 above, that reputation, and the preservation of that reputation is an important part of any business. The Operator did obtain an important commercial advantage – the retention of a reputation for delivery in on time.

I do not agree that those were the only negative features from the list in Annex A. Mr Cran’s behaviour was deliberate. It led to a risk to road safety. It resulted in an unfair commercial advantage. I disagree with Mr Kelly’s description of Mr Cran’s offending as being over a relatively short period. I consider that Mr Cran’s conduct – using 2 different driver cards to commit 13 offences over a two and a half month period can be described as “persistent”. I attach considerable weight to the fact that Mr Cran did not fully co-operate with the DVSA investigation, by dishonestly concealing who had been misusing driver cards belonging to Mr Herron and Mr Bremner.

Similarly, although it is not on the “non-exhaustive list” I attach considerable weight to the fact that Mr Cran dishonestly concealed from me at the Public Inquiry who had been misusing driver cards belonging to Mr Herron and Mr Bremner.

I disagree with Mr Kelly’s assessment of Mr Cran’s conduct as being in the SEVERE to SERIOUS category. I consider that Mr Cran’s conduct falls within the SEVERE category:- deliberate acts that compromised road safety, that gave a clear commercial advantage and included attempts to conceal offences or failings.

Turning to the Priority Freight question “is this an operator I can trust to be compliant in the future” Mr Kelly submitted that that the answer was “yes” because I should accept Mr Cran’s evidence that he had learned from what had happened and there would be no repetition.

Mr Kelly’s submission was based upon the assumption that I would accept that Mr Cran’s evidence. As I have set out above, I did not accept Mr Cran’s evidence that Mr Whyte had leant his card to Mr Cran. Nor did I accept Mr Cran’s evidence about the use of Mr Herrons’s card on 29, 30 and 31 January 2024 and the use of Mr Bremner’s card on 7, 26 and 28 February 2024. I have found that Mr Cran’s conduct was dishonest both in falsifying tachograph records and in concealing the identity of drivers from the DVSA and from me.

I do not give any weight to Mr Cran’s claim to have learnt his lesson. I do not believe him. Even if I did believe him, the question is not “do I believe that Mr Cran, having been caught misusing driver cards, will not risk doing it again?”. The question is “will Mr Cran be trustworthy?”.

I consider that Mr Cran’s dishonest behaviour in using driver cards belonging to Mr Whyte and Mr Strachan to create false records, and Mr Cran’s dishonest behaviour in concealing the identity of the drivers who were using cards belonging to Mr Herron and Mr Bremner, show that Mr Cran cannot be trusted to comply with the operator’s licensing regime in the future.

I turn to the Bradley Fold question “is the conduct such that the operator ought to be put out of business?”. This requires me to determine whether the loss of the Operator’s good repute would constitute a disproportionate response to the specific circumstances of this case, having considered these circumstances and the weight that should be attached to them.

I remind myself that I can take into disciplinary considerations into account to deter other- see the observations of the Court of Session in Thomas Muir (Haulage) Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions 1999 S.C. 89:-
- “….. it does not follow that a traffic commissioner is prevented from taking into account, where appropriate, some considerations of a disciplinary nature and doing so in particular for the purpose of deterring the operator or other persons from failing to carry out their responsibilities under the legislation. However, taking such considerations into account should not be for the purpose of punishment per se, but in order to assist in the achievement of the purpose of the legislation. This is in addition to the obvious consideration that a direction may be used to provide direct protection to the public against dangers arising from the failure to comply with the basis on which the licence was granted. Whether or not such disciplinary considerations come into play must depend upon the circumstances of the individual case.”
I also remind myself of the observations of the Upper Tribunal in Michael James Fenlon t/a County Skips 2006/277:-
- “17…It has been said on many occasions 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.”
The importance of compliance with the regulatory regime and fair competition was repeated by the Upper Tribunal in T/2014/72 Ian Russell Nicholas t/a Wigan Container Services v Secretary of State for Transport para.5:-

“…We are satisfied that the Traffic Commissioner was entitled to have regard to the message sent to other operators by a decision…The primary purpose of the regulatory regime is to ensure that potentially dangerous vehicles are operated safely. That purpose is not confined to keeping vehicles in a fit and serviceable condition. Instead it extends to ensuring, amongst other things, that drivers are properly qualified, that they are not required, or permitted, to work excessive hours and that operators comply with all the obligations of the regulatory regime and compete fairly with each other. In T/2013/47 Dundee Plant Company Ltd the Tribunal quoted with approval the following passage from a decision on an application for a stay:

“Other operators with knowledge of this case may be tempted to say to themselves – ‘this operator seems to be getting away with it so why should we bother to incur expenditure of time, trouble and money to run a complaint operation?’ In my view, it only needs one or two other operators to adopt this approach in response to this case to lead to greater and greater numbers doing so in future. If that happens there is a real risk that the operator’s licensing system, which has made a significant contribution to road safety, will be fatally undermined.”

We would simply add that there is a real risk that if non-compliant operators appear to be allowed to thrive it will be compliant operators, who most deserve to remain in the industry, who are likely to be amongst the first to be driven out of it. We are satisfied that that is not in the public interest and that the public interest requires that Traffic Commissioners are seen to be firm and even-handed in requiring compliance with the regulatory regime and that they are seen to send out a consistent message that compliance is a requirement of continuing to hold a licence; not something to be observed as and when the operator finds it convenient to do so”.

The negatives outweigh the positives in this case. Mr Cran committed serious offences, over a considerable period, misusing cards belonging to two drivers. These offences were dishonest. Mr Cran concealed the identity of drivers from the DVSA and from me: this was also dishonest.

Dishonest operators cannot be trusted to operate vehicles safely (see Ian Russell Nicholas para. 5 above). Mr Cran failed in his duty to ensure that drivers, including himself, did not work excessive hours. Mr Cran did not compete fairly with other, compliant, operators. Mr Cran has shown that he cannot be trusted. Mr Cran cannot be allowed to “get away with it”. It is important that others are deterred from following his example – see 2007/459 KDL European.

For these reasons I consider that it is a proportionate to revoke the Operator’s licence.

I am prepared to allow Mr Cran time to organise the winding down of his business. I order that the revocation will take effect from 23:59 on 30 January 2026.

In terms of s.28(1) of the 1995 Act I may order the Operator and/or Mr Cran to be disqualified, indefinitely or for such period as I think fit from holding or obtaining a LGV operator’s licence. I note the guidance in paras 107 to 110 of Stat. Doc. 10.

I consider that my reasoning above, relating to the Operator’s loss of repute that led to revocation of the licence, is equally applicable to the question of disqualification. I consider that the operator’s licensing system would be fatally undermined if the Operator and Mr Cran were not disqualified and they were left able to reapply for an operator’s licence. I consider that both the Operator and Mr Cran need to be taken out of the industry for a considerable period of time.

When I was considering whether or not to revoke the operator’s licence, I assessed this case as falling within the “Severe” category. I note from para. 108 of Stat. Doc. 10 that the suggested starting point is that severe cases may merit disqualification for an indefinite period. The starting point for serious cases would be between 5 and 10 years.

An indefinite disqualification is not a “life sentence” as it can be cancelled at any time under s.28(6) as pointed out by the Upper Tribunal in Randolph Transport Ltd and Catherine Tottenham [2014] UKUT 0460 (AAC)

“21) Finally, in relation to indefinite disqualifications generally, the degree to which such disqualifications should continue to be regarded as draconian is tempered by the right of any disqualified individual or former operator to apply to have the disqualification brought to an end. The test in such cases will be whether or not the public interest requires that that the disqualification should be maintained; the onus of establishing that the public interest does not so require will be on the applicant; and the starting point in nearly every case will be the original circumstances of, and reasons for, the disqualification – together with any evidentially established relevant events or developments occurring or arising subsequently, and the effect (if any) of the passage of time.”

Para. 108 suggests that indefinite disqualifications will not normally be reviewed until 5 years have elapsed. I am satisfied that in this case it is appropriate that both the Operator and Mr Cran should be disqualified for an indefinite period (which will normally be a minimum of 5 years). This will send out a strong deterrent message that dishonest, untrustworthy operators will find that they are excluded from the haulage industry for a significant period of time, which may be indefinite (see Thomas Muir (Haulage) Ltd above).

I also direct that, in terms of s.28(4) of the 1995 Act, if Mr Cran becomes the director of, or hold a controlling interest in a company that holds an operator’s licence, or of a company of which such a company is a subsidiary, or operates any goods vehicles in partnership with a person who holds such a licence, the licence of that company or that person shall be liable to revocation, curtailment or suspension under section 26 of the 1995 Act. This direction is necessary in order to prevent Mr Cran from circumventing his disqualification as an individual, which would bring the regulatory regime into disrepute.

Is Mr Cran, as transport manager, no longer of good repute (paragraph 14A of Schedule 3)?

As the consequence of a finding of loss of repute by a transport manager is disqualification, I require to consider the question of proportionality when deciding whether or not to make a finding of loss of good repute. In other words, to justify a finding that a transport manager has lost his/her good repute the matters found proved must be such that disqualification is a proportionate regulatory response.

A disqualification order can be indefinite or for a particular period. A disqualification order can be cancelled no earlier than one year beginning with the date the order was made, providing the disqualified person has passed the TM CPC or has undertaken no less than 3 months appropriate training - paras 16 and 17 of Schedule 3 of the 1995 Act and paras 35-36 of Stat. Doc. 3.

In addition to paras 107-110 of Stat. Doc. 10, I have also had regard to Stat. Doc 3 paras 22-29 and in particular para. 53:-
- “53…where the Transport Manager has deliberately acted in a way which results in…drivers to falsify records, it may be difficult to set a specific rehabilitative measure beyond a long or indefinite period of disqualification.).
The matters that I have set out above in relation to loss of repute by an operator are equally applicable to loss of repute by a transport manager (see para. 1 of Schedule 3 of the 1995 Act).

I consider that Mr Cran has lost his good repute as a transport manager for the same reasons that I found that the Operator had lost its good repute as an operator. My reasoning for finding that it is a proportionate response to revoke the Operator’s licence applies equally to the question of whether it is a proportionate response to find that Mr Cran has lost his good repute as a transport manager.

I therefore find that Mr Cran has lost his good repute as a transport manager and that he should be disqualified in terms of para. 16 of Schedule 3 of the 1995 Act.

I have considered whether the disqualification should be indefinite or for a particular period. I consider that given that I am looking at the same conduct that resulted Mr Cran being disqualified from holding a Large Goods Vehicle Operator’s licence, for an indefinite period, it would be appropriate for Mr Cran to be disqualified from acting as a transport manager for an indefinite period. Mr Cran, of course, apply for the disqualification to be cancelled after one year.

I agree with the guidance provided in para. 53 of Stat. Doc. 3 that, given Mr Cran was falsified tachograph records, and he was dishonest and cannot be trusted, there is no appropriate rehabilitative measure in this case, other than the opportunity to reflect during a significant period out of the haulage industry. I consider that given Mr Cran is going to be unable to act as a transport manager for what I expect will be a considerable period of time, it is appropriate that he should have to resit his TM CPC if he wishes to act as a transport manager in the future, in order to ensure that his knowledge is current.

I have decided that Mr Cran should be disqualified from holding a Large Goods Vehicle driver licence for two years, that he should be disqualified from holding an operator’s licence indefinitely (which normally will be a minimum of five years) and that he should be disqualified from acting as a transport manager indefinitely (which would be for a minimum of one year with a requirement that he should resit his TM CPC).

I have considered the overall effect of these orders on Mr Cran. Mr Cran, and his family, will suffer financial hardship as a result of Mr Cran no longer being able to work in the haulage industry for a considerable period of time (see Mr Kelly’s submissions at para. 43 onwards).

I consider that it is important that Mr Cran should not hold a role for a significant period of time in the industry that requires me, as the regulator, and other operators, to trust that he will be compliant. The roles of an operator and a transport manager are particularly onerous: there is more that they have to be trusted to do than, for example, a driver who is subject to the supervision of an operator or transport manager. It is for that reason that I am imposing indefinite disqualifications as an Operator and Transport Manager however I am prepared to accept that Mr Cran, as a driver, can regain my trust in a shorter period.. It is for that reason that I have restricted Mr Cran’s disqualification as a driver to two years.

I apologise to Mr Cran for the unacceptable delay in producing my decision. As a result of my delay I have delayed the starting date of the orders until 23:59, 30 January 2026. I am able to do this because I do not have any immediate concerns for road safety. As I have explained above I am satisfied that Mr Cran is now compliant. However, if Mr Cran was allowed to remain in the haulage industry as an operator or a transport manager, I am concerned that this would result in standards in the haulage industry slipping which would undermine the licensing system. It is important that others should be deterred from repeating Mr Cran’s conduct.

Hugh J. Olson

Deputy Traffic Commissioner for Scotland

12 November 2025